E-text prepared by Turgut Dincer, Les Galloway, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by HathiTrust Digital Library (https://www.hathitrust.org/)



Note: Images of the original pages are available through
      HathiTrust Digital Library. See
      https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t2d79wm16;view=1up;seq=9


Transcriber’s note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

      A caret character is used to denote superscription. A
      single character following the caret is superscripted
      (xix^e).





THE HISTORY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

by

EDWARD WESTERMARCK

Lecturer on Sociology at the University of Finland,
Helsingfors






London
Macmillan and Co., Limited
New York: The Macmillan Company
1901

All rights reserved

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited
London and Bungay.

First Edition, 1891.
Second Edition, 1894.
Third Edition, 1901.




INTRODUCTORY NOTE

BY ALFRED R. WALLACE


Having read the proofs of Mr. Westermarck’s book I am asked by the
publishers to say a few words by way of introducing the work to
English readers. This I have great pleasure in doing, because I have
seldom read a more thorough or a more philosophic discussion of some
of the most difficult, and at the same time interesting problems of
anthropology.

The origin and development of human marriage have been discussed by
such eminent writers as Darwin, Spencer, Morgan, Lubbock, and many
others. On some of the more important questions involved in it all
these writers are in general accord, and this agreement has led to
their opinions being widely accepted as if they were well-established
conclusions of science. But on several of these points Mr. Westermarck
has arrived at different, and sometimes diametrically opposite,
conclusions, and he has done so after a most complete and painstaking
investigation of all the available facts.

With such an array of authority on the one side and a hitherto unknown
student on the other, it will certainly be thought that all the
probabilities are against the latter. Yet I venture to anticipate that
the verdict of independent thinkers will, on most of these disputed
points, be in favour of the new comer who has so boldly challenged
the conclusions of some of our most esteemed writers. Even those whose
views are here opposed, will, I think, acknowledge that Mr. Westermarck
is a careful investigator and an acute reasoner, and that his arguments
as well as his conclusions are worthy of the most careful consideration.

I would also call attention to his ingenious and philosophical
explanation of the repugnance to marriage between near relatives which
is so very general both among savage and civilised man, and as to the
causes of which there has been great diversity of opinion; and to his
valuable suggestions on the general question of sexual selection, in
which he furnishes an original argument against Darwin’s views on the
point, differing somewhat from my own though in general harmony with it.

Every reader of the work will admire its clearness of style, and the
wonderful command of what is to the author a foreign language.




PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION


I need scarcely say how fully I appreciate the honour of being
introduced to English readers by Mr. Alfred R. Wallace. I am also
greatly obliged for his kindness in reading the proofs, and in giving
me the benefit of his advice with regard to various parts of the
subject.

It is difficult for me to acknowledge sufficiently my obligations
to Mr. James Sime for his assistance in preparing this book for the
press. The work, as originally written, naturally contained a good many
foreign modes of expression. Mr. Sime has been indefatigable in helping
me to improve the form of the text; and, in our discussions on the main
lines of the argument, he has made several important suggestions. I am
sincerely obliged for the invaluable aid he has given me.

My cordial thanks are due to Mr. Charles J. Cooke, British Vice-Consul
at Helsingfors, who most kindly aided me in writing the first part of
the book in a tongue which is not my own. I am indebted also to Dr.
E. B. Tylor, Professor G. Croom Robertson, Mr. James Sully, and Dr. W.
C. Coupland for much encouraging interest; to Mr. Joseph Jacobs for
the readiness with which he has placed at my disposal some results of
his own researches; and to several gentlemen in different parts of the
world who have been so good as to respond to my inquiries as to their
personal observation of various classes of phenomena connected with
marriage among savage tribes. The information I have received from them
is acknowledged in the passages in which it is used.

A list of authorities is given at the end of the book—between the text
and the index, and it may be well to add that the references in the
notes have been carefully verified.

  E. W.

 LONDON, _May, 1891_.




PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION


In this new edition of my book I have made no essential changes, but
here and there the argument has been strengthened by the addition of
facts which have come to my knowledge since the appearance of the first
edition. The most important of these new facts will be found in the
second chapter.

I take this opportunity of expressing my warm appreciation of the
thorough way in which the ideas set forth in this book have been
discussed by many critics in England and elsewhere. Translations of the
work have appeared, or are about to appear, in German, Swedish, French,
Italian, and Russian.

  E. W.

 LONDON, _January, 1894_.




PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION


I much regret that the demand for a new edition of this book should
come at a time when circumstances prevent me from undertaking such a
revision of the work as I feel to be required. Since the appearance
of the Second Edition many important facts bearing upon the subject
have been brought to light, new theories have been advanced, and old
theories, supported by fresh arguments, have been revived. To all this,
however, I can do no justice, as I am at present being engaged in
anthropological research in Morocco. This edition is, in consequence, a
mere reprint of the second. But I purpose, after my return to Europe,
to issue an Appendix, in which the book will be brought more up to date
and some criticism will be replied to.

  E. W.

  MOGADOR (MOROCCO),
  _August, 1901_.




CONTENTS


 INTRODUCTION

 ON THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

 History of human civilization a part of Sociology, p. 1.—Early history
 based on ethnography, p. 2.—Errors in method, pp. 2, _et seq._—How we
 can from ethnographical facts acquire information regarding the early
 history of mankind, pp. 3-6.—Dr. Tylor’s ‘method of investigating the
 development of institutions,’ pp. 4, _et seq._—The causes of social
 phenomena, p. 5.—What we know about the antiquity of the human race,
 pp. 5, _et seq._—Social survivals, p. 6.—‘Human marriage,’ _ibid._


 CHAPTER I

 THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE

 Tales of the origin of marriage, pp. 8, _et seq._—The subject
 regarded from a scientific point of view, p. 9.—Parental care among
 Invertebrata, _ibid._—The relations of the sexes and parental care
 among Fishes, p. 10.—Among Reptiles, _ibid._—Among Birds, pp. 10,
 _et seq._—Among the lower Mammals, p. 12.—Among the Quadrumana,
 pp. 12-14.—Among savage and barbarous races of men, pp. 14-17.—The
 father’s place in the family, pp. 15-19.—Definition of the word
 marriage, pp. 19, _et seq._—Marriage a product of natural selection,
 pp. 20, _et seq._—Marriage rooted in family rather than family in
 marriage, pp. 22-24.


 CHAPTER II

 A HUMAN PAIRING SEASON IN PRIMITIVE TIMES

 Hypotheses as to the periodicity in the sexual life of animals, p.
 25.—Every month or season of the year the pairing season of one or
 another mammalian species, pp. 25, _et seq._—The rut not dependent
 upon any general physiological law, but adapted to the requirement
 of each species separately, pp. 26, _et seq._—Wild species without
 a definite pairing season, p. 27.—Rutting season among the man-like
 apes, _ibid._—Among our earliest human or half-human progenitors,
 p. 28.—Periodical increase of the sexual instinct among existing
 savages, pp. 28-31.—Among civilized peoples, pp. 31-33.— The increase
 of the sexual instinct at the end of spring or in the beginning of
 summer, probably a survival of an ancient pairing season, pp. 34,
 _et seq._—The winter maximum of conceptions, pp. 35-37.—Why man is
 not limited to a particular period of the year in which to court the
 female, pp. 37, _et seq._—Domestic animals without a definite pairing
 season, p. 38.


 CHAPTER III

 THE ANTIQUITY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

 Marriage a necessary requirement for the existence of the human
 race, p. 39.—The hypothesis that the maternal uncle was the guardian
 of the children, pp. 39-41.—The father the head of the family, p.
 41.—The hypothesis that all the men of the tribe indiscriminately were
 their guardians, pp. 41, _et seq._—Man originally not a gregarious
 animal, pp. 42, _et seq._—The solitary life of the man-like apes,
 _ibid._—Savage peoples living in families rather than in tribes, pp.
 43-47.—Insufficient food supply a hindrance to a true gregarious
 manner of living, pp. 47-49.—The gregariousness and sociability of
 man sprang in the main from progressive intellectual and material
 civilization, pp. 49, _et seq._


 CHAPTER IV

 A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

 The hypothesis of promiscuity, pp. 51, _et seq._—The evidence adduced
 in support of it, p. 52.—Notices of savage nations said to live
 promiscuously, pp. 52-55.—Some of the facts adduced, no instances
 of real promiscuity, pp. 55-57.—Most of the statements obviously
 erroneous, pp. 57-59.—The accuracy of the others doubtful, pp. 59, _et
 seq._—Even if correct, they cannot afford any evidence for promiscuity
 having prevailed in primitive times, pp. 60, _et seq._—The free
 cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, in some parts of the world,
 given as evidence of ancient promiscuity, p. 61.—Sexual intercourse
 out of wedlock rare, and unchastity on the part of the woman looked
 upon as a disgrace, among many uncivilized peoples, pp. 61-66.—The
 wantonness of savages in several cases due chiefly to the influence
 of civilization, pp. 66-70.—It is quite different from promiscuity,
 pp. 70, _et seq._—Customs interpreted as acts of expiation for
 individual marriage, p. 72.—Religious prostitution, _ibid._—_Jus
 primae noctis_ accorded to the wedding-guests or to the friends of the
 bridegroom, pp. 72-76.—The practice of lending wives to visitors, pp.
 73-75.—_Jus primae noctis_ granted to a chief, lord, or priest, pp.
 76-80.—Courtesans held in greater estimation than women married to a
 single husband, pp. 80, _et seq._


 CHAPTER V

 A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

 (_Continued_)

 The ‘classificatory system of relationship,’ pp. 82-84.—‘Marriage in
 a group’ and the ‘consanguine family,’ pp. 84, _et seq._—Mr. Morgan’s
 assumption that the ‘classificatory system’ is a system of blood
 ties, p. 85.—Terms for relationships borrowed from the children’s
 lips, pp. 85-87.—Other terms, pp. 87-89.—Mr. Morgan’s assumption not
 consistent with the facts he has himself stated, p. 89.—The terms for
 relationships originally terms of address, _ibid._—The names given
 chiefly with reference to sex and age, as also to the external, or
 social, relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he
 addresses, pp. 90-95.—No inference regarding early marriage customs
 to be drawn from the terms for relationships, pp. 95, _et seq._—The
 system of ‘kinship through females only,’ p. 96.—Supposed to be due
 to uncertain paternity, pp. 96, _et seq._—A list of peoples among whom
 this system does not prevail, pp. 98-104.—The inference that ‘kinship
 through females only’ everywhere preceded the rise of ‘kinship
 through males’ inadmissible from Mr. McLennan’s point of view, p.
 105.—The maternal system does not presuppose former uncertainty as
 to fathers, _ibid._—The father’s participation in parentage not
 discovered as soon as the mother’s, though now universally recognized,
 pp. 105-107.—Once discovered, it was often exaggerated, p. 106.—The
 denomination of children and the rules of succession, in the first
 place, not dependent on ideas of consanguinity, p. 107.—Several
 reasons for naming children after the mother rather than after the
 father, apart from any consideration of relationship, _ibid._—The
 tie between a mother and child much stronger than that which binds
 a child to the father, pp. 107, _et seq._—Polygyny, p. 108.—Husband
 living with the wife’s family, pp. 109, _et seq._—The rules of
 succession influenced by local connections and by the family name,
 pp. 110-112.—No general coincidence of what we consider moral and
 immoral habits with the prevalence of the male and female line among
 existing savages, p. 112.—Occasional coincidence of the paternal
 system with uncertainty as to fathers, _ibid._—Avowed recognition of
 kinship in the female line only does not show an unconsciousness of
 male kinship, pp. 112, _et seq._—The prevalence of the female line
 would not presuppose general promiscuity, even if, in some cases, it
 were dependent on uncertain paternity, p. 113.—The groups of social
 phenomena adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of promiscuity no
 evidence, _ibid._


 CHAPTER VI

 A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

 (_Concluded_)

 Promiscuous intercourse between the sexes tends to a pathological
 condition unfavourable to fecundity, p. 115.—The practice of polyandry
 does not afford evidence in an opposite direction, pp. 115-117.—The
 jealousy of man and other mammalian species the strongest argument
 against ancient promiscuity, p. 117.—Jealousy among existing peoples,
 pp. 117-121.—Punishments inflicted for adultery, pp. 121, 122,
 130.—Man’s requirement of virginity from his bride, pp. 123, _et
 seq._—A wife considered to belong to her husband, not during his
 lifetime only, but after his death, pp. 124-130.—Widows killed,
 pp. 125, _et seq._—Duties towards deceased husbands, pp. 126, _et
 seq._—Widows forbidden to marry again, pp. 127, _et seq._—Prohibition
 of speedy remarriage, pp. 128-130.—The practice of lending or
 prostituting wives no evidence for the absence of jealousy, pp.
 130, _et seq._—Contact with a ‘higher culture’ misleading natural
 instincts, pp. 131, _et seq._—No reason to suppose that the feeling
 of jealousy ever was restrained by conditions which made it necessary
 for a man to share his wife with other men, pp. 132, _et seq._—The
 hypothesis of promiscuity essentially unscientific, p. 133.




 CHAPTER VII

 MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY

 Voluntary abstinence unheard of in a state of nature, p. 134.—Celibacy
 rare among savage and barbarous races, pp. 134-136.—Savage views
 on celibacy, pp. 136, _et seq._—Savages marry early in life,
 pp. 137-139.—Celibacy rare among several civilized races, pp.
 139-143.—Celibacy caused by the practice of purchasing wives, and
 by polygyny, pp. 143-145.—Celibacy in Europe, and its causes,
 pp. 145-150.—Sexual relations considered impure, pp. 151, _et
 seq._—Religious celibacy, pp. 152-155.—Hypothesis as to the origin of
 the notion of sexual uncleanness and of sexual bashfulness, pp. 155,
 _et seq._


 CHAPTER VIII

 THE COURTSHIP OF MAN

 Males active, females comparatively passive, in courtship, pp. 157,
 _et seq._—Courtship by women among certain peoples, pp. 158, _et
 seq._—Courtship by proxy, p. 159.—Fighting for females among the lower
 animals, _ibid._—Among men, pp. 159-163.—Making love, p. 163.—Fights
 by women for the possession of men, p. 164.—Female coquetry, _ibid._


 CHAPTER IX

 MEANS OF ATTRACTION

 Savage predilection for ornaments, pp. 165, _et seq._—For
 self-mutilation, pp. 166, _et seq._—For dressing the hair, p.
 167.—For showy colours and paint, p. 168.—For tattooing, pp. 168, _et
 seq._—Practices supposed to have a religious origin, pp. 169-172.—Mr.
 Frazer’s theory as regards the origin of tattooing, &c., pp. 170,
 _et seq._—Other theories, p. 172.—Men and women began to ornament,
 mutilate, paint, and tattoo themselves, chiefly in order to make
 themselves attractive to the opposite sex, pp. 172-182.—Savage women
 less decorated than savage men, pp. 182-185.—Opinions as to the
 origin of dress, p. 186.—Nakedness and want of modesty among many
 savage peoples, pp. 186-189.—Ornamental ‘garments’ among savages,
 pp. 189-192.—Covering a means of attraction, pp. 192-200, 211, _et
 seq._—Practices serving a similar end, pp. 201-206.—Circumcision,
 _ibid._—Different ideas of modesty, pp. 206-208—The power of custom
 and the feeling of shame, pp. 208-211.


 CHAPTER X

 THE LIBERTY OF CHOICE

 Females ‘engaged’ in infancy, pp. 213, _et seq._—The right of giving
 a girl in marriage, pp. 214, _et seq._—Considerable liberty of
 selection allowed to women among the lower races, pp. 215-221.—It was
 even greater in primitive times, pp. 221, _et seq._—Bride-stealing and
 elopement, p. 223.—The position of sons among uncivilized peoples, pp.
 223-225.—Paternal authority based on ancestor worship, in the ancient
 and Eastern World, pp. 225-235.—The _patria potestas_ of the Aryan
 races, pp. 229-235.—The decline of the _patria potestas_, pp. 235-239.




 CHAPTER XI

 SEXUAL SELECTION AMONG ANIMALS

 Mr. Darwin’s theory of ‘Sexual Selection,’ pp. 240, _et
 seq._—Contradiction between the theories of natural and sexual
 selection, pp. 241, _et seq._—The colours of flowers, pp. 242, _et
 seq._—Mr. Wallace’s theory of the sexual colours of animals, p.
 243.—The sexual colours make it easier for the sexes to find each
 other, pp. 243, _et seq._—They occur exactly in those species whose
 habits and manner of living make these colours most visible, pp. 244,
 _et seq._—The odours of flowers, p. 246.—Sexual odours and sounds
 among animals, pp. 246, _et seq._—The sexual colours, odours, and
 sounds of animals complementary to each other in the way that is best
 suited to make the animals easily discoverable, pp. 247-249.—The
 untenableness of Mr. Darwin’s theory, p. 249.—The secondary sexual
 characters due to natural selection, pp. 249, _et seq._—Mr. Wallace’s
 views, p. 250.—Animal ‘ornaments,’ pp. 250, _et seq._—Further
 arguments against Mr. Darwin’s theory, p. 251.—The variability of the
 secondary sexual characters, pp. 251. _et seq._—Their stability in
 wild species, p. 252.


 CHAPTER XII

 THE SEXUAL SELECTION OF MAN: TYPICAL BEAUTY

 Female selection among animals and the indifference of the males,
 p. 253.—Woman more particular in her choice than man, pp. 253, _et
 seq._—Female appreciation of manly strength and courage, pp. 255, _et
 seq._—Men attracted by healthy women, p. 256.—The connection between
 love and beauty not peculiar to the civilized mind, p. 257.—Different
 notions of personal beauty, pp. 257, _et seq._—Mr. Spencer’s theory
 of ‘facial perfection,’ pp. 258, _et seq._—Men find beauty in the
 full development of the visible characteristics belonging to the human
 organism in general, p. 259.—Of those peculiar to the sex, pp. 259,
 _et seq._—Of those peculiar to the race, pp. 261-264.—The connection
 between love and beauty due to natural selection, pp. 265, 273, _et
 seq._—Individual deviations from the national type less considerable
 among savages than among civilized men, pp. 265, _et seq._—Racial
 peculiarities in some way connected with the external circumstances
 in which the various races live, pp. 266-271.—Acclimatization, pp.
 268-270.—Professor Weismann’s theory of heredity applied to the
 origin of the human races, pp. 271-273.—Physical beauty the outward
 manifestation of physical perfection, pp. 273, _et seq._—Rejection
 of Mr. Darwin’s opinion on the connection between love and beauty,
 pp. 274, _et seq._—Rejection of his theory as to the origin of the
 human races, pp. 275, _et seq._—The hairlessness of man, pp. 276, _et
 seq._—The influence of sexual selection on the physical aspect of
 mankind, p. 277.


 CHAPTER XIII

 THE LAW OF SIMILARITY

 Instinctive aversion among animals to pairing with individuals
 belonging to another species, pp. 278-280.—Infertility of first
 crosses and of hybrids, pp. 279, _et seq._—‘The Law of Similarity,’
 p. 280.—Bestiality, pp. 280, _et seq._—The various human races
 said to have an instinctive aversion to intermingling, pp. 281,
 _et seq._—Intermixture of races, pp. 282, _et seq._—Its effects on
 fertility, pp. 283-288.—Rejection of M. Broca’s theory as to the
 infertility of the connections of Europeans with Australian women,
 pp. 284-287.—The doctrine of the unity of mankind independent of the
 degree of fertility of first crosses, and of mongrels, pp. 288, _et
 seq._


 CHAPTER XIV

 PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED

 The horror of incest almost universally characteristic of mankind,
 p. 290.—Intercourse between parents and children, pp. 290, _et
 seq._—Between brother and sister, pp. 291-294.—Between half-brother
 and half-sister, pp. 294, _et seq._—Between uncle and niece, and
 aunt and nephew, pp. 295, _et seq._—Between first cousins, pp.
 296, _et seq._—The prohibited degrees among peoples unaffected by
 modern civilization more numerous, as a rule, than in advanced
 communities, pp. 297-309.—Prohibition of marriage between relatives
 by alliance, pp. 309, _et seq._—Early hypotheses as to the origin
 of the prohibitions of marriage between near kin, p. 310.—Criticism
 of Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis as to the origin of exogamy, pp.
 311-314.—Criticism of Mr. Spencer’s views, pp. 314, _et seq._—Of Sir
 John Lubbock’s, p. 316.—Of Professor Kohler’s, pp. 316, _et seq._—Of
 Mr. Morgan’s, &c., pp. 318, _et seq._—The prohibition of incest
 founded not on experience, but on instinct, p. 319.


 CHAPTER XV

 PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED

 (_Concluded_)

 No innate aversion to marriage with near relations, p. 320.—Innate
 aversion to sexual intercourse between persons living very closely
 together from early youth, pp. 320-330.—Local exogamy, pp.
 321-323.—Connection between the prohibited degrees and the more or
 less close living together, pp. 324-329.—Connection between the
 ‘classificatory system of relationship’ and exogamy, p. 329.—The
 one-sidedness of prohibitions due in part directly to local
 relationships, in part to the influence of names, pp. 330, _et
 seq._—The prohibitions of marriage between relations by alliance and
 by adoption due to an association of ideas, p. 331.—The prohibitions
 on the ground of ‘spiritual relationship’ due to the same cause,
 _ibid._—Endogamy seldom occurs in very small communities, p.
 332.—Marriage between half-brothers and half-sisters not contrary
 to the principle here laid down, _ibid._—Incestuous unions due to
 pride of birth, to necessity, to extreme isolation, and to vitiated
 instincts, p. 333.—Incest among the lower animals, p. 334.—The effects
 of cross- and self-fertilization among plants, p. 335.—Evil effects
 of close interbreeding among animals, pp. 335-337.—A certain amount
 of differentiation favourable for the fertilisation or union of two
 organisms, pp. 337, _et seq._—Difficulty of adducing direct evidence
 for the evil effects of consanguineous marriages among men, pp.
 338, _et seq._—Close intermarrying among the Veddahs, pp. 339, _et
 seq._—The effects of marriage between first cousins, pp. 340-343.—The
 experience of isolated communities does not prove consanguineous
 marriages to be harmless, pp. 343-345.—The bad consequences of
 self-fertilization and close interbreeding may almost fail to appear
 under favourable conditions of life, pp. 345, _et seq._—Consanguineous
 marriages more injurious in savage regions than in civilized
 society, p. 346.—Tendency of endogamous peoples to die out, pp.
 346-350.—Peoples who ascribe evil results to close intermarriage, pp.
 350-352.—The horror of incest due to natural selection, pp. 352, _et
 seq._—Exogamy arose when single families united in small hordes, p.
 353.—Love excited by contrasts, pp. 353-355.


 CHAPTER XVI

 SEXUAL SELECTION AS INFLUENCED BY AFFECTION AND SYMPATHY, AND BY
 CALCULATION

 The compound character of love, p. 356.—Conjugal affection, at the
 lower stages of civilization, less intense than parental love, pp.
 356-358.—Conjugal affection among savages, pp. 358, _et seq._—Among
 primitive men, pp. 359, _et seq._—Mutual love as the motive which
 leads to marriage, pp. 360, et seq.—Sexual love has developed in
 proportion as altruism has increased, _ibid._—Sexual love among the
 Eastern nations, _ibid._—Sexual selection determined by intellectual,
 emotional, and moral qualities, p. 362.—Sexual selection influenced
 by sympathy, pp. 362-376.—By age, p. 362.—By the degree of
 cultivation, pp. 362, _et seq._—Racial and national endogamy, pp.
 363-365.—Tribal- communal- and clan-endogamy, pp. 365-368.—The origin
 of castes and classes, pp. 368, _et seq._—Want of sympathy between
 different classes, pp. 369, _et seq._—Class- and caste-endogamy,
 pp. 370-373.—The decline of national- and class-endogamy in modern
 society, pp. 373, _et seq._—Religion a bar to intermarriage, pp.
 374-376.—The increase of mixed marriages, p. 376.—Desire for
 offspring, pp. 376-378.—Appreciation of female fecundity, p.
 378.—Sexual selection influenced by the desire for offspring, pp.
 378, _et seq._—The causes of this desire, pp. 379, _et seq._—With
 the progress of civilization this desire has become less intense, p.
 381.—A wife chosen because of her ability as a labourer, pp. 381, _et
 seq._—A husband chosen because of his ability to protect and provide
 for a wife and offspring, p. 382.—Wife-purchase and husband-purchase
 in modern society, _ibid._


 CHAPTER XVII

 MARRIAGE BY CAPTURE AND MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE

 Marriage by capture as a reality or as a symbol among uncivilized
 races, pp. 383-386.—Among peoples of the Aryan race, pp. 386, _et
 seq._—No evidence that marriage by capture has prevailed among every
 race, p. 387.—Marriage _with_ capture, p. 388.—Marriage by capture
 and exogamy, pp. 388, _et seq._—The origin of marriage by capture, p.
 389.—Marriage by capture once the normal, never the exclusive form
 of contracting marriage, _ibid._—Marriage by exchange, p. 390.—Wives
 obtained by service, pp. 390-392.—Wives obtained by actual purchase,
 pp. 392-394.—Marriage on credit, p. 394.—Marriage by purchase among
 civilized races, pp. 394-397.—Lower peoples among whom marriage
 by purchase does not exist, pp. 397-399.—Marriage by purchase a
 more recent stage than marriage by capture, pp. 399-401.—Barter a
 comparatively late invention of man, pp. 400, _et seq._—Transition
 from marriage by capture to marriage by purchase, p. 401.—The
 bride-price a compensation for the loss sustained in giving up the
 girl, p. 402.—Bargain about women, _ibid._—Savage views on marriage by
 purchase, _ibid._




 CHAPTER XVIII

 THE DECAY OF MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE. THE MARRIAGE PORTION

 The decay of marriage by purchase among civilized peoples, pp.
 403-405.—Marriage by purchase transformed into a symbol, pp. 405, _et
 seq._—Arbitrary presents and sham sale, p. 405.—Return gift, pp. 405,
 _et seq._—The purchase-sum transformed into the morning gift and the
 dotal portion, pp. 406-408.—The decay of marriage by purchase among
 uncivilized races, pp. 408-410.—The marriage portion does not in every
 case spring from a previous purchase, p. 411.—It serves different
 ends, _ibid._—The marriage portion as a settlement for the wife, pp.
 411-414.—The marriage portion among uncivilized races, pp. 414, _et
 seq._—Fathers bound by law or custom to portion their daughters, pp.
 415, _et seq._—Husband purchase, p. 416.


 CHAPTER XIX

 MARRIAGE CEREMONIES AND RITES

 Peoples who have no marriage ceremony, pp. 417, _et seq._—The rise
 of marriage ceremonies, pp. 418-421.—When the mode of contracting
 a marriage altered, the earlier mode, from having been a reality,
 survived as a ceremony, p. 418.—Wedding feasts, pp. 418, _et
 seq._—Ceremonies symbolizing the relation between husband and wile,
 pp. 419-421.—Religious ceremonies connected with marriage among
 uncivilized nations, pp. 421-424.—Assistance of a priest, pp. 422, _et
 seq._—Omens and ‘lucky days,’ pp. 423, _et seq._—Religious marriage
 ceremonies among civilized nations, pp. 424-428.—Civil marriage, pp.
 428, _et seq._—The validity of marriage, pp. 429, _et seq._


 CHAPTER XX

 THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

 Polygyny permitted by many civilized nations and the bulk of savage
 tribes, pp. 431-435.—Among many savage peoples developed to an
 extraordinary extent, pp. 434, _et seq._—Among not a few uncivilized
 peoples almost unknown, or even prohibited, pp. 435-437.—Among
 certain peoples permitted only to the chief men, pp. 437, _et
 seq._—Almost everywhere confined to the smaller part of the people,
 pp. 438-442.—Modified in a monogamous direction through the higher
 position granted to one of the wives, generally the first married, pp.
 443-448.—Through the preference given to the favourite wife as regards
 sexual intercourse, pp. 448, _et seq._—Bigamy the most common form of
 polygyny, p. 450.—The occurrence of polyandry, pp. 450-455.—Polyandry
 nowhere the exclusive form of marriage, pp. 455-457.—Modified in
 directions towards monogamy, pp. 457, _et seq._—The first husband
 the chief husband, _ibid._—Monogamy the most common form of human
 marriage, p. 459.




 CHAPTER XXI

 THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

 (_Continued_)

 The proportion between the sexes varies among different peoples, pp.
 460-464.—Causes to which the disparity in the numbers of the sexes is
 due, pp. 465-482.—The higher mortality of men, dependent upon war,
 &c., pp. 465, _et seq._—The higher mortality of women, dependent upon
 female infanticide, &c., p. 466.—Disproportion between the sexes at
 birth, pp. 466-469.—Hypotheses as to the causes which determine the
 sex of the offspring, pp. 469-476.—The law of Hofacker and Sadler,
 pp. 469, _et seq._—Dr. Düsing’s hypothesis, pp. 470-476.—Polyandry
 dependent upon an excess of male births, pp. 472-474.—Coincidence of
 polyandry with poverty of material resources, pp. 474-476.—Mixture
 of race produces an excess of female births, pp. 476-480.—Unions
 between related individuals or, generally, between individuals who
 are very like each other, produce a comparatively great number of
 male offspring, pp. 480-482.—The form of marriage influenced by the
 numerical proportion between the sexes, pp. 482, _et seq._—Several
 reasons why a man may desire to possess more than one wife, pp.
 483-492.—Monogamy requires from him periodical continence, pp.
 483-485.—He is attracted by female youth and beauty, pp. 485, _et
 seq._—At the lower stages of civilization women become old sooner than
 in more advanced communities, pp. 486-488.—Man’s taste for variety,
 p. 488.—Man’s desire for offspring, pp. 488-491.—Women generally
 less prolific among savage than among civilized nations, pp. 490,
 _et seq._—A man’s fortune increased by a multitude of wives through
 their labour, pp. 491, _et seq._—A man’s authority increased by a
 multitude of wives, p. 492.—Hindrances to polygyny, pp. 493-503.—The
 difficulty in maintaining a plurality of wives, p. 493.—The necessity
 of paying the purchase-sum or of serving for a wife, pp. 493, _et
 seq._—Polygyny practised chiefly by the principal men of the people,
 pp. 494, _et seq._—Polygyny a violation of the feelings of women, pp.
 495-500.—Marrying sisters, pp. 499, _et seq._—Coincidence of monogamy
 with a higher _status_ of women, pp. 500-502.—The form of marriage
 influenced by the quality of the passion which unites the sexes, p.
 502.—The absorbing passion for one, pp. 502, _et seq._—The causes of
 polyandry, pp. 503, _et seq._—The chief immediate cause a numerical
 disproportion between the sexes, p. 504.


 CHAPTER XXII

 THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

 (_Concluded_)

 Monogamy more prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization than
 at somewhat higher stages, pp. 505-508.—Polygyny favoured by social
 differentiation, pp. 505, _et seq._—The very lowest races either
 strictly monogamous, or but little addicted to polygyny, pp. 506, _et
 seq._—Polygyny adopted under the influence of a higher civilization,
 pp. 507, _et seq._—Monogamy prevails among the man-like apes, p.
 508.—Civilization in its higher forms leads to monogamy, pp. 508, _et
 seq._—Will monogamy be the only recognized form of marriage in the
 future? pp. 509, _et seq._—Criticism of Mr. McLennan’s theory as to
 the general prevalence of polyandry in early times, pp. 510-515—The
 Levirate affords no evidence for this theory, pp. 510-514.—Polyandry
 always an exception in the human race, pp. 514, _et seq._—It
 presupposes an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy, p. 515.—It
 seems to presuppose a certain amount of civilization, pp. 515, _et
 seq._—Polyandry an expression of fraternal benevolence, p. 516.—The
 origin of the group-marriage of the Toda type, _ibid._


 CHAPTER XXIII

 THE DURATION OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

 The time during which marriage lasts varies, p. 517.—Peoples among
 whom separation is said to be unknown, _ibid._—Human marriage,
 as a general rule, not necessarily contracted for life, pp.
 518-520.—Divorce dependent upon the husband’s decision, pp. 520, _et
 seq._—Divorce among a great many peoples exceptional, pp. 521-523.—A
 man permitted to divorce his wife only under certain conditions, pp.
 523-526.—Marriage dissolved by the wife, pp. 526-529.—The causes by
 which the duration of human marriage is influenced, pp. 529-535.—The
 duration of marriage among primitive men, p. 535.—The development of
 the duration of human marriage, pp. 535, _et seq._


                             CHAPTER XXIV

                                SUMMARY

                             PP. 537-550.

 AUTHORITIES QUOTED                                     pp. 551-580

 INDEX                                                  pp. 581-644




                                  THE

                       HISTORY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE




INTRODUCTION

ON THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION


It is in the firm conviction that the history of human civilization
should be made an object of as scientific a treatment as the history of
organic nature that I write this book. Like the phenomena of physical
and psychical life those of social life should be classified into
certain groups, and each group investigated with regard to its origin
and development. Only when treated in this way can history lay claim to
the rank and honour of a science in the highest sense of the term, as
forming an important part of Sociology the youngest of the principal
branches of learning.

Descriptive historiography has no higher object than that of offering
materials to this science. It can, however, but very inadequately
fulfil this task. The written evidences of history do not reach far
into antiquity. They give us information about times when the scale
of civilization was already comparatively high—but scarcely anything
more. As to the origin and early development of social institutions,
they leave us entirely in the dark. The sociologist cannot rest content
with this. But the information which historical documents are unable to
afford him, may be, to a great extent, obtained from ethnography.

The admirable works of Dr. Tylor, Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. Herbert
Spencer have already made us familiar with the idea of a history of
primitive civilization, based on ethnographical grounds. This new
manner of treating history has, since the publication of their writings
on the subject, gained adherents day by day. Immeasurable expanses have
thus been opened to our knowledge, and many important results have
been reached. But it must, on the other hand, be admitted that the
scientific value of the conclusions drawn from ethnographical facts has
not always been adequate to the labour, thought, and acumen bestowed
on them. The various investigators have, in many important questions,
come to results so widely different, that the possibility of thus
getting any information about the past might easily be doubted. These
differences, however, seem to me to be due, not to the material, but to
the manner of treating it.

“The chief sources of information regarding the early history of civil
society,” says Mr. McLennan, “are, first, the study of races in their
primitive condition; and, second, the study of the symbols employed by
advanced nations in the constitution or exercise of civil rights.”[1]

Yet nothing has been more fatal to the Science of Society than the
habit of inferring, without sufficient reasons, from the prevalence of
a custom or institution among some savage peoples, that this custom,
this institution is a relic of a stage of development that the whole
human race once went through. Thus the assumption that primitive
men lived in tribes or hordes, all the men of which had promiscuous
intercourse with all the women, where no individual marriage existed,
and the children were the common property of the tribe, is founded,
in the first place, on the statements of some travellers and ancient
writers as to peoples among whom this custom is said actually to
prevail, or to have prevailed. Dr. Post has gone still further in his
book, ‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit und die Entstehung
der Ehe.’ Without adducing any satisfactory reason for his opinion, he
considers it probable that “monogamous marriage originally emerged
everywhere from pure communism in women, through the intermediate
stages of limited communism in women, polyandry, and polygyny.”[2] Mr.
Lewis H. Morgan, in his ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the
Human Family,’ has suggested no fewer than fifteen normal stages in
the evolution of marriage and the family, assuming the existence and
general prevalence of a series of customs and institutions “which
must of necessity have preceded a knowledge of marriage between single
pairs, and of the family itself, in the modern sense of the term.”[3]
According to him, one of the first stages in this series is the
intermarriage of brothers and sisters, as evidence of which he adduces,
besides other facts, the historical statements that one of the Herods
was married to his sister, and Cleopatra was married to her brother.[4]

Again, in the study of symbols, or survivals, the sociologists have by
no means always been so careful as the matter requires. True enough
that “wherever we discover symbolical forms, we are justified in
inferring that in the past life of the people employing them, there
were corresponding realities.”[5] But all depends upon our rightly
interpreting these symbols, and not putting into them a foreign
meaning. The worst is, however, that many customs have been looked upon
as survivals that probably are not so. Thus, for instance, I think that
Mr. McLennan is mistaken in considering the system of the Levirate,
under which, at a man’s death, his wife or wives pass to his brother,
as a test of the former presence of polyandry, the brothers of a family
having a common wife.

Similar conclusions being of common occurrence in modern Sociology, it
is not surprising that different writers dissent so frequently from
each other. This should be a strong reason for every conscientious
investigator first of all putting to himself the question: how can
we from ethnographical facts acquire information regarding the early
history of mankind?

I do not think that this question can be correctly answered in more
than one way. We have first to find out the causes of the social
phenomena; then, from the prevalence of the causes, we may infer the
prevalence of the phenomena themselves, if the former must be assumed
to have operated without being checked by other causes.

If, then, historical researches based on ethnography are to be
crowned with success, the first condition is that there shall be a
rich material. It is only by comparing a large number of facts that
we may hope to find the cause or causes on which a social phenomenon
is dependent. And a rich material is all the more indispensable, as
the trustworthiness of ethnographical statements is not always beyond
dispute. Without a thorough knowledge of a people it is impossible
to give an exact account of its habits and customs, and therefore
it often happens that the statements of a traveller cannot, as
regards trustworthiness, come up to the evidences of history. As the
sociologist is in many cases unable to distinguish falsehood from
truth, he must be prepared to admit the inaccuracy of some of the
statements he quotes. What is wanting in quality must be made up for
in quantity; and he who does not give himself the trouble to read
through a voluminous literature of ethnography should never enter into
speculations on the origin and early development of human civilization.

Often, no doubt, it is extremely difficult to make out the causes
of social phenomena. There are, for instance, among savage peoples
many customs which it seems almost impossible to explain. Still, the
statistical ‘method of investigating the development of institutions,’
admirably set forth in the paper which Dr. Tylor recently read before
‘The Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,’[6] will
throw light upon many mysterious points. Dr. Tylor has there shown
that causal relations among social facts may be discovered by way of
tabulation and classification. The particular rules of the different
peoples are to be scheduled out into tables, so as to indicate the
“adhesions,” or relations of coexistence of each custom, showing
which peoples have the same custom, and what other customs accompany
it or lie apart from it. If, then, starting with any two customs,
the number of their “adhesions” is found to be much greater than the
number of times they would coexist according to the ordinary law of
chance-distribution—which number is calculated from the total number
of peoples classified and the number of occurrences of each custom—we
may infer that there is some causal connection between the two customs.
Further on, I shall mention some few of the inferences Dr. Tylor has
already drawn by means of this method.

The causes on which social phenomena are dependent fall within the
domain of different sciences—Biology, Psychology, or Sociology. The
reader will find that I put particular stress upon the psychological
causes, which have often been deplorably overlooked, or only
imperfectly touched upon. And more especially do I believe that the
mere instincts have played a very important part in the origin of
social institutions and rules.

We could not, however, by following the method of investigation here
set forth, form any idea of the earlier stages of human development,
unless we had _some_ previous knowledge of the antiquity of mankind.
Otherwise we should, of course, be quite ignorant whether the causes
in question operated or not in the past. Fortunately, in this respect
also, modern science has come to results which scarcely admit any
longer of being considered as mere hypotheses. It teaches us, to
quote Sir John Lubbock, “that man was at first a mere savage, and
that the course of history has on the whole been a progress towards
civilization, though at times—and at some times for centuries—some
races have been stationary, or even have retrograded;”[7] that,
however, all savage nations now existing are raised high above
primitive men; and that the first beings worthy to be called men,
were probably the gradually transformed descendants of some ape-like
ancestor. We may, further, take for granted that all the physical and
psychical qualities that man, in his present state, has in common with
his nearest relatives among the lower animals, also occurred at the
earlier stages of human civilization. These conclusions open to us a
rich source of new knowledge.

Finally, as to social survivals, I agree, certainly, with Mr. McLennan
that they are of great importance to Sociology. But we must be
extremely careful not to regard as rudiments customs which may be more
satisfactorily explained otherwise.

It is only by strictly keeping to these principles that we may hope
to derive information touching the early history of man. In doing so,
the student will be on his guard against rash conclusions. Considering
that he has to make out the primary sources of social phenomena before
writing their history, he will avoid assuming a custom to be primitive,
only because, at the first glance, it appears so; he will avoid making
rules of exceptions, and constructing the history of human development
on the immediate ground of isolated facts. It is true that the critical
sociologist, on account of the deficiency of our knowledge, very often
has to be content with hypotheses and doubtful presumptions. At any
rate, the interests of science are better looked to, if we readily
acknowledge our ignorance, than if we pass off vague guesses as
established truths.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is one of the simplest of all social institutions the history of
which forms the subject of this book. Indeed, next to the family
consisting of mother and offspring only, marriage is probably _the_
simplest. I shall not, however, treat this subject in all its aspects,
but confine myself to human marriage, though before dealing with it I
must, of course, touch upon the sexual relations of the lower animals
also.

The expression “human marriage” will probably be regarded by most
people as an improper tautology. But, as we shall see, marriage, in
the natural history sense of the term, does not belong exclusively
to our own species. No more fundamental difference between man and
other animals should be implied in sociological than in biological and
psychological terminology. Arbitrary classifications do science much
injury.

I shall examine human marriage from its different sides, giving, in
accordance with my method, an historical account of each separately.
The reader may find much that will outrage his feelings, and, possibly,
hurt his sense of modesty; but the concealment of truth is the only
indecorum known to science. To keep anything secret within its cold and
passionless expanses, would be the same as to throw a cloth round a
naked statue.




CHAPTER I

THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE


From remote antiquity we are told of kings and rulers who instituted
marriage amongst their subjects. We read in ‘Mahâbhârata,’ the Indian
poem, that formerly “women were unconfined, and roved about at their
pleasure, independent. Though in their youthful innocence, they went
astray from their husbands, they were guilty of no offence; for such
was the rule in early times.” But Swêtakêtu, son of the Rishi Uddâlaka,
could not bear this custom, and established the rule that thenceforward
wives should remain faithful to their husbands and husbands to their
wives.[8] The Chinese annals recount that, “in the beginning, men
differed in nothing from other animals in their way of life. As
they wandered up and down in the woods, and women were in common,
it happened that children never knew their fathers, but only their
mothers.” The Emperor Fou-hi abolished, however, this indiscriminate
intercourse of the sexes and instituted marriage.[9] Again, the ancient
Egyptians are stated to be indebted to Menes for this institution,[10]
and the Greeks to Kekrops. Originally, it is said, they had no idea
of conjugal union; they gratified their desires promiscuously, and
the children that sprang from these irregular connections always bore
the mother’s name. But Kekrops showed the Athenians the inconvenience
to society from such an abuse, and established the laws and rules
of marriage.[11] The remote Laplanders, also, sing about Njavvis and
Attjis, who instituted marriage, and bound their wives by sacred
oaths.[12]

Popular imagination prefers the clear and concrete; it does not
recognize any abstract laws that rule the universe. Nothing exists
without a cause, but this cause is not sought in an agglomeration of
external or internal forces; it is taken to be simple and palpable,
a personal being, a god or a king. Is it not natural, then, that
marriage, which plays such an important part in the life of the
individual, as well as in that of the people, should be ascribed to a
wise and powerful ruler, or to direct divine intervention?

With notions of this kind science has nothing to do. If we want to
find out the origin of marriage, 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. I must, therefore, beg the reader to follow me into
a domain which many may consider out of the way, but which we must, of
necessity, explore in order to discover what we seek.

It is obvious that the preservation of the progeny of the lowest
animals depends mainly upon chance. In the great sub-kingdom of the
Invertebrata, even the mothers are exempted from nearly all anxiety as
regards their offspring. In the highest order, the Insects, the eggs
are hatched by the heat of the sun, and the mother, in most cases,
does not even see her young. Her care is generally limited to seeking
out an appropriate place for laying the eggs, and to fastening them to
some proper object and covering them, if this be necessary for their
preservation. Again, to the male’s share nothing falls but the function
of propagation.[13]

In the lowest classes of the Vertebrata, parental care is likewise
almost unheard of. In the immense majority of species, young fishes are
hatched without the assistance of their parents, and have, from the
outset, to help themselves. Many Teleostei form, however, an exception;
and, curiously enough, it is the male on which, in these cases, the
parental duty generally devolves. In some instances he constructs a
nest, and jealously guards the ova deposited in it by the female; while
the male of certain species of Arius carries the ova about with him in
his capacious pharynx.[14] Most of the Reptiles place their eggs in a
convenient and sunny spot between moss and leaves, and take no further
trouble about them. But several of the larger serpents have a curious
fashion of laying them in a heap, and then coiling themselves around
them in a great hollow cone.[15] And female Crocodiles, as also certain
aquatic snakes of Cochin China, observed by Dr. Morice, carry with them
even their young.[16]

Among the lower Vertebrata it rarely happens that both parents jointly
take care of their progeny. M. Milne Edwards states, indeed, that in
the Pipa, or Toad of Surinam, the male helps the female to disburthen
herself of her eggs;[17] and the Chelonia are known to live in pairs.
“La femelle,” says M. Espinas, “vient sur les plages sablonneuses au
moment de la ponte, accompagnée du mâle, et construit un nid en forme
de four où la chaleur du soleil fait éclore les œufs.”[18] But it may
be regarded as an almost universal rule that the relations of the sexes
are utterly fickle. The male and female come together in the paring
time; but having satisfied their sexual instincts they part again, and
have nothing more to do with one another.

The Chelonia form, with regard to their domestic habits, a transition
to the Birds, as they do also from a zoological and, particularly,
from an embryological point of view. In the latter class, parental
affection 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.

There are, indeed, a few birds that from the first day of their
ultra-oval existence lack all parental care; and in some species, as
the ducks, it frequently happens that the male leaves family duties
wholly to the female. But, as a general rule, both share prosperity and
adversity. The hatching of the eggs and the chief part of the rearing
duties belong to the mother,[19] whilst the father acts as protector,
and provides food, &c.

The relations of the sexes are thus of a very intimate character,
male and female keeping together not only during the breeding season,
but also after it. Nay, most birds, with the exception of those
belonging to the Gallinaceous family, when pairing, do so once for all
till either one or the other dies. 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
birds.”[20]

This certainly cannot be said of most of the Mammals. The mother
is, indeed, very ardently concerned for the welfare of her young,
generally nursing them with the utmost affection, but this is by no
means the case with the father. There are cases in which he acts as
an enemy of his own progeny. But there are not wanting instances to
the contrary, the connections between the sexes, though generally
restricted to the time of the rut, being, with several species of a
more durable character. This is the case with whales,[21] seals,[22]
the hippopotamus,[23] the _Cervus campestris_,[24] gazelles,[25] the
_Neotragus Hemprichii_ and other small antelopes,[26] reindeer,[27] the
_Hydromus coypus_,[28] squirrels,[29] moles,[30] the ichneumon,[31] and
some carnivorous animals, as a few cats and martens,[32] the yaguarundi
in South America,[33] the _Canis Brasiliensis_,[34] and possibly also
the wolf.[35] Among all these animals the sexes remain together even
after the birth of the young, the male being the protector of the
family.

What among lower Mammals is an exception, is among the Quadrumana a
rule. The natives of Madagascar relate that in some species of the
Prosimii, male and female nurse their young in common[36]—a statement,
however, which has not yet been proved to be true. The mirikina
(_Nyctipithecus trivirgatus_) seems, according to Rengger, to live in
pairs throughout the whole year, for, whatever the season, a male and a
female are always found together.[37] Of the _Mycetes Caraya_, _Cebus
Azarae_,[38] and _Ateles paniscus_,[39] single individuals are very
seldom, or never, seen, whole families being generally met with. Among
the Arctopitheci,[40] the male parent is expressly said to assist the
female in taking care of the young ones.

The most interesting to us are, of course, the man-like apes. Diard
was told by the Malays, and he found it afterwards to be true, that
the young Siamangs, when in their helpless state, are carried about by
their parents, the males by the father, the females by the mother.[41]
Lieutenant C. de Crespigny, who was wandering in the northern part of
Borneo in 1870, gives the following description of the Orang-utan:
“They live in families—the male, female, and a young one. On one
occasion I found a family in which were two young ones, one of them
much larger than the other, and I took this as a proof that the family
tie had existed for at least two seasons. They build commodious
nests in the trees which form their feeding-ground, and, so far as I
could observe, the nests, which are well lined with dry leaves, are
only occupied by the female and young, the male passing the night in
the fork of the same or another tree in the vicinity. The nests are
very numerous all over the forests, for they are not occupied above
a few nights, the mias (or Orang-utan) leading a roving life.”[42]
According to Dr. Mohnike, however, the old males generally live with
the females during the rutting season only;[43] and Mr. Wallace never
saw two full-grown animals together. But as he sometimes found not only
females, but also males, accompanied by half-grown young ones,[44]
we may take for granted that the offspring of the Orang-utan are not
devoid of all paternal care.

More unanimous are the statements which we have regarding the Gorilla.
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.
“It is said that when the male is first seen he gives a terrific yell
that resounds far and wide through the forest.... The females and young
at the first cry quickly disappear; he then approaches the enemy in
great fury, pouring out his horrid cries in quick succession.”[45]
Again, Mr. Du Chaillu found “almost always one male with one female,
though sometimes the old male wanders companionless;”[46] and Mr.
Winwood Reade states likewise that the Gorilla goes “sometimes alone,
sometimes accompanied by his female and young one.”[47] The same
traveller was told that, when a family of Gorillas ascend a tree and
eat a certain fruit, the old father remains seated at the foot of the
tree. And when the female is pregnant, he builds a rude nest, usually
about fifteen or twenty feet from the ground; here she is delivered,
and the nest is then abandoned.[48]

For more recent information about the Gorilla we are indebted to Herr
von Koppenfells. He states that the male spends the night crouching
at the foot of the tree, against which he places his back, and thus
protects the female and their young, which are in the nest above, from
the nocturnal attacks of leopards. Once he observed a male and female
with two young ones of different ages, the elder being perhaps about
six years old, the younger about one.[49]

When all these statements are compared, it is impossible to doubt that
the Gorilla lives in families, the male parent being in the habit of
building the nest and protecting the family. And the same is the case
with the Chimpanzee. According to Dr. Savage, “it is not unusual to
see ‘the old folks’ sitting under a tree regaling themselves with
fruit and friendly chat, while ‘their children’ are leaping around
them and swinging from branch to branch in boisterous merriment.”[50]
And Herr von Koppenfells assures us that the Chimpanzee, like the
Gorilla, builds a nest for the young and female on a forked branch, the
male himself spending the night lower down in the tree.[51]

Passing from the highest monkeys to the savage and barbarous races
of man, we meet with the same phenomenon. With the exception of a
few cases in which certain tribes are asserted to live together
promiscuously—almost all of which assertions I shall prove further on
to be groundless—travellers unanimously agree that in the human race
the relations of the sexes are, as a rule, of a more or less durable
character. The family consisting of father, mother, and offspring, is
a universal institution, whether founded on a monogamous, polygynous,
or polyandrous marriage. And, as among the lower animals having the
same habit, it is to the mother that the immediate care of the children
chiefly belongs, while the father is the protector and guardian of the
family. Man in the savage state is generally supposed to be rather
indifferent to the welfare of his wife and children, and this is really
often the case, especially if he be compared with civilized man. 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.

Thus, among the North American Indians, it was considered disgraceful
for a man to have more wives than he was able to maintain.[52] Mr.
Powers says that among the Patwin, a Californian tribe which ranks
among the lowest in the world, “the sentiment that the men are bound
to support the women—that is to furnish the supplies—is stronger even
than among us.”[53] Among the Iroquois it was the office of the husband
“to make a mat, to repair the cabin of his wife, or to construct a new
one.” The product of his hunting expeditions, during the first year of
marriage, belonged of right to his wife, and afterwards he shared it
equally with her, whether she remained in the village, or accompanied
him to the chase.[54] Azara states that among the Charruas of South
America, “du moment où un homme se marie, il forme une famille à part
et travaille pour la nourrir;”[55] and among the Fuegians, according
to Admiral Fitzroy, “as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife,
by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent
of her relations.”[56] Again, among the utterly rude Botocudos, whose
girls are married very young, remaining in the house of the father till
the age of puberty, the husband is even then obliged to maintain his
wife, though living apart from her.[57]

To judge from the recent account of Herr Lumholtz, the paternal duties
seemed to be scarcely recognized by the natives of Queensland.[58] But
with reference to the Kurnai in South Australia, Mr. Howitt states
that “the man has to provide for his family with the assistance of
his wife. His share is to hunt for their support, and to fight for
their protection.” As a Kurnai once said to him, “A man hunts, spears
fish, fights, and sits about.”[59] And in the Encounter Bay tribe the
paternal care is considered so indispensable, that, if the father dies
before a child is born, the child is put to death by the mother, as
there is no longer any one to provide for it.[60]

Among the cannibals of New Britain, the chiefs have to see that the
families of the warriors are properly maintained.[61] As regards the
Tonga Islanders, Martin remarks, “A married woman is one who cohabits
with a man, and lives under his roof and protection;”[62] and in
Samoa, according to Mr. Pritchard, “whatever intercourse may take
place between the sexes, a woman does not become a man’s wife unless
the latter take her to his own house.”[63] Among the Maoris, says Mr.
Johnston, “the mission of woman was to increase and multiply; that
of man to defend his home.”[64] In Radack, even natural children are
received by the father into his house, as soon as they are able to
walk.[65]

The Rev. D. Macdonald states that, in some African tribes, “a father
has to fast after the birth of his child, or take some such method of
showing that he recognizes that he as well as the mother should take
care of the young stranger.”[66] Certain Africans will not even go on
any warlike expedition when they have a young child;[67] and the South
American Guaranies, while their wives are pregnant do not risk their
lives in hunting wild beasts.[68] In Lado the bridegroom has to assure
his father-in-law three times that he will protect his wife, calling
the people present to witness.[69] And among the Touaregs, according
to Dr. Chavanne, a man who deserts his wife is blamed, as he has taken
upon himself the obligation of maintaining her.[70]

The wretched Rock Veddahs in Ceylon, according to Sir J. Emerson
Tennent, “acknowledge the marital obligation and the duty of
supporting their own families.”[71] Among the Maldivians, “although
a man is allowed four wives at one time, it is only on condition of
his being able to support them.”[72] The Nagas are not permitted to
marry until they are able to set up house on their own account.[73] The
Nairs, we are told, consider it a husband’s duty to provide his wife
with food, clothing, and ornaments;[74] and almost the same is said
by Dr. Schwaner with reference to the tribes of the Barito district,
in the south-east part of Borneo.[75] A Burmese woman can demand a
divorce, if her husband is not able to maintain her properly.[76]
Among the Mohammedans, the maintenance of the children devolves so
exclusively on the father, that the mother is even entitled to claim
wages for nursing them.[77] And among the Romans, _manus_ implied not
only the wife’s subordination to the husband, but also the husband’s
obligation to protect the wife.[78]

The father’s place in the family being that of a supporter and
protector, a man is often not permitted to marry until he has given
some proof of his ability to fulfil these duties.

The Koyúkuns believe that a youth who marries before he has killed
a deer will have no children.[79] The aborigines of Pennsylvania
considered it a shame for a boy to think of a wife before having given
some proof of his manhood.[80] Among the wild Indians of British
Guiana, says Mr. Im Thurn, before a man is allowed to choose a wife he
must prove that he can do a man’s work and is able to support himself
and his family.[81] Among the Dyaks of Borneo,[82] the Nagas of Upper
Assam,[83] and the Alfura of Ceram,[84] no one can marry unless he has
in his possession a certain number of heads. The Karmanians, according
to Strabo, were considered marriageable only after having killed an
enemy.[85] The desire of a Galla warrior is to deprive the enemy of his
genitals, the possession of such a trophy being a necessary preliminary
to marriage.[86] Among the Bechuana and Kafir tribes south of the
Zambesi, the youth is not allowed to take a wife until he has killed
a rhinoceros.[87] In the Marianne Group, the suitor had to give proof
of his bodily strength and skill.[88] And among the Arabs of Upper
Egypt, the man must undergo an ordeal of whipping by the relations of
his bride in order to test his courage. If he wishes to be considered
worth having, he must receive the chastisement, which is sometimes
exceedingly severe, with an expression of enjoyment.[89]

The idea that a man is bound to maintain his family is, indeed, so
closely connected with that of marriage and fatherhood, that sometimes
even repudiated wives with their children are, at least to a certain
extent, supported by their former husbands. This is the case among the
Chukchi of North-Western Asia,[90] the Basutos in Southern Africa,[91]
and the Munda Kols in Chota Nagpore.[92] Further, a wife frequently
enjoys her husband’s protection even after sexual relations have been
broken off. And upon his death, the obligation of maintaining her and
her children devolves on his heirs, the wide-spread custom of a man
marrying the widow of his deceased brother being, as we shall see
in a subsequent chapter, not only a privilege belonging to the man,
but, among several peoples, even a duty. We may thus take for granted
that in the human race, at least at its present stage, the father has
to perform the same function as in other animal species, where the
connections between the sexes last longer than the sexual desire.

       *       *       *       *       *

In encyclopedical and philosophical works we meet with several
different definitions of the word marriage. Most of these definitions
are, however, of a merely juridical or ethical nature, comprehending
either what is required to make the union legal,[93] or what, in the
eye of an idealist, the union ought to be.[94] But it is scarcely
necessary to say how far I am here from using the word in either of
these senses. It is the natural history of human marriage that is the
object of this treatise; and, from a scientific point of view, I think
there is but one definition which may claim to be generally admitted,
that, namely, according to which marriage is nothing else than a more
or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond
the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring.
This definition is wide enough to include all others hitherto given,
and narrow enough to exclude those wholly loose connections which by
usage are never honoured with the name of marriage. It implies not
only sexual relations, but also living together, as is set forth in
the proverb of the Middle Ages, “Boire, manger, coucher ensemble est
mariage, ce me semble.”[95] And, though, rather vague, which is a
matter of course, it has the advantage of comprehending in one notion
phenomena essentially similar and having a common origin.

Thus, as appears from the preceding investigation, the first traces of
marriage are found among the Chelonia. With the Birds it is an almost
universal institution, whilst, among the Mammals, it is restricted to
certain species only. We observed, however, that it occurs, as a rule,
among the monkeys, especially the anthropomorphous apes as well as in
the races of men. Is it probable, then, that marriage was transmitted
to man from some ape-like ancestor, and that there never was a time
when it did not occur in the human race? These questions cannot be
answered before we have found out the cause to which it owes its origin.

It is obvious that where the generative power is restricted to a
certain season, it cannot be the sexual instinct that keeps male and
female together for months or years. Nor is there any other egoistic
motive that could probably account for this habit. Considering that
the union lasts till after the birth of the offspring, and considering
the care taken of this by the father, we may assume that the prolonged
union of the sexes is, in some way or other connected with parental
duties. I am, indeed, strongly of opinion that the tie which joins male
and female is an instinct developed through the powerful influence of
natural selection. It is evident that, when the father helps to protect
the offspring, the species is better able to subsist in the struggle
for existence than it would be if this obligation entirely devolved
on the mother. Paternal affection and the instinct which causes male
and female to form somewhat durable alliances, are thus useful mental
dispositions which, in all probability, have been acquired through the
survival of the fittest.

But how, then, can it be that among most animals the father never
concerns himself about his progeny? The answer is not difficult to
find. Marriage is only one of many means by which a species is enabled
to subsist. Where parental care is lacking, we may be sure to find
compensation for it in some other way. Among the Invertebrata, Fishes,
and Reptiles, both parents are generally quite indifferent as to their
progeny. An immense proportion of the progeny therefore succumb before
reaching maturity; but the number of eggs laid is proportionate to the
number of those lost, and the species is preserved nevertheless. If
every grain of roe, spawned by the female fishes, were fecundated and
hatched, the sea would not be large enough to hold all the creatures
resulting from them. The eggs of Reptiles need no maternal care, the
embryo being developed by the heat of the sun; and their young are
from the outset able to help themselves, leading the same life as the
adults. Among Birds, on the other hand, parental care is an absolute
necessity. Equal and continual warmth is the first requirement for
the development of the embryo and the preservation of the young ones.
For this the mother almost always wants the assistance of the father,
who provides her with necessaries, and sometimes relieves her of the
brooding. Among Mammals, the young can never do without the mother
at the tenderest age, but the father’s aid is generally by no means
indispensable. In some species, as the walrus,[96] the elephant,[97]
the _Bos americanus_,[98] and the bat,[99] there seems to be a rather
curious substitute for paternal protection, the females, together with
their young ones, collecting in large herds or flocks apart from the
males. Again, as to the marriage of the Primates, it is, I think, very
probably due to the small number of young, the female bringing forth
but one at a time; and, among the highest apes, as in man, also to the
long period of infancy.[100] Perhaps, too, the defective family life
of the Orang-utan, compared with that of the Gorilla and Chimpanzee,
depends upon the fewer dangers to which this animal is exposed. For
“except man,” Dr. Mohnike says, “the Orang-utan in Borneo has
no enemy of equal strength.”[101] In short, the factors which the
existence of a species depends upon, as the number of the progeny,
their ability to help themselves when young, maternal care, marriage,
&c., vary indefinitely in different species. But in those that do not
succumb, all these factors are more or less proportionate to each
other, the product always being the maintenance of the species.

Marriage and family are thus intimately connected with each other: 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. There are also many peoples among whom true conjugal life
does not begin before a child is born, and others who consider that the
birth of a child out of wedlock makes it obligatory for the parents
to marry. Among the Eastern Greenlanders[102] and the Fuegians,[103]
marriage is not regarded as complete till the woman has become a
mother. Among the Shawanese[104] and Abipones,[105] the wife very often
remains at her father’s house till she has a child. Among the Khyens,
the Ainos of Yesso, and one of the aboriginal tribes of China, the
husband goes to live with his wife at her father’s house, and never
takes her away till after the birth of a child.[106] In Circassia,
the bride and bridegroom are kept apart until the first child is
born;[107] and among the Bedouins of Mount Sinai, a wife never enters
her husband’s tent until she becomes far advanced in pregnancy.[108]
Among the Baele, the wife remains with her parents until she becomes
a mother, and if this does not happen, she stays there for ever, the
husband getting back what he has paid for her.[109] In Siam, a wife
does not receive her marriage portion before having given birth to a
child;[110] while among the Atkha Aleuts, according to Erman, a husband
does not pay the purchase sum before he has become a father.[111]
Again, the Badagas in Southern India have two marriage ceremonies, the
second of which does not take place till there is some indication that
the pair are to have a family; and if there is no appearance of this,
the couple not uncommonly separate.[112] Dr. Bérenger-Féraud states
that, among the Wolofs in Senegambia, “ce n’est que lorsque les signes
de la grossesse sont irrécusables chez la fiancée, quelquefois même ce
n’est qu’après la naissance d’un ou plusieurs enfants, que la cérémonie
du mariage proprement dit s’accomplit.”[113] And the Igorrotes of Luzon
consider no engagement binding until the woman has become pregnant.[114]

On the other hand, Emin Pasha tells us that, among the Mádi in Central
Africa, “should a girl become pregnant, the youth who has been her
companion is bound to marry her, and to pay to her father the customary
price of a bride.”[115] Burton reports a similar custom as prevailing
among peoples dwelling to the south of the equator.[116] Among many of
the wild tribes of Borneo, there is almost unrestrained intercourse
between the youth of both sexes; but, if pregnancy ensue, marriage
is regarded as necessary.[117] The same, as I am informed by Dr.
A. Bunker, is the case with some Karen tribes in Burma. In Tahiti,
according to Cook, the father might kill his natural child, but if he
suffered it to live, the parties were considered to be in the married
state.[118] Among the Tipperahs of the Chittagong Hills,[119] as well
as the peasants of the Ukraine,[120] a seducer is bound to marry the
girl, should she become pregnant. Again, Mr.Powers informs us that,
among the Californian Wintun, if a wife is abandoned when she has a
young child, she is justified by her friends in destroying it on the
ground that it has no supporter.[121] And among the Creeks, a young
woman that becomes pregnant by a man whom she had expected to marry,
and is disappointed, is allowed the same privilege.[122]

It might, however, be supposed that, in man, the prolonged union of the
sexes is due to another cause besides the offspring’s want of parental
care, _i.e._, to the fact that the sexual instinct is not restricted to
any particular season, but endures throughout the whole year. “That
which distinguishes man from the beast,” Beaumarchais says, “is
drinking without being thirsty, and making love at all seasons.” But in
the next chapter, I shall endeavour to show that this is probably not
quite correct, so far as our earliest human or semi-human ancestors are
concerned.




CHAPTER II

A HUMAN PAIRING SEASON IN PRIMITIVE TIMES


Professor Leuckart assumes that the periodicity in the sexual life of
animals depends upon economical conditions, the reproductive matter
being a surplus of the individual economy. Hence he says that the rut
occurs at the time when the proportion between receipts and expenditure
is most favourable.[123]

Though this hypothesis is accepted by several eminent physiologists,
facts do not support the assumption that the power of reproduction is
correlated with abundance of food and bodily vigour. There are some
writers who even believe that the reverse is the case.[124]

At any rate, it is not correct to say, with Dr. Gruenhagen, that “the
general wedding-feast is spring, when awakening nature opens, to most
animals, new and ample sources of living.”[125] This is certainly true
of Reptiles and Birds, but not of Mammals; every month or season of the
year is the pairing season of one or another mammalian species.[126]
But notwithstanding this apparent irregularity, the pairing time of
every species is bound by an unfailing law; it sets in earlier or
later, according as the period of gestation lasts longer or shorter,
so that the young may be born at the time when they are most likely to
survive. Thus, most Mammals bring forth their young early in spring,
or, in tropical countries, at the beginning of the rainy season; the
period then commences when life is more easily sustained, when prey
is most abundant, when there is enough water and vegetable food, and
when the climate becomes warmer. In the highlands, animals pair later
than those living in lower regions,[127] whilst those of the polar
and temperate zones generally pair later than those of the tropics.
As regards the species living in different latitudes the pairing time
comes earlier or later, according to the differences in climate.[128]

Far from depending upon any general physiological law, the rut is
thus adapted to the requirements of each species separately. Here
again we have an example of the powerful effects of natural selection,
often showing themselves very obviously. The dormouse (_Muscardinus
avellanarius_), for instance, that feeds upon hazel-nuts, pairs in
July, and brings forth its young in August, when nuts begin to ripen.
Then the young grow very quickly, so that they are able to bear the
autumn and winter cold.[129]

There are, however, a few wild species, as some whales,[130]
the elephant,[131] many Rodents,[132] and several of the lower
monkeys,[133] that seem to have no definite pairing season. As to
them it is, perhaps, sufficient to quote Dr. Brehm’s statement with
reference to the elephant, “The richness of their woods is so great,
that they really never suffer want.”[134] But the man-like apes do not
belong to this class. According to Mr. Winwood Reade, the male Gorillas
fight at the rutting season for their females;[135] Dr. Mohnike, as
also other authorities, mentions the occurrence of a rut-time with the
Orang-utan.[136] And we find that both of these species breed early in
the season when fruits begin to be plentiful,—that is, their pairing
time depends on the same law as that which prevails in the rest of the
animal kingdom.

Sir Richard Burton says, “The Gorilla breeds about December, a cool
and dry month; according to my bushmen, the period of gestation is
between five and six months.”[137] I have referred this important
statement to Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, who writes as follows: “From the
maps of rain distribution in Africa in Stanford’s ‘Compendium,’ the
driest months in the Gorilla country seem to be January and February,
and these would probably be the months of greatest fruit supply.” As
regards the Orang-utan, Mr. Wallace adds, “I found the young sucking
Orang-utan in May; that was about the second or third month of the dry
season, in which fruits began to be plentiful.”

Considering, then, that the periodicity of the sexual life rests
on the kind of food on which the species lives, together with
other circumstances connected with anatomical and physiological
peculiarities, and considering, further, the close biological
resemblance between man and the man-like apes, we are almost compelled
to assume that the pairing time of our earliest human or half-human
ancestors was restricted to a certain season of the year, as was also
the case with their nearest relations among the lower animals. This
presumption derives further probability from there being, even now,
some rude peoples who are actually stated to have an annual pairing
time, and other peoples whose sexual instinct undergoes most decidedly
a periodical increase at a certain time of the year.

According to Mr. Johnston, the wild Indians of California, belonging to
the lowest races on earth, “have their rutting seasons as regularly
as have the deer, the elk, the antelope, or any other animals.”[138]
And Mr. Powers confirms the correctness of this statement, at least
with regard to some of these Indians, saying that spring “is a literal
Saint Valentine’s Day with them, as with the natural beasts and birds
of the forest.”[139]

As regards the Goddanes in Luzon, Mr. Foreman tells us that “it is
the custom of the young men about to marry, to vie with each other
in presenting to the sires of their future bride all the scalps they
are able to take from their enemies, as proof of their manliness
and courage. This practice prevails at the season of the year when
the tree—popularly called by the Spaniards ‘the fire-tree’—is in
bloom.”[140]

Speaking of the Watch-an-dies in the western part of Australia, Mr.
Oldfield remarks, “Like the beasts of the field, the savage has
but one time for copulation in the year.[141] About the middle of
spring ... the Watch-an-dies begin to think of holding their grand
semi-religious festival of Caa-ro, preparatory to the performance of
the important duty of procreation.”[142] A similar feast, according to
Mr. Bonwick, was celebrated by the Tasmanians at the same time of the
year.[143]

The Hos, an Indian hill tribe, have, as we are informed by Colonel
Dalton, every year a great feast in January, “when the granaries are
full of grain, and the people, to use their own expression, full of
devilry. They have a strange notion that at this period, men and women
are so over-charged with vicious propensities, that it is absolutely
necessary for the safety of the person to let off steam by allowing for
a time full vent to the passions. The festival, therefore, becomes a
saturnalia, during which servants forget their duty to their masters,
children their reverence for parents, men their respect for women,
and women all notions of modesty, delicacy, and gentleness.” Men and
women become almost like animals in the indulgence of their amorous
propensities, and the utmost liberty is given to the girls.[144]

The same writer adds that “it would appear that most Hill Tribes have
found it necessary to promote marriage by stimulating intercourse
between the sexes at particular seasons of the year.”[145] Among the
Santals, “the marriages mostly take place once a year, in January;
for six days all the candidates for matrimony live in promiscuous
concubinage, after which the whole party are supposed to have
paired off as man and wife.”[146] The Punjas in Jeypore, according
to Dr. Shortt, have a festival in the first month of the new year,
where men and women assemble. The lower order or castes observe
this festival, which is kept up for a month, by both sexes mixing
promiscuously, and taking partners as their choice directs.[147]
A similar feast, comprising a continuous course of debauchery and
licentiousness, is held once a year, by the Kotars, a tribe inhabiting
the Neilgherries;[148] according to Mr. Bancroft, by the Keres in
New Mexico;[149] according to Dr. Fritsch, by the Hottentots;[150]
according to the Rev. H. Rowley, by the Kafirs;[151] and, as I am
informed by Mr. A. J. Swann, by some tribes near Nyassa. Writers of the
sixteenth century speak of the existence of certain early festivals in
Russia, at which great license prevailed. According to Pamphill, these
annual gatherings took place, as a rule, at the end of June, the day
before the festival of St. John the Baptist, which, in pagan times, was
that of a divinity known by the name of Jarilo, corresponding to the
Priapus of the Greeks.[152] At Rome, a festival in honour of Venus took
place in the month of April;[153] and Mannhardt mentions some curious
popular customs in Germany, England, Esthonia and other European
countries, which seem to indicate an increase of the sexual instinct in
spring or at the beginning of summer.[154]

By questions addressed to persons living among various savage peoples,
I have inquired whether among these peoples, marriages are principally
contracted at a certain time of the year, and whether more children are
born in one month or season than in another. In answer, Mr. Radfield
writes from Lifu, near New Caledonia, that marriages there formerly
took place at various times, when suitable, but “November used to be
the time at which engagements were made.” As the seasons in this island
are the reverse of those in England, this month includes the end of
spring and the beginning of summer. The Rev. H. T. Cousins informs
me that, among the Kafirs inhabiting what is known as Cis-Natalian
Kafirland, “there are more children born in one month or season
than in another, _viz._ August and September, which are the spring
months in South Africa;” and he ascribes this surplus of births to
feasts, comprising debauchery and unrestricted intercourse between the
unmarried people of both sexes. Again, Dr. A. Sims writes from Stanley
Pool that, among the Bateke, more children are born in September and
October, that is, in the seasons of the early rains, than at other
times; and the Rev. Ch. E. Ingham, writing from Banza Manteka, states
that he believes the same to be the case among the Bakongo. But the
Rev. T. Bridges informs me that, among the Yahgans in the southern
part of Tierra del Fuego, so far as he knows, one month is the same as
another with regard to the number of births. I venture, however, to
think that this result might be somewhat modified by a minute inquiry,
embracing a sufficient number of cases. For statistics prove that even
in civilized countries, there is a regular periodical fluctuation in
the birth-rate.

In the eighteenth century Wargentin showed that, in Sweden more
children were born in one month than in another.[155] The same has
since been found to be the case in other European countries. According
to Wappäus, the number of births in Sardinia, Belgium, Holland, and
Sweden is subject to a regular increase twice a year, the maximum
of the first increase occurring in February or March, that of the
second in September and October.[156] M. Sormani observed that, in the
south of Italy, there is an increase only once in the year, but more
to the north twice, in spring and in autumn.[157] Dr. Mayr and Dr.
Beukemann found in Germany two annual maxima—in February or March, and
in September;—[158]and Dr. Haycraft states that, in the eight largest
towns of Scotland, more children are born in legitimate wedlock in
April than in any other month.[159] As a rule, according to M. Sormani,
the first annual augmentation of births has its maximum, in Sweden, in
March; in France and Holland, between February and March; in Belgium,
Spain, Austria and Italy, in February; in Greece, in January; so that
it comes earlier in southern Europe than farther to the north.[160]
Again, the second annual increase is found more considerable the more
to the north we go. In South Germany it is smaller than the first
one, but in North Germany generally larger;[161] and in Sweden, it is
decidedly larger.[162]

As to non-European countries, Wappäus observed that in Massachusetts,
the birth-rate likewise underwent an increase twice a year, the
maxima falling in March and September; and that in Chili many more
children were born in September and October—_i.e._, at the beginning
of spring—than in any other month.[163] Finally, Mr. S. A. Hill, of
Allahabad, has proved, by statistical data, that, among the Hindus
of that province, the birth-rates exhibit a most distinct annual
variation, the minimum falling in June and the maximum in September and
October.[164]

This unequal distribution of births over the different months of the
year is ascribed to various causes by statisticians. It is, however,
generally admitted that the maximum in February and March (in Chili,
September) is, at least to a great extent, due to the sexual instinct
being strongest in May and June (in Chili, December).[165] This is the
more likely to be the case as it is especially illegitimate births that
are then comparatively numerous. And it appears extremely probable
that, in Africa also, the higher birth-rates in the seasons of the
early rains owe their origin to the same cause.

Thus, comparing the facts stated, we find, among various races of men,
the sexual instinct increasing at the end of spring, or, rather, at the
beginning of summer. Some peoples of India seem to form an exception to
this rule, lascivious festivals, in the case of several of them, taking
place in the month of January, and the maximum of births, among the
Hindus of Allahabad, falling at the end of the hot season, or in early
autumn. But in India also there are traces of strengthened passions in
spring. M. Rousselet gives the following description of the indecent
Holi festival, as it is celebrated among the Hindus of Oudeypour. “The
festival of Holi marks the arrival of spring, and is held in honour
of the goddess Holica, or Vasanti, who personifies that season in the
Hindu Pantheon. The carnival lasts several days, during which time the
most licentious debauchery and disorder reign throughout every class of
society. It is the regular saturnalia of India. Persons of the greatest
respectability, without regard to rank or age, are not ashamed to take
part in the orgies which mark this season of the year.... Women and
children crowd round the hideous idols of the feast of Holica, and
deck them with flowers; and immorality reigns supreme in the streets
of the capital.”[166] Among the Aryans who inhabited the plains of the
North, the spring, or “vasanta,” corresponding to the months of March
and April, was the season of love and pleasure, celebrated in song by
the poets, and the time for marriages and religious feasts.[167] And
among the Rajputs of Mewar, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Tod, the
last days of spring are dedicated to Camdéva, the god of love: “the
scorching winds of the hot season are already beginning to blow, when
Flora droops her head, and the ‘god of love turns anchorite.’”[168]

We must not, however, infer that this enhancement of the procreative
power is to be attributed directly to “the different positions of
the sun with respect to the earth,”[169] or to the temperature of
a certain season. The phenomenon does not immediately spring from
this cause in the case of any other animal species. Neither can it
be due to abundance of food. In the northern parts of Europe many
more conceptions take place in the months of May and June, when the
conditions of life are often rather hard, than in September, October,
and November, when the supplies of food are comparatively plentiful.
In the north-western provinces of Germany, as well as in Sweden, the
latter months are characterized by a minimum of conceptions.[170] Among
the Kaffirs, more children are conceived in November and December than
in any other month, although, according to the Rev. H. T. Cousins,
food is most abundant among them from March to September. And among
the Bateke, the maximum of conceptions falls in December and January,
although food is, as I am informed by Dr. Sims, most plentiful in the
dry season, that is, from May to the end of August.

On the other hand, the periodical increase of conceptions cannot
be explained by the opposite hypothesis, entertained by some
physiologists, that the power of reproduction is increased by want
and distress. Among the Western Australians and Californians,[171]
for instance, the season of love is accompanied by a surplus of food,
and in the land of the Bakongo, among whom Mr. Ingham believes most
conceptions to take place in December and January, food is, according
to him, most abundant precisely in these months and in February.

It seems, therefore, a reasonable presumption that the increase of the
sexual instinct at the end of spring or in the beginning of summer, is
a survival of an ancient pairing season, depending upon the same law
that rules in the rest of the animal kingdom. Since spring is rather
a time of want than a time of abundance for a frugivorous species,
it is impossible to believe that our early ancestors, as long as
they fed upon fruits, gave birth to their young at the beginning of
that period. From the statements of Sir Richard Burton and Mr. A. R.
Wallace, already quoted,[172] we know that the man-like apes breed
early in the season when fruits begin to be plentiful. But when man
began to feed on herbs, roots, and animal food, the conditions were
changed. Spring is the season of the re-awakening of life, when there
are plenty of vegetables and prey. Hence those children whose infancy
fell in this period survived more frequently than those born at any
other. Considering that the parents of at least a few of them must have
had an innate tendency to the increase of the power of reproduction at
the beginning of summer, and considering, further, that this tendency
must have been transmitted to some of the offspring, like many other
characteristics which occur periodically at certain seasons,[173]
we can readily understand that gradually, through the influence of
natural selection, a race would emerge whose pairing time would be
exclusively or predominantly restricted to the season most favourable
to its subsistence. To judge from the period when most children are
born among existing peoples, the pairing season of our prehistoric
ancestors occurred, indeed, somewhat earlier in the year than is the
case with the majority of mammalian species. But we must remember that
the infancy of man is unusually long; and, with regard to the time
most favourable to the subsistence of children, we must take into
consideration not only the first days of their existence, but the
first period of their infancy in general. Besides food and warmth,
several other factors affect the welfare of the offspring, and it is
often difficult to find out all of them. We do not know the particular
circumstances that make the badger breed at the end of February or the
beginning of March,[174] and the reindeer of the Norwegian mountains
as early as April;[175] but there can be no doubt that these breeding
seasons are adapted to the requirements of the respective species.

The cause of the winter maximum of conceptions, especially considerable
among the peoples of Northern Europe, is generally sought in social
influences, as the quiet ensuing on the harvest time, the better
food, and the amusements of Christmas.[176] But the people certainly
recover before December from the labours of the field, and Christmas
amusements, as Wargentin remarks, take place at the end of that month
and far into January, without any particular influence upon the number
of births in October being observable.[177] It has, further, been
proved that the unequal distribution of marriages over the different
months exercises hardly any influence upon the distribution of
births.[178] Again, among the Hindus the December and January maximum
of conceptions seems from the lascivious festivities of several Indian
peoples to be due to an increase of the sexual instinct. According
to Mr. Hill, this increase depends upon healthy conditions with an
abundant food supply. But, as I have already said, it is not proved
that a strengthened power of reproduction and abundance of food are
connected with one another.

I am far from venturing to express any definite opinion as to the cause
of these particular phenomena, but it is not impossible that they also
are effects of natural selection, although of a comparatively recent
date. Considering that the September maximum of births (or December
maximum of conceptions) in Europe becomes larger the farther north
we go; that the agricultural peoples of Northern Europe have plenty
of food in autumn and during the first part of winter, but often
suffer a certain degree of want in spring; and, finally, that the
winter cold does not affect the health of infants, the woods giving
sufficient material for fuel,—it has occurred to me that children born
in September may have a better chance of surviving than others. Indeed,
Dr. Beukemann states that the number of still-born births is largest in
winter or at the beginning of spring, and that “the children born in
autumn possess the greatest vitality and resisting power against the
dangers of earliest infancy.”[179] This would perhaps be an adequate
explanation either of an increase of the sexual instinct or of greater
disposition to impregnation in December. It is not impossible either,
that the increase of the power of reproduction among the Hindus in
December and January, which causes an increase of births in September
and October—_i.e._, the end of the hot season and the beginning
of winter—owes its origin to the fact that during the winter the
granaries get filled and some of the conditions of life become more
healthy. But it should be remarked that September itself, according to
Mr. Hill, is a very unhealthy month.[180]

Now it can be explained, I believe for the first time, how it happens
that man, unlike the lower animals, is not limited to a particular
period of the year in which to court the female.[181] The Darwinian
theory of natural selection can, as it seems to me, account for the
periodicity of the sexual instinct in such a rude race as the Western
Australians, among whom the mortality of children is so enormous
that the greater number of them do not survive even the first month
after birth,[182] and who inhabit a land pre-eminently unproductive
of animals and vegetables fitted to sustain human life, a land where,
“during the summer seasons, the black man riots in comparative
abundance, but during the rest of the year ... the struggle for
existence becomes very severe.”[183] The more progress man makes in
arts and inventions; the more he acquires the power of resisting
injurious external influences; the more he rids himself of the
necessity of freezing when it is cold, and starving when nature is less
lavish with food; in short, the more independent he becomes of the
changes of the seasons—the greater is the probability that children
born at one time of the year will survive as well, or almost as well,
as those born at any other. Variations as regards the pairing time,
always likely to occur occasionally, will do so the more frequently on
account of changed conditions of life, which directly or indirectly
cause variability of every kind;[184] and these variations will be
preserved and transmitted to following generations. Thus we can
understand how a race has arisen, endowed with the ability to procreate
children in any season. We can also understand how, even in such a rude
race as the Yahgans in Tierra del Fuego, the seasonable distribution
of births seems to be pretty equal, as there is, according to the Rev.
T. Bridges, “such a variety of food in the various seasons that there
is strictly no period of hardship, save such as is caused by accidents
of weather.” We can explain, too, why the periodical fluctuation in
the number of births, though comparatively inconsiderable in every
civilized society, is greater in countries predominantly agricultural,
such as Chili, than in countries predominantly industrial, as
Saxony;[185] why it is greater in rural districts than in towns;[186]
and why it was greater in Sweden in the middle of the last century than
it is now.[187] For the more man has abandoned natural life out of
doors, the more luxury has increased and his habits have got refined,
the greater is the variability to which his sexual life has become
subject, and the smaller has been the influence exerted upon it by the
changes of the seasons.

Man has thus gone through the same transition as certain domestic
animals. The he-goat[188] and the ass in southern countries,[189]
for instance, rut throughout the whole year. The domestic pig pairs
generally twice a year, while its wild ancestors had but one rutting
season.[190] Dr. Hermann Müller has even observed a canary that laid
eggs in autumn and winter.[191] Natural selection cannot, of course,
account for such alterations: they fall under the law of variation.
It is the limited pairing season that is a product of this powerful
process, which acts with full force only under conditions free from
civilization and domestication.

If the hypothesis set forth in this chapter holds good, it must be
admitted that the continued excitement of the sexual instinct could not
have played a part in the origin of human marriage—provided that this
institution did exist among primitive men. Whether this was the case I
shall examine in the following chapters.




CHAPTER III

THE ANTIQUITY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE


If it be admitted that marriage, as a necessary requirement for the
existence of certain species, is connected with some peculiarities
in their organism, and, more particularly among the highest monkeys,
with the paucity of their progeny and their long period of infancy,—it
must at the same time be admitted that, among primitive men, from
the same causes as among these animals, the sexes in all probability
kept together till after the birth of the offspring. Later on, when
the human race passed beyond its frugivorous stage and spread over
the earth, living chiefly on animal food, the assistance of an adult
male became still more necessary for the subsistence of the children.
Everywhere the chase devolves on the man, it being a rare exception
among savage peoples for a woman to engage in it.[192] Under such
conditions a family consisting of mother and young only, would
probably, as a rule, have succumbed.

It has, however, been suggested that, in olden times, the natural
guardian of the children was not the father, but the maternal
uncle.[193] This inference has been drawn chiefly from the common
practice of a nephew succeeding his mother’s brother in rank and
property. But sometimes the relation between the two is still more
intimate. “La famille Malaise proprement dite—le Sa-Mandei,—” says a
Dutch writer, as quoted by Professor Giraud-Teulon, “consiste dans
la mère et ses enfants: le père n’en fait point partie. Les liens de
parenté qui unissent ce dernier à ses frères et sœurs sont plus étrois
que ceux qui le rattachent à sa femme et à ses propres enfants. Il
continue même après son mariage à vivre dans sa famille maternelle;
c’est là qu’est son véritable domicile, et non pas dans la maison de
sa femme: il ne cesse pas de cultiver le champ de sa propre famille,
à travailler pour elle, et n’aide sa femme qu’accidentellement. Le
chef de la famille est ordinairement le frère aîné du côté maternel
(le mamak ou avunculus). De par ses droits et ses devoirs, c’est lui
le vrai père des enfants de sa sœur.”[194] As regards the mountaineers
of Georgia, especially the Pshaves, M. Kovalevsky states that, among
them, “le frère de la mère prend la place du père dans toutes les
circonstances où il s’agit de venger le sang répandu, surtout au cas de
meurtre commis sur la personne de son neveu.”[195] Among the Goajiro
Indians,[196] the Negroes of Bondo,[197] the Barea, and the Bazes,[198]
it is the mother’s brother who has the right of selling a girl to her
suitor. Touching the Kois, the Rev. John Cain says, “The maternal
uncle of any Koi girl has the right to bestow her hand on any one of
his sons, or any other suitable candidate who meets with his approval.
The father and the mother of the girl have no acknowledged voice in the
matter. A similar custom prevails amongst some of the Komâti (Vaiśya)
caste.”[199] Among the Savaras in India, the bridegroom has to give a
bullock not only to the girl’s father, but to the maternal uncle;[200]
whilst among the Creeks, the proxy of the suitor asked for the consent
of the uncles, aunts, and brothers of the young woman, “the father
having no voice or authority in the business.”[201]

But such cases are rare. Besides, most of them imply only that the
children in a certain way belong to the uncle, not that the father is
released from the obligation of supporting them. Even where succession
runs through females only, the father is nearly always certainly the
head of the family. Thus, for instance, in Melanesia, where the clan of
the children is determined by that of the mother, “the mother is,” to
quote Dr. Codrington, “in no way the head of the family. The house of
the family is the father’s, the garden is his, the rule and government
are his.”[202] Nor is there any reason to believe that it was generally
otherwise in former times. A man could not of course be the guardian
of his sister’s children, if he did not live in close connection with
them. But except in such a decidedly anomalous case as that of the
Malays, just referred to, this could scarcely happen unless marriages
were contracted between persons living closely together. Nowadays,
however, such marriages are usually avoided, and I shall endeavour
later on to show that they were probably also avoided by our remote
ancestors.

It might, further, be objected that the children were equally well or
better provided for, if not the fathers only, but all the males of
the tribe indiscriminately were their guardians. The supporters of
the hypothesis of promiscuity, and even other sociologists, as for
instance Herr Kautsky,[203] believe that this really was the case among
primitive men. According to them, the tribe or horde is the primary
social unit of the human race, and the family only a secondary unit,
developed in later times. Indeed, this assumption has been treated
by many writers, not as a more or less probable hypothesis, but as a
demonstrated truth. Yet the idea that a man’s children belong to the
tribe, has no foundation in fact. Everywhere we find the tribes or
clans composed of several families, the members of each family being
more closely connected with one another than with the rest of the
tribe. The family, consisting of parents, children, and often also
their next descendants, is a universal institution among existing
peoples.[204] And it seems extremely probable that, among our earliest
human ancestors, the family formed, if not the society itself, at least
the nucleus of it. As this is a question of great importance, I must
deal with it at some length.

Mr. Darwin remarks, “Judging from the analogy of the majority of the
Quadrumana, it is probable that the early ape-like progenitors of man
were likewise social.”[205] But it may be doubted whether Mr. Darwin
would have drawn this inference, had he taken into consideration the
remarkable fact that none of the monkeys most nearly allied to man can
be called social animals.

The solitary life of the Orang-utan has already been noted. As
regards Gorillas, Dr. Savage states that there is only one adult male
attached to each group;[206] and Mr. Reade says expressly that they
are not gregarious, though they sometimes seem to assemble in large
numbers.[207] Both Mr. Du Chaillu[208] and Herr von Koppenfels[209]
assure us likewise that the Gorilla generally lives in pairs or
families.

The same is the case with the Chimpanzee. “It is seldom,” Dr. Savage
says, “that more than one or two nests are seen upon the same tree or
in the same neighbourhood; five have been found, but it was an unusual
circumstance. They do not live in ‘villages’.... They are more often
seen in pairs than in gangs.... As seen here, they cannot be called
gregarious.”[210] This statement, confirmed or repeated by Mr. Du
Chaillu[211] and Professor Hartmann,[212] is especially interesting, as
the Chimpanzee resembles man also in his comparatively slight strength
and courage, so that a gregarious life might be supposed to be better
suited to this animal.

Mr. Spencer, however, has pointed out that not only size, strength,
and means of defence, but also the kind and distribution of food and
other factors must variously co-operate and conflict to determine how
far a gregarious life is beneficial, and how far a solitary life.[213]
Considering, then, that, according to Dr. Savage, the Chimpanzees are
more numerous in the season when the greatest number of fruits come to
maturity,[214] we may almost with certainty infer that the solitary
life generally led by this ape is due chiefly to the difficulty it
experiences in getting food at other times of the year.

Is it not, then, most probable that our fruit-eating human or
half-human ancestors, living on the same kind of food, and requiring
about the same quantities of it as the man-like apes, were not more
gregarious than they? It is likely, too, that subsequently, when man
became partly carnivorous, he continued, as a rule, this solitary
kind of life, or that gregariousness became his habit only in part.
“An animal of a predatory kind,” says Mr. Spencer, “which has prey
that can be caught and killed without help, profits by living alone:
especially if its prey is much scattered, and is secured by stealthy
approach or by lying in ambush. Gregariousness would here be a positive
disadvantage. Hence the tendency of large carnivores, and also of
small carnivores that have feeble and widely-distributed prey, to lead
solitary lives.”[215] It is, indeed, very remarkable that even now
there are savage peoples who live rather in separate families than in
tribes, and that most of these peoples belong to the very rudest races
in the world.[216]

“‘The wild or forest Veddahs,’” Mr. Pridham states, “build their
huts in trees, live in pairs, only occasionally assembling in greater
numbers, and exhibit no traces of the remotest civilization, nor
any knowledge of social rites.”[217] According to Mr. Bailey, the
Nilgala Veddahs, who are considered the wildest, “are distributed
through their lovely country in small septs, or families, occupying
generally caves in the rocks, though some have little bark huts. They
depend almost solely on hunting for their support, and hold little
communication even with each other.”[218]

In Tierra del Fuego, according to Bishop Stirling, family life is
exclusive. “Get outside the family,” he says, “and relationships are
doubtful, if not hostile. The bond of a common language is no security
for friendly offices.”[219] Commander Wilkes states likewise that the
Fuegians “appear to live in families and not in tribes, and do not
seem to acknowledge any chief;[220]” and, according to M. Hyades, “la
famille est bien constitutée, mais la tribu n’existe pas, à proprement
parler.”[221] Each family is perfectly independent of all the others,
and only the necessity of common defence now and then induces a few
families to form small gangs without any chief.[222] The Rev. T.
Bridges writes to me, “They live in clans, called by them Ucuhr,
which means a house. These Ucuhr comprise many subdivisions; and the
members are necessarily related. But,” he continues, “the Yahgans are
a roving people, having their districts and moving about within these
districts from bay to bay and island to island in canoes, without any
order. The whole clan seldom travels together, and only occasionally
and then always incidentally is it to be found collected. The smaller
divisions keep more together.... Occasionally, as many as five families
are to be found living in a wigwam, but generally two families.”
Indeed, in ‘A Voice for South America,’ Mr. Bridges says that “family
influence is the one great tie which binds these natives together, and
the one great preventive of violence.”[223]

Speaking of the West Australians, who are probably better known to him
than to any other civilized man, Bishop Salvado says that they “au
lieu de se gouverner par tribus, paraissent se gouverner à la manière
patriarchale: chaque famille, qui généralement ne compte pas plus de
six à neuf individus, forme comme une petite société, sous la seule
dépendance de son propre chef.... Chaque famille s’approprie une espèce
de district, dont cependant les families voisines jouissent en commun
si l’on vit en bonne harmonie.”[224]

Mr. Stanbridge, who spent eighteen years in the wilds of Victoria,
tells us that the savages there are associated in tribes or families,
the members of which vary much in number. Each tribe has its own
boundaries, the land of which is parcelled out amongst families and
carefully transmitted by direct descent; these boundaries being so
sacredly maintained that the member of no single family will venture on
the lands of a neighbouring one without invitation.[225] And touching
the Gournditch-mara, Mr. Howitt states that “each family camped by
itself.”[226]

The Bushmans of South Africa, according to Dr. Fritsch, are almost
entirely devoid of a tribal organization. Even when a number of
families occasionally unite in a larger horde, this association is more
or less accidental, and not regulated by any laws.[227] But a horde
commonly consists of the different members of one family only, at least
if the children are old and strong enough to help their parents to find
food.[228] “Sexual feelings, the instinctive love to children, or the
customary attachment among relations,” says Lichtenstein, “are the
only ties that keep them in any sort of union.”[229]

The like is stated to be true of several peoples in Brazil. According
to v. Martius, travellers often meet there with a language “used only
by a few individuals connected with each other by relationship, who
are thus completely isolated, and can hold no communication with any
of their other countrymen far or near.”[230] With reference to the
Botocudos, v. Tschudi says that “the family is the only tie which
joins these rude children of nature with each other.”[231] The Guachís,
Mauhés, and Guatós for the most part live scattered in families,[232]
and the social condition of the Caishánas, among whom each family has
its own solitary hut, “is of a low type, very little removed, indeed,
from that of the brutes living in the same forests.”[233] The Marauá
Indians live likewise in separate families or small hordes, and so
do some other of the tribes visited by Mr. Bates.[234] According to
Mr. Southey, the Cayáguas or Wood-Indians, who inhabited the forests
between the Paraná and the Uruguay, were not in a social state; “one
family lived at a distance from another, in a wretched hut composed of
boughs; they subsisted wholly by prey, and when larger game failed,
were contented with snakes, mice, pismires, worms, and any kind of
reptile or vermin.”[235] Again, speaking of the Coroados, v. Spix and
v. Martius say that “they live without any bond of social union,
neither under a republican nor a patriarchal form of government. Even
family ties are very loose among them.”[236]

The Togiagamutes, an Eskimo tribe, never visited by white men in
their own country until the year 1880, who lead a thoroughly nomadic
life, wandering from place to place in search of game or fish,
appear, according to Petroff, “to live in the most perfect state of
independence of each other. Even the communities do not seem bound
together in any way; families and groups of families constantly
changing their abode, leaving one community and joining another, or
perhaps forming one of their own. The youth, as soon as he is able to
build a kaiak and to support himself, no longer observes any family
ties, but goes where his fancy takes him, frequently roaming about with
his kaiak for thousands of miles before another fancy calls him to take
a wife, to excavate a miserable dwelling, and to settle down for a
time.”[237]

The ancient Finns, too, according to the linguistic researches of
Professor Ahlqvist, were without any kind of tribal organization. In
his opinion, such a state would have been almost impossible among them,
as they lived in scattered families for the sake of the chase and in
order to have pastures for their reindeer.[238]

That the comparatively solitary life which the families of these
peoples live, is due to want of sufficient food, appears from several
facts. Lichtenstein tells us that the hardships experienced by the
Bushmans in satisfying the most urgent necessities of life, preclude
the possibility of their forming larger societies. Even the families
that form associations in small separate hordes are sometimes obliged
to disperse, as the same spot will not afford sufficient sustenance
for all. “The smaller the number, the easier is a supply of food
procured.”[239]

“Scarcity of food, and the facility with which they move from one
place to another in their canoes,” says Admiral Fitzroy, “are, no
doubt, the reasons why the Fuegians are always so dispersed among the
islands in small family parties, why they never remain long in one
place, and why a large number are not seen many days in society.”[240]

The natives of Port Jackson, New South Wales, when visited a hundred
years ago by Captain Hunter, were associated in tribes of many
families living together, apparently without a fixed residence, the
different families wandering in different directions for food, but
uniting on occasions of disputes with another tribe.[241] The Rev. A.
Meyer assures us likewise, as regards the Encounter Bay tribe, that
“the whole tribe does not always move in a body from one place to
another, unless there should be abundance of food to be obtained at
some particular spot; but generally they are scattered in search of
food.”[242] Again, with reference to the Australians more generally,
Mr. Brough Smyth remarks that “in any large area occupied by a tribe,
where there was not much forest land, and where kangaroos were not
numerous, it is highly probable that the several families composing
the tribe would withdraw from their companions for short periods, at
certain seasons, and betake themselves to separate portions of the
area, ... and it is more than probable—it is almost certain—that each
head of a family would betake himself, if practicable, to that portion
which his father had frequented.”[243]

Finally, from Mr. Wyeth’s account in Schoolcraft’s great work on
the Indian Tribes of the United States, I shall make the following
characteristic quotation with reference to the Snakes inhabiting the
almost desert region which extends southward from the Snake River as
far as the southern end of the Great Salt Lake, and eastward from the
Rocky to the Blue Mountains:—“The paucity of game in this region
is, I have little doubt, the cause of the almost entire absence of
social organization among its inhabitants; no trace of it is ordinarily
seen among them, except during salmon-time, when a large number of
the Snakes resort to the rivers, chiefly to the Fishing Falls, and
at such places there seems some little organization.... Prior to the
introduction of the horse, no other tribal arrangement existed than
such as is now seen in the management of the salmon fishery.... The
organization would be very imperfect, because the remainder of the
year would be spent by them in families widely spread apart, to eke
out the year’s subsistence on the roots and limited game of their
country. After a portion of them, who are now called Bonaks, had
obtained horses, they would naturally form bands and resort to the
Buffalo region to gain their subsistence, retiring to the most fertile
places in their own, to avoid the snows of the mountains and feed their
horses. Having food from the proceeds of the Buffalo hunt, to enable
them to live together, they would annually do so, for the protection
of their horses, lodges, &c., &c. These interests have caused an
organization among the Bonaks, which continues the year through,
because the interests which produce it continue; and it is more
advanced than that of the other Snakes.”[244]

Here, I think, we have an excellent account of the origin of society,
applicable not only to the Snakes, but, in its main features, to man
in general. The kind of food he subsisted upon, together with the
large quantities of it that he wanted, probably formed in olden times
a hindrance to a true gregarious manner of living, except perhaps in
some unusually rich places. Man in the savage state, even when living
in luxuriant countries, is often brought to the verge of starvation, in
spite of his having implements and weapons which his ruder ancestors
had no idea of. If the obstacle from insufficient food-supply could
be overcome, gregariousness would no doubt be of great advantage
to him. Living together, the families could resist the dangers of
life and defend themselves from their enemies much more easily than
when solitary,—all the more so, as the physical strength of man, and
especially savage man,[245] is comparatively slight. Indeed, his bodily
inferiority, together with his defencelessness and helplessness, has
probably been the chief lever of civilization.

“He has,” to quote Mr. Darwin, “invented and is able to use various
weapons, tools, traps, &c., with which he defends himself, kills or
catches prey, and otherwise obtains food. He has made rafts or canoes
for fishing or crossing over to neighbouring fertile islands. He has
discovered the art of making fire, by which hard and stringy roots can
be rendered digestible, and poisonous roots or herbs innocuous.”[246]
In short, man gradually found out many new ways of earning his living
and more and more emancipated himself from direct dependence on
surrounding nature. The chief obstacle to a gregarious life was by this
means in part surmounted, and the advantages of such a life induced
families or small gangs to unite together in larger bodies. Thus it
seems that the gregariousness and sociability of man sprang, in the
main, from progressive intellectual and material civilization, whilst
the tie that kept together husband and wife, parents and children, was,
if not the only, at least the principal social factor in the earliest
life of man. I cannot, therefore, agree with Sir John Lubbock that, as
a general rule, as we descend in the scale of civilization, the family
diminishes, and the tribe increases, in importance.[247] This may hold
good for somewhat higher stages, but it does not apply to the lowest
stages. Neither do I see any reason to believe that there _ever_ was a
time when the family was quite absorbed in the tribe. There does not
exist a single well established instance of a people among whom this is
the case.

I do not, of course, deny that the tie which bound the children to the
mother was much more intimate and more lasting than that which bound
them to the father. But it seems to me that the only result to which a
critical investigation of facts can lead us is, that in all probability
there has been no stage of human development when marriage has not
existed, and that the father has always been, as a rule, the protector
of his family. Human marriage appears, then, to be an inheritance from
some ape-like progenitor.




CHAPTER IV

A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY


The inference drawn in the last chapter is opposed to the view held
by most sociologists who have written upon early history. According
to them, man lived originally in a state of promiscuity. This is the
opinion of Bachofen, McLennan, Morgan, Lubbock, Bastian, Giraud-Teulon,
Lippert, Kohler, Post, Wilken, and several other writers.[248] Although
suggested at first only as a probable hypothesis, this presumption is
now treated by many writers as a demonstrated truth.[249]

The promiscuity of primitive man is not, however, generally considered
to be perfectly indiscriminate, but limited to the individuals
belonging to the same tribe. It may, therefore, perhaps be said to be
a kind of marriage: polygyny combined with polyandry. Sir John Lubbock
has also given it the name of “communal marriage,” indicating by
this word, that all the men and women in a community were regarded as
equally husbands and wives to one another. As I do not, in speaking of
marriage, take into consideration unions of so indefinite a nature,
this seems to be the proper place to discuss the hypothesis in question.

The evidence adduced in support of it flows from two sources. First,
there are, in the books of ancient writers and modern travellers,
notices of some savage nations said to live promiscuously; secondly,
there are some remarkable customs which are assumed to be social
survivals, pointing to an earlier stage of civilization, when marriage
did not exist. Let us see whether this evidence will stand the test of
a critical examination.

       *       *       *       *       *

Herodotus and Strabo inform us that, among the Massagetæ every man had
his own wife, but that all the other men of the tribe were allowed to
have sexual intercourse with her.[250] The Auseans, a Libyan people,
had, according to the former, their wives in common;[251] and Solinus
reports the same of the Garamantians of Ethiopia.[252] Community
of women is, further, alleged to have occurred among the Liburnes,
Galactophagi,[253] and the ancient Bohemians.[254] And Garcilasso de la
Vega asserts that, among the natives of Passau in Peru, before the time
of the Incas, men had no separate wives.[255]

To these statements of ancient peoples Sir J. Lubbock adds a few others
concerning modern savages.[256] “The Bushmen of South Africa,” he
says, “are stated to be entirely without marriage.” Sir Edward Belcher
tells us that, in the Andaman Islands, 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.[257] Speaking of the natives of Queen
Charlotte Islands, Mr. Poole says that among them “the institution
of marriage is altogether unknown,” and that the women “cohabit
almost promiscuously with their own tribe, though rarely with other
tribes.”[258] In the Californian Peninsula, according to Baegert, the
sexes met without any formalities, and their vocabulary did not even
contain the word “to marry.”[259] Mr. Hyde states that, in the Pacific
Islands, there was an “utter absence of what we mean by the family,
the household, and the husband; the only thing possible was to keep
the line distinct through the mother, and enumerate the successive
generations with the several putative fathers.”[260] Among the Nairs,
as Buchanan tells us, no one knows his father, and every man looks on
his sister’s children as his heirs; a man may marry several women,
and a woman may be the wife of several men.[261] The Teehurs of Oude
live together almost indiscriminately in large communities, and even
when two people are regarded as married the tie is but nominal.[262]
It is recorded that, among the Tôttiyars of India, “brothers, uncles,
nephews, and other kindred, hold their wives in common.”[263] And
among the Todas of the Neilgherry Hills, when a man marries a girl,
she becomes the wife of all his brothers as they successively reach
manhood, and they become the husbands of all her sisters when they are
old enough to marry.[264]

The Kámilarói tribes in South Australia are divided into four clans,
in which brothers and sisters are respectively Ipai and Ipātha, Kŭbi
and Kubĭtha, Mŭri and Mātha, Kumbu and Būtha. Ipai may only marry
Kubĭtha; Kŭbi, Ipātha; Kumbu, Mātha; and Mŭri, Būtha. In a certain
sense, we are told, every Ipai is regarded as married, not by any
individual contract, but by organic law, to every Kubĭtha; every Kŭbi
to every Ipātha, and so on. If, for instance, a Kŭbi “meet a stranger
Ipātha, they address each other as _spouse_. A Kŭbi thus meeting an
Ipātha, though she were of another tribe, would treat her as his
wife, and his right to do so would be recognised by her tribe.”[265]
This institution, according to which the men of one division, have as
wives the women of another division, the Rev. L. Fison calls “group
marriage.” He contends that, among the South Australians, it has given
way in later times, in some measure, to individual marriage. But
theoretically, as 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.” To this may
be added a statement of the Rev. C. W. Schürmann with reference to the
Port Lincoln aborigines. “As for near relatives, such as brothers,”
he remarks, “it may almost be said that they have their wives in
common.... A peculiar nomenclature has arisen from these singular
connections; a woman honours the brothers of the man to whom she is
married with the indiscriminate name of husbands; but the men make
a distinction, calling their own individual spouses yungaras, and
those to whom they have a secondary claim, by right of brotherhood,
kartetis.”[266]

Speaking of the Fuegians, Admiral Fitzroy says, “We had some reason to
think there were parties who lived in a promiscuous manner—a few women
being with many men.”[267] The Lubus of Sumatra, the Olo Ot, together
with a few other tribes of Borneo, the Poggi Islanders, the Orang Sakai
of Malacca, and the mountaineers of Peling, east of Celebes, are by
Professor Wilken stated to be entirely without marriage.[268] The same
is said by Professor Bastian to be the case with the Keriahs, Kurumbas,
Chittagong tribes, Guaycurûs, Kutchin Indians, and Arawaks.[269] He
states, too, that the Jolah on the island of St. Mary, according to
Hewett, possess their women in common,[270] and that, according to
Magalhães, the like is true of the Cahyapos in Matto Grosso.[271] We
read in Dapper’s old book on Africa, that certain negro tribes had
neither law, nor religion, nor any proper names, and possessed their
wives in common.[272] These are all the statements known to me of
peoples alleged to be without marriage.

In the first place, it must be remarked that some of the facts adduced
are not really instances of promiscuity. Sir Edward Belcher’s statement
as regards the Andamanese evidently suggests monogamy; and among the
Massagetæ and the Teehurs, the occurrence of marriage is expressly
confirmed, though the marriage tie was loose. As for the aborigines
of the Californian Peninsula, it must be remembered that the want of
an equivalent for the verb “to marry” does not imply the want of
the fact itself. Baegert indicates, indeed, that marriage did occur
among them, when he says that “each man took as many wives as he
liked, and if there were several sisters in a family he married them
all together.”[273] And throughout the Pacific Islands, marriage is
a recognized institution. Nowhere has debauchery been practised more
extensively than among the Areois of Tahiti. Yet Mr. Ellis assures us
that, “although addicted to every kind of licentiousness themselves,
each Arcoi had his own wife; ... and so jealous were they in this
respect that improper conduct towards the wife of one of their own
number was sometimes punished with death.”[274]

As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison’s statements have caused not a
little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that, among
the Australian savages, groups of males are actually found united to
groups of females.[275] But after all, Mr. Fison does not seem really
to mean to affirm the present existence of group-marriages. The chief
argument advanced by him 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;[276] but Mr. Fison 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.”[277] The same is granted by Mr. Howitt.[278] Yet it
will be pointed out further on to what absurd results we must be led,
if, guided by such terms, we begin to speculate upon early marriage.
Moreover, if a Kŭbi and an Ipātha address each other as spouse, this
does not imply that in former times every Kŭbi was married to every
Ipātha 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.[279] It seems also as if a communism
in wives among the Port Lincoln aborigines had been inferred by Mr.
Schürmann chiefly from the nomenclature. Indeed, Mr. Curr, who has
procured more information regarding the Australian aborigines than
any other investigator, so far as I know, states that, in Australia,
men and women have never been found living in a state of promiscuous
intercourse, but _the reverse is a matter of notoriety_.[280] “It
seems to me,” he says, “after a careful examination of the subject,
that there is not within our knowledge a single fact, or linguistic
expression which requires us to have recourse to the theory of
group-marriage to explain it, but that there are several ... directly
at variance with that theory.”[281] The Rev. John Mathew asserts also,
in his recent paper on ‘The Australian Aborigines,’ that he fails to
see that group-marriage “has been proven to exist in the past, and it
certainly does not occur in Australia now.”[282] At any rate, it may be
asserted that such group-marriages are different from the promiscuity
which is presumed to have prevailed in primitive society. And this may
with even more reason be said of the marriages of the Tôttiyars, Nairs
and Todas, of which at least those of the Todas have originated, I
believe, in true polyandry.

Many of the assertions made as to peoples living together promiscuously
are evidently erroneous. Travellers are often apt to misapprehend the
manners and customs of the peoples they visit, and we should therefore,
if possible, compare the statements of different writers, especially
when so delicate and private a matter as the relation between the sexes
is concerned. Sir Edward Belcher’s statement about the Andamanese 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.[283] As regards the Bushmans, Sir John Lubbock
does not indicate the source from which he has taken the statement
that they are “entirely without marriage;” all the authorities I have
consulted, unanimously assert the reverse. Burchell was told that even
a second wife is never taken until the first has become old, and that
the old wives remain with the husband on the same terms as before.[284]
Barrow tells us almost the same.[285] Indeed, as we have already seen,
the family is the chief social institution of this people.

With reference to the Fuegians, Mr. Bridges, who has lived amongst
them for thirty years, writes to me, “Admiral Fitzroy’s supposition
concerning parties among the natives who lived promiscuously is false,
and adultery and lewdness are condemned as evil, though through the
strength of animal passions very generally indulged, but never with
the consent of husbands or wives, or of parents.” From the description
of Captain Jacobsen’s recent voyage to the North-Western Coast of
North America, it appears that marriage exists among the Queen
Charlotte Islanders also, although the husbands often prostitute their
wives.[286] As for Professor Wilken’s statements about promiscuity
among some peoples belonging to the Malay race, Professor Ratzel calls
their accuracy in question. At least, among the Lubus, as Herr Van
Ophuijsen assures us, a man has to buy his wife, just as among the
other Malay peoples;[287] and Dr. Schwaner expressly says that all that
we know about the Olo Ot depends on hearsay only.[288] But, according
to him, they are not without marriage.[289]

Some of Professor Bastian’s assertions are most astonishing. Any one
who takes the trouble to read Richardson’s, Kirby’s, or Bancroft’s
account of the Kutchin, will find that polygyny, but not promiscuity,
is prevalent among them, the husbands being very jealous of their
wives.[290] The same is stated by v. Martius about the Arawaks, whose
blood-feuds are generally owing to jealousy and a desire to avenge
violations of conjugal rights.[291] The occurrence of marriage among
them has also been ascertained by Schomburgk and the Rev. W. H.
Brett.[292] The Guaycurûs are said by Lozano to be monogamous,[293]
and so, according to Captain Lewin, are as a rule the Chittagong Hill
tribes, as we shall find later on. Touching the Keriahs, Colonel Dalton
affirms only that they have no word for marriage in their own language,
but he does not deny that marriage itself occurs among them; on the
contrary, it appears that they buy their wives.[294] The Kurumbas
are stated to be without the marriage ceremony, but not without
marriage.[295] And Dapper’s assertion that certain negro tribes have
their women in common, has never, so far as I know, been confirmed by
more recent writers. Dr. Post has found no people in Africa living in
a state of promiscuity;[296] and Mr. Ingham informs me, speaking of
the Bakongo, that “they would be horrified at the idea of promiscuous
intercourse.”

The peoples who may possibly live in a state of promiscuity have thus
been reduced to a very small number. Considering the erroneousness of
so many of the statements on the subject, it is difficult to believe in
the accuracy of the others.[297] Ethnography was not seriously studied
by the ancients, and their knowledge of the African tribes was no doubt
very deficient. Pliny, in the same chapter where he states that, among
the Garamantians, men and women lived in promiscuous intercourse,
reports of another African tribe, the Blemmyans, that they had no head,
and that the mouth and eyes were in the breast.[298] Besides, marriage
is an ambiguous word. The looseness of the marital tie, the frequency
of adultery and divorce, and the absence of the marriage ceremony may
entitle us to say that, among many savage peoples, marriage in the
European sense of the term does not exist. But this is very different
from promiscuity.

Even if some of the statements are right, and the intercourse between
the sexes among a few peoples really is, or has been, promiscuous,
it would be a mistake to infer that these utterly exceptional cases
represent a stage of human development which mankind, as a whole,
has gone through. Further, nothing would entitle us to consider
this promiscuity as a survival of the primitive life of man, or
even as a mark of a very rude state of society. It is by no means
among the lowest peoples that sexual relations most nearly approach
to promiscuity. Mr. Rowney, for instance, states that, among the
Butias, the marriage tie is so loose that chastity is quite unknown,
that the husbands are indifferent to the honour of their wives, that
“the intercourse of the sexes is, in fact, promiscuous.” But the
Butias are followers of Buddha, and “can hardly be counted among
the _wild_ tribes of India, for they are, for the most part, in
good circumstances, and have a certain amount of civilization among
them.”[299] On the other hand, among the lowest races on earth, as
the Veddahs, Fuegians, and Australians, the relation of the sexes are
of a much more definite character. The Veddahs are a truly monogamous
people, and have a saying that “death alone separates husband and
wife.”[300] And with reference to the Australians, Mr. Brough Smyth,
states that “though the marriages of Aboriginals are not solemnized
by any rites, ... it must not be supposed that, as a rule, there is
anything like promiscuous intercourse. When a man obtains a good wife,
he keeps her as a precious possession, as long as she is fit to help
him, and minister to his wants, and increase his happiness. No other
man must look with affection towards her.... Promiscuous intercourse is
abhorrent to many of them.” Among the aborigines of the northern and
central parts of Australia, there are certainly women wholly given up
to common lewdness, and a man is said to be considered a bad host who
will not lend his wife to a guest. But Mr. Brough Smyth thinks that
these practices are modern, and have been acquired since the aborigines
were brought in contact with the lower class of the whites, for “they
are altogether irreconcilable with the penal laws in force in former
times amongst the natives of Victoria.”[301] It seems obvious, then,
that even if there are peoples who actually live promiscuously, these
do not afford any evidence whatever for promiscuity having prevailed
in primitive times. Now let us examine whether the other arguments are
more convincing.

       *       *       *       *       *

“A further fact,” Dr. Post says, “which speaks for sexual intercourse
having originally been unchecked, is the wide-spread custom that the
sexes may cohabit perfectly freely previous to marriage.”[302]

The immorality of many savages is certainly very great, but we must
not believe that it is characteristic of uncivilized races in general.
There are numerous savage and barbarous peoples among whom sexual
intercourse out of wedlock is of rare occurrence, unchastity, at least
on the part of the woman, being looked upon as a disgrace and even as a
crime.

“A Kafir woman,” Barrow says, “is chaste and extremely modest;”[303]
and Mr. Cousins writes to me that, between their various feasts,
the Kafirs, both men and women, have to live in strict continence,
the penalty being banishment from the tribe, if this law is broken.
Proyart states that, among the people of Loango, “a youth durst not
speak to a girl except in her mother’s presence,” and “the crime of
a maid who has not resisted seduction, would be sufficient to draw
down a total ruin on the whole country, were it not expiated by a
public avowal made to the king.”[304] Among the Equatorial Africans,
mentioned by Mr. Winwood Reade, a girl who disgraces her family by
wantonness is banished from her clan; and, in cases of seduction, the
man is severely flogged.[305] In Dahomey, if a man seduces a girl,
the law compels marriage, and the payment of eighty cowries to the
parent or master.[306] In Tessaua, according to Dr. Barth, a fine
of 100,000 kurdi is imposed on the father of a bastard child—a sum
which indicates how seldom such children are born there.[307] Among
the Beni-Mzab, a man who seduces a young girl has to pay two hundred
francs, and is banished for four years.[308] Among the Beni-Amer,
according to Munzinger, the unmarried women are very modest, though
the married women believe that they are allowed everything.[309] Among
the Arab girls in Upper Egypt, unchastity is made impossible by an
operation when they are from three to five years old;[310] and among
the Marea, continence is a scarcely less necessary virtue, as a maiden
or widow who becomes pregnant is killed together with the seducer and
the child.[311] As regards the Kabyles, Messrs. Hanoteau and Letourneux
assert, “Les mœurs ne tolèrent même aucune relation sexuelle en dehors
du mariage.... L’enfant né en dehors du mariage est tué ainsi que sa
mère.”[312]

Among the Central Asian Turks, according to Vámbéry, a fallen girl is
unknown.[313] Among the Kalmucks,[314] as also the Gypsies,[315] the
girls take pride in having gallant affairs, but are dishonoured if
they have children previous to marriage. A seducer among the Tunguses
is bound to marry his victim and pay the price claimed for her.[316]
In Circassia, an incontinent daughter is generally sold as soon as
possible, being a disgrace to her parents.[317] Among the wretched
inhabitants of Lob-nor, “immorality is severely punished.”[318] And
regarding the Let-htas, a Hill Tribe of Burma, Mr. O’Riley states that,
until married, the youth of both sexes are domiciled in two long houses
at opposite ends of the village, and “when they may have occasion
to pass each other, they avert their gaze, so they may not see each
other’s faces.”[319]

As to the aborigines of the Indian Archipelago, Professor Wilken states
that side by side with peoples who indulge in great licentiousness,
there are others who are remarkably chaste. Thus, in Nias, the
pregnancy of an unmarried girl is punished with death, inflicted
not only upon her but upon the seducer.[320] Among the Hill Dyaks,
the young men are carefully separated from the girls, licentious
connections between the sexes being strictly prohibited;[321] and
the Sibuyaus, a tribe belonging to the Sea Dyaks, though they do not
consider the sexual intercourse of their young people a positive crime,
yet attach an idea of great indecency to irregular connections, and are
of opinion that an unmarried woman with child must be offensive to the
superior powers.[322]

By some of the independent tribes of the Philippines also, according
to Chamisso, chastity is held in great honour, “not only among the
women, but also among the young girls, and is protected by very severe
laws;”[323]—a statement which is confirmed by Dr. Hans Meyer and
Professor Blumentritt with reference to the Igorrotes of Luzon.[324]

In New Guinea, too, chastity is strictly maintained.[325] Mr. G.
A. Robinson and the Catechist Clark, who lived for years with the
aborigines, both declare their belief in the virtue of the young
women;[326] and Dr. Finsch assures us that the natives of Dory are,
in that respect, superior to many civilized nations in Europe.[327]
The French naturalists and some English writers spoke highly of the
morality of the young people among the Tasmanians.[328] The women of
Uea, Loyalty Islands, are described by Erskine as “strictly chaste
before marriage, and faithful wives afterwards.”[329] In Fiji, great
continence prevailed among the young folk, the lads being forbidden to
approach women till eighteen or twenty years old.[330] Speaking of the
aborigines of Melanesia, Dr. Codrington remarks, “It is certain that
in these islands generally there was by no means that insensibility
in regard to female virtue with which the natives are so commonly
charged.”[331] In Samoa, the girls were allowed to cohabit with
foreigners, but not with their countrymen,[332] and the chastity of the
chiefs’ daughters was the pride of the tribe. But Mr. Turner remarks
that, though this virtue was ostensibly cultivated here by both sexes,
it was more a name than a reality.[333]

With reference to the Australian natives, Mr. Moore Davis says,
“Promiscuous intercourse between the sexes is not practised by the
Aborigines, and their laws on the subject, particularly those of New
South Wales, are very strict. When at camp, all the young unmarried
men are stationed by themselves at the extreme ends, while the married
men, each with his family, occupy the centre. No conversation is
allowed between the single men and the girls or the married women....
Infractions of these and other laws were visited either by punishment
by any aggrieved member of the tribe, or by the delinquent having
to purge himself of his crime by standing up protected simply by
his shield, or a waddy, while five or six warriors threw, from a
comparatively short distance, several spears at him.”[334] Concerning
several tribes in Western Victoria, Mr. Dawson likewise states that,
at the corroborees and great meetings of the tribes, unmarried adults
of both sexes are kept strictly apart from those of another tribe.
“Illegitimacy is rare,” he says, “and is looked upon with such
abhorrence that the mother is always severely beaten by her relatives,
and sometimes put to death and burned. Her child is occasionally killed
and burned with her. The father of the child is also punished with the
greatest severity, and occasionally killed.”[335]

Turning to the American peoples: among the early Aleuts, according to
Veniaminof, “girls or unmarried females who gave birth to illegitimate
children were to be killed for shame, and hidden.”[336] Egede tells us
that, among the Greenlanders, unmarried women observed the rules of
modesty much better than married women. “During fifteen full years
that I lived in Greenland,” he says, “I did not hear of more than two
or three young women, who were gotten with child unmarried; because
it is reckoned the greatest of infamies.”[337] According to Cranz, a
Greenland maid would take it as an affront were a young fellow even to
offer her a pinch of snuff in company.[338] Among the Northern Indians,
girls are from the early age of eight or nine years prohibited by
custom from joining in the most innocent amusements with children of
the opposite sex. “When sitting in their tent,” says Hearne, “or even
when travelling, they are watched and guarded with such an unremitting
attention as cannot be exceeded by the most rigid discipline of an
English boarding-school.”[339] Mr. Catlin asserts that, among the
Mandans, female virtue is, in the respectable families, as highly
cherished as in any society whatever.[340] Among the Nez Percés,[341]
the Apaches,[342] and certain other North American peoples,[343] the
women are described as remarkably chaste, the seducer being viewed by
some of them with even more contempt than the girl he has dishonoured.
And Dobrizhoffer praises the Abiponian women for their virtuous
life.[344]

If we add to these facts those which will be adduced further on,
showing what man requires in his bride, it must be admitted that
the number of uncivilized peoples among whom chastity, at least as
regards women, is held in honour and, as a rule, cultivated, is very
considerable. There being nothing to indicate that the morality of
those nations ever was laxer, the inference of an earlier stage of
promiscuity from the irregular sexual relations of unmarried people,
could not apply to them, even if such an inference, on the whole,
were right. But this is far from being the case: first, because the
wantonness of savages, in several cases, seems to be due chiefly to the
influence of civilization; secondly, because it is quite different from
promiscuity.

It has been sufficiently proved 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. In Greenland,
says Dr. Nansen, “the Eskimo women of the larger colonies are far
freer in their ways than those of the small outlying settlements where
there are no Europeans.”[345] And the Yokuts of California, amongst
whom the freedom of the unmarried people of both sexes is very great
now, are said to have been comparatively virtuous before the arrival
of the Americans.[346] In British Columbia and Vancouver Island,
“amongst the interior tribes, in primitive times, breaches of chastity
on the part either of married or unmarried females were often punished
with death, inflicted either by the brother or husband;” whilst, among
the fish-eaters of the north-west coast, “it has no meaning, or, if
it has, it appears to be utterly disregarded.”[347] Again, among the
Queen Charlotte Islanders the present depravation has, according to
Captain Jacobsen been caused by the gold diggers who went there in the
middle of this century.[348] Admiral Fitzroy observed, too, that the
unchastity of the Patagonian women did not correspond with the pure
character attributed to them at an earlier time by Falkner, and he
thinks that “their ideas of propriety may have been altered by the
visits of licentious strangers.”[349] A more recent traveller, Captain
Musters, observed, indeed, little immorality amongst the Indians whilst
in their native wilds.[350]

There is, further, no doubt that the licentiousness of many South
Sea Islanders, at least to some extent, owes its origin to their
intercourse with Europeans. When visiting the Sandwich Islands with
Cook, Vancouver saw little or no appearance of wantonness among the
women. But when he visited them some years afterwards, it was very
conspicuous; and he ascribes this change in their habits to their
intercourse with foreigners.[351] Owing to the same influence, the
women of Ponapé and Tana lost their modesty;[352] and the privileges
granted to foreigners in Samoa have been already mentioned. Nay, even
in Tahiti, so notorious for the licentiousness of its inhabitants,
immorality was formerly less than it is now. Thus, as a girl, betrothed
when a child, grew up, “for the preservation of her chastity, a small
platform of considerable elevation was erected for her abode within the
dwelling of her parents. Here she slept and spent the whole of the time
she passed within doors. Her parents, or some member of the family,
attended her by night and by day, supplied her with every necessary,
and accompanied her whenever she left the house. Some of their
traditions,” Ellis adds, “warrant the inference that this mode of
life, in early years, was observed by other females besides those who
were betrothed.”[353]

Speaking of the tribes who once inhabited the Adelaide Plains of South
Australia, Mr. Edward Stephens, who went to Australia about half a
century ago, remarks, “Those who speak of the natives as a naturally
degraded race, either do not speak from experience, or they judge them
by what they have become when the abuse of intoxicants and contact with
the most wicked of the white race have begun their deadly work. As a
rule, to which there are no exceptions, if a tribe of blacks is found
away from the white settlement, the more vicious of the white men are
most anxious to make the acquaintance of the natives, and that, too,
solely for purposes of immorality.... I saw the natives and was much
with them before those dreadful immoralities were well known, ... and I
say it fearlessly, that nearly all their evils they owed to the white
man’s immorality and to the white man’s drink.”[354]

The Rev. J. Sibree tells us that, among most of the tribes of
Madagascar, the unchastity of girls does not give umbrage. But “there
are some other tribes,” he says, “more isolated, as certain of the
eastern peoples, where a higher standard of morality prevails, girls
being kept scrupulously from any intercourse with the other sex until
they are married.”[355]

Nowhere has chastity been more rigorously insisted upon than among the
South Slavonians. A fallen girl among them has lost almost all chance
of getting married. She is commonly despised and often punished in a
very barbarous way; whilst, on the other hand, purity gives a girl a
higher value than the greatest wealth. In some places, a father or a
brother may even kill a man whom he finds with his daughter or sister.
But Dr. Krauss assures us that this rigidity in their morals has
gradually decreased, the more foreign civilization has got a footing
among them.[356]

Again, Professor Ahlqvist believes that illicit intercourse between the
sexes was almost unknown among the ancient Finns, as the terms used
by them with reference to such connections are borrowed from other
languages.[357] And Professor Vámbéry makes the same observation as
regards the primitive Turko-Tartars. “The difference in morality,”
he says, “which exists between the Turks affected by a foreign
civilization and kindred tribes inhabiting the steppes, becomes very
conspicuous to any one living among the Turkomans and Kara-Kalpaks; for
whether in Africa or Asia, certain vices are introduced only by the
so-called bearers of culture.”[358]

Apart from such cases of foreign influence, we may perhaps say that
irregular connections between the sexes have on the whole exhibited
a tendency to increase along with the progress of civilization. Dr.
Fritsch remarks that the Bushmans are much stricter in that matter
than their far more advanced neighbours.[359] Robert Drury assures
us that, in Madagascar, “there are more modest women, in proportion
to the number of people, than in England.”[360] Tacitus praised the
chastity of the Germanic youth, in contrast to the licentiousness of
the highly civilized Romans. These statements may to a certain extent
be considered typical. In Europe, there are born among towns-people, on
an average, twice as many bastard children, in proportion to the number
of births, as among the inhabitants of the country, who generally
lead a more natural life. In France, according to Wappäus, the ratio
was found even so great as 15·13 to 4·24; though in Saxony, with its
manufacturing country people, it was only as 15·39 to 14·64.[361] Nay,
in Gratz and Munich the illegitimate births are even more numerous
than the legitimate.[362] The prostitution of the towns makes the
difference in morality still greater; and unfortunately the evil is
growing. Almost everywhere prostitution increases in a higher ratio
than population.[363] In consideration of these facts, it is almost
ridiculous to speak of the immorality of unmarried people among savages
as a relic of an alleged primitive stage of promiscuity.

There are several factors in civilization which account for this bad
result. The more unnatural mode of living and the greater number of
excitements exercise, no doubt, a deteriorating influence on morality;
and poverty makes prostitutes of many girls who are little more than
children. But the chief factor is the growing number of unmarried
people. It is proved that, in the cities of Europe, prostitution
increases according as the number of marriages decreases.[364] It has
also been established, thanks to the statistical investigations of
Engel and others, that the fewer the marriages contracted in a year,
the greater is the ratio of illegitimate births.[365] Thus, by making
celibacy more common, civilization promotes sexual irregularity. It
is true that more elevated moral feelings, concomitants of a higher
mental development, may, to a certain extent, put the drag on passion.
But in a savage condition of life, where every full-grown man marries
as soon as possible; where almost every girl, when she reaches the age
of puberty, is given in marriage; where, consequently, bachelors and
spinsters are of rare occurrence,—there is comparatively little reason
for illegitimate relations.[366] Marriage, it seems to me, is the
natural form of the sexual relations of man, as of his nearest allies
among the lower animals. Far from being a relic of the primitive life
of man, irregularity in this respect is an anomaly arising chiefly from
circumstances associated with certain stages of human development.

Dr. Post’s argument, as I have said, is open to another objection. Free
sexual intercourse previous to marriage is quite a different thing
from promiscuity, the most genuine form of which is prostitution. But
prostitution is rare among peoples living in a state of nature and
unaffected by foreign influence.[367] It is contrary to woman’s natural
feelings as involving a suppression of individual inclinations. In free
sexual intercourse there is selection; a woman has for one man, or for
several men, a preference which generally makes the connections more
durable.

Nowhere are unmarried people of both sexes less restrained than among
the savage nations of India and Indo-China. Yet among these savage
nations there is no promiscuity. Among the Toungtha, for instance,
according to Captain Lewin, prostitution is not understood, and, when
explained, it is regarded by them with abhorrence. “They draw rightly
a strong distinction between a woman prostituting herself habitually
as a means of livelihood, and the intercourse by mutual consent of
two members of opposite sexes, leading, as it generally does, to
marriage.”[368] Among the Tipperahs,[369] Oráons,[370] and Kolyas[371],
unmarried girls may cohabit freely with young men, but are never found
living promiscuously with them. Among the Dyaks on the Batang Lupar,
too, unchastity is not rare, but a woman usually confines herself
to one lover. “Should the girl prove with child,” says Sir Spenser
St. John, “it is an understanding between them that they marry”;
and the men seldom, by denying the paternity, refuse to fulfil their
engagements.[372] Again, in Tonga, it was considered disgraceful for a
girl to change lovers often. And in Scotland, prior to the Reformation,
there was a practice called “hand-fasting,” which certainly may be
characterized as unrestrained freedom before marriage, but not as
promiscuity. “At the public fairs,” the Rev. Ch. Rogers states, “men
selected female companions with whom to cohabit for a year. At the
expiry of this period both parties were accounted free; they might
either unite in marriage or live singly.”[373]

The attempt to explain free intercourse between unmarried people as
a relic of a primitive condition of general promiscuity or rather,
to infer the latter from the former, must thus, in every respect, be
considered a complete failure.

       *       *       *       *       *

Sir John Lubbock thinks that his hypothesis of “communal marriage”
derives additional support from some curious customs, which he
interprets as acts of expiation for individual marriage. “In many
cases,” he says, “the exclusive possession of a wife could only
be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the pre-existing
communal rights.”[374]

Thus Herodotus states that, in Babylonia, every woman was obliged once
in her life to give herself up, in the temple of Mylitta, to strangers,
for the satisfaction of the goddess; and in some parts of Cyprus, he
tells us, the same custom prevailed.[375] In Armenia, according to
Strabo, there was a very similar law. The daughters of good families
were consecrated to Anaitis, a phallic divinity like Mylitta,
giving themselves, as it appears, to the worshippers of the goddess
indiscriminately.[376] Again, in the valleys of the Ganges, virgins
were compelled before marriage to offer themselves up in the temples
dedicated to Juggernaut. And the same is said to have been customary in
Pondicherry and at Goa.[377]

These practices, however, evidently belong to phallic-worship,
and occurred, as Mr. McLennan justly remarks, among peoples who
had advanced far beyond the primitive state. The farther back we
go, the less we find of such customs in India; “the germ only of
phallic-worship shows itself in the Vedas, and the gross luxuriance
of licentiousness, of which the cases referred to are examples, is of
later growth.”[378]

Ancient writers tell us that, among the Nasamonians and Augilæ,
two Libyan tribes, the _jus primae noctis_ was accorded to all the
guests at a marriage.[379] Garcilasso de la Vega asserts that, in
the province Manta in Peru, marriages took place on condition that
the bride should first yield herself to the relatives and friends of
the bridegroom.[380] In the Balearic Islands, according to Diodorous
Siculus, the bride was for one night considered the common property
of all the guests, after which she belonged exclusively to her
husband.[381] And v. Langsdorf reports the occurrence of a very similar
practice in Nukahiva.[382]

With regard to Sir J. Lubbock’s interpretation of these customs,
as acts of expiation for individual marriage, Mr. McLennan remarks
that they are not cases of privileges accorded to the men of the
bridegroom’s group only, which they should be, if they refer to an
ancient communal right.[383] It may also be noted that, in Nukahiva,
the license was dependent upon the will of the bride. Moreover, the
freedom granted to the wedding guests may be simply and naturally
explained. It may have been a part of the nuptial entertainment—a
horrible kind of hospitality, no doubt, but quite in accordance with
savage ideas, and analogous to another custom, which occurs much more
frequently; I mean the practice of lending wives.

Among many uncivilized peoples, it is customary for a man to offer his
wife, or one of his wives, to strangers for the time they stay in his
hut. Even this practice has been adduced by several writers as evidence
of a former communism.[384] To Sir John Lubbock it seems to involve the
recognition of “a right inherent in every member of the community, and
to visitors as temporary members.” Were this so, we should certainly
have to conclude that “communal marriage” has been very prevalent in
the human race, the practice of lending wives occurring among many
peoples in different parts of the world.[385] But it is difficult to
see how the practice could ever have been in any way connected with
communism in women for all men belonging to the same tribe. It is
not always the wife that is offered; it may as well be a daughter, a
sister, or a servant.[386] Thus the people of Madagascar warn strangers
to behave with decency to their wives, though they readily offer their
daughters;[387] and it is asserted that a Tungus “will give his
daughter for a time to any friend or traveller that he takes a liking
to,” and if he has no daughter, he will give his servant, but not his
wives.[388]

It can scarcely be doubted that such customs are due merely to savage
ideas of hospitality. When we are told that, among the coast tribes
of British Columbia, “the temporary present of a wife is one of the
greatest honours that can be shown there to a guest;”[389] or that
such an offer was considered by the Eskimo “as an act of generous
hospitality;”[390] or, that “this is the common custom when the
negroes wish to pay respect to their guests,”[391]—I cannot see why we
should look for a deeper meaning in these practices than that which
the words imply. A man offers a visitor his wife as he offers him a
seat at his table. It is the greatest honour a savage can show his
guest, as a temporary exchange of wives—a custom prevalent in North
America, Polynesia, and elsewhere[392]—is regarded as a seal of the
most intimate friendship. Hence, among the Greenlanders, those men
were reputed the best and noblest tempered, who, without any pain or
reluctance, would lend their friends their wives:[393] and the men of
Caindu, a region of Eastern Tibet, hoped by such an offering to obtain
the favour of the gods.[394] Indeed, if the practice of lending wives
is to be regarded as a relic of ancient communism in women, we may
equally well regard the practice of giving presents to friends, or
hospitality in other respects, as a remnant of ancient communism in
property of every kind.

The _jus primae noctis_ granted to the friends of the bridegroom may,
however, be derived from another source. Touching the capture of wives,
Mr. Brough Smyth states that, in New South Wales and about Riverina,
“in any instance where the abduction has taken place by a party of
men for the benefit of some one individual, each of the members of the
party claims, as a right, a privilege which the intended husband has
no power to refuse.”[395] A similar custom prevails, according to Mr.
Johnston, among the Wa-taïta in Eastern Central Africa, though the
capture here is a symbol only. After the girl has been bought by the
bridegroom, she runs away and affects to hide. Then she is sought out
by him and three or four of his friends. When she is found, the men
seize her and carry her off to the hut of her future husband, where she
is placed at the disposal of her captors.[396] In such cases the _jus
primae noctis_ is a reward for a good turn done, or perhaps, as Mr.
McLennan suggests,[397] a common war-right, exercised by the captors
of the woman. If we knew all the circumstances, this explanation
might prove to hold good also with regard to the right granted to the
wedding-guests in the cases we have mentioned. At any rate, it must
be admitted that these strange customs may be interpreted in a much
simpler way than that suggested by Sir John Lubbock.

There are some instances of _jus primae noctis_ accorded to
a particular person, a chief or a priest. Thus, among the
Kinipetu-Eskimo, the Ankut, or high-priest has this right.[398] Among
the Caribs, the bridegroom received his bride from the hand of the
Piache, or medicine-man, and certainly not as a virgin.[399] A similar
custom is met with among certain Brazilian tribes, though in some of
these cases it is to the chief that the right in question belongs.[400]
The Spanish nobleman Andagova states that, in Nicaragua, a priest
living in the temple was with the bride during the night preceding her
marriage.[401] And among the Tahus in Northern Mexico according to
Castañeda, the _droit du seigneur_ was accorded to the cacique.[402]

In descriptions of travel in the fifteenth century, the aboriginal
inhabitants of Teneriffe are represented as having married no woman who
had not previously spent a night with the chief, which was considered
a great honour.[403] The same right, according to Dr. Barth, was
presumably granted to the chief of Bagele in Adamáua;[404] and,
according to Herodotus, to the king of the ancient Adyrmachidae.[405]
Navarette tells us that, on the coast of Malabar, the bridegroom
brought the bride to the king, who kept her eight days in his palace;
and the man took it “as a great honour and favour that his king would
make use of her.”[406] Again, according to Hamilton, a Samorin could
not take his bride home for three nights, during which the chief priest
had a claim to her company.[407] Sugenheim believes even that, in
certain parts of France, a similar right was accorded to the higher
clergy during the Middle Ages.[408]

Yet Dr. Karl Schmidt has endeavoured, in a learned work, to prove that
the _droit du siegneur_ never existed in Europe, the later belief in it
being merely “ein gelehrter Aberglaube,” which arose in various ways.
Thus there was classical witness to ancient traditions of tyrants, who
had distinguished themselves by such proceedings as that right was
supposed to legalize. From various parts of the world came reports of
travellers as to tribes among whom defloration was the privilege or
duty of kings, priests, or other persons set apart for the purpose.
A grosser meaning than the words will warrant had, besides, in Dr.
Schmidt’s opinion, been attached to the fine paid by the vassal to
his feudal lord for permission to marry. That law, he says, which is
believed to have extended over a large part of Europe, has left no
evidence of its existence in laws, charters, decretals, trials, or
glossaries.[409]

This is not the proper place to discuss Dr. Schmidt’s hypothesis; but
his arguments do not seem to be conclusive.[410] Several writers speak
of estate-owners in Russia who claimed the _droit du seigneur_ in the
last and even the present century;[411] and a friend of mine informs me
that, when travelling in that country, he met with aged men whose wives
had been victims of the custom. It was certainly a privilege taken by
the law of might. But how in such cases shall we draw the line between
might and what is properly accepted as right?

Bachofen, Giraud-Teulon, Kulischer, and other writers[412] regard the
_jus primae noctis_ accorded to a special person, as a remnant of a
primitive state of promiscuity or “communal marriage.” It is, in
their opinion, a transformation of the ancient communal right, which
was taken away from the community and transferred to those who chiefly
represented it—the priest, the king, or the nobility.

But why may not the practice in question have been simply a consequence
of might? It may be a right taken forcibly by the stronger, or it
may be a privilege voluntarily given to the chief man as a mark of
esteem,—in either case, it depends upon his authority. Indeed, the
right of encroaching upon the marital rights of a subject is not
commonly restricted to the first night only. Where the chief or the
king has the power of life and death, what man can prohibit him from
doing his will? “Quite indisputed,” Dr. Holub says, with reference to
the Marutse, “is the king’s power to put to death, or to make a slave
of any one of his subjects in any way he choses; he may take a man’s
wife simply by providing him with another wife as a substitute.”[413]
In Dahomey, all women belong to the king, who causes every girl to
be brought to him before marriage, and, if he pleases, retains her
in the palace.[414] Among the Negroes in Fida, according to Bosman,
the captains of the king, who have to supply him with fresh wives,
immediately present to him any beautiful virgin they may see; and none
of his subjects dare presume to offer objections.[415] In Persia, it
was a legal principle that whatever was touched by the king remained
immaculate, and that he might go into the harem of any of his
subjects.[416] Among the Kukis, “all the women of the village, married
or single, are at the pleasure of the rajah,” who is regarded by his
people with almost superstitious veneration.[417] The Kalmuck priests,
who are not suffered to marry, may, it is said, pass a night with any
man’s wife, and this is esteemed a favour by the husband.[418] And
in Chamba (probably Cochin China), Marco Polo tells us, no woman was
allowed to marry until the king had seen her.[419]

According to Dr. Zimmermann, it is a dogma among many Malays that
the rajah has the entire disposal of the wives and children of his
subjects.[420] In New Zealand, when a chief desires to take to himself
a wife, he fixes his attention upon one and takes her, if need be by
force, without consulting her feelings and wishes, or those of any one
else.[421] In Tonga, the women of the lower people were at the disposal
of the chiefs, who even used to shoot the husbands, if they made
resistance;[422] whilst in Congo, as we are told by Mr. Reade, when the
king takes a fresh concubine, her husband and all her lovers are put to
death.[423]

In the interesting ‘Notes of a Country Clergyman’ in _Russkaja
Stariná_ (‘Russian Antiquity’), much light is thrown on the life of
Russian landlords before the emancipation of the serfs. Here is what is
said of one of them:—“Often N. I—tsch would stroll late in the evening
about his village to admire the prosperous condition of his peasants;
he would stop at some cottage, look in at the window, and tap on the
pane with his finger. This tapping was well known to everybody, and
in a moment the best-looking woman of the family went out to him....
Another landlord, whenever he visited his estate, demanded from the
manager, immediately after his arrival, a list of all the grown-up
girls. Then,” the author continues, “the master took to his service
each of the girls for three or four days, and as soon as the list was
finished, he went off to another village. This occurred regularly every
year.”[424]

Here we have a collection of facts, belonging, as I think, to the same
group as the _jus primae noctis_ is of a chief or a priest. And it is
obvious that they have nothing to do with “communal marriage.” The
privilege accorded to the priest, however, seems, in some cases, to
have a purely religious origin. Thus, Egede informs us that the native
women of Greenland thought themselves fortunate if an Angekokk, or
prophet, honoured them with his caresses; and some husbands even paid
him, because they believed that the child of such a holy man could not
but be happier and better than others.[425] Von Martius thinks that
the right granted to the medicine-man among the Brazilian aborigines
is owing to savage ideas of woman’s impurity.[426] And on the coast
of Malabar, Hamilton says, the bride was given to the chief priest,
“because the first fruits of her nuptials must be a holy oblation to
the god she worships.”[427]

       *       *       *       *       *

Yet another group of facts is adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of
ancient communism in women. Sir J. Lubbock and Professor Giraud-Teulon
cite some cases of courtesans being held in greater estimation than
women married to a single husband, or, at least, being by no means
despised.[428] Such feelings, Sir John believes, would naturally arise
“when the special wife was a stranger and a slave, while the communal
wife was a relative and a free woman,” and would, in some instances,
long survive the social condition to which they owed their origin.[429]
The courtesans are thus regarded as representatives of the communal
wives of primitive times. But it seems to me much more reasonable to
suppose that if, in Athens and India, courtesans were respected and
sought after even by the principal men, it was because they were the
only educated women.[430] Besides, as Mr. McLennan justly remarks with
regard to such “communal wives,” “if any inference is to be made from
their standing in Athens, in the brilliant age of Pericles, as to the
state of matters in the primitive groups, proof of primitive communism
in women might as well be sought in London or Paris in our own day. Far
back in the interval between savagery and the age of Pericles are the
heroes of Homer with their noble wedded wives.”[431]

It is true that, among some uncivilized peoples, women having many
gallants are esteemed better than virgins, and are more anxiously
desired in marriage. This is, for instance, stated to be the case with
the Indians of Quito,[432] the Laplanders in Regnard’s days,[433] and
the Hill Tribes of North Aracan.[434] But in each of these cases we
are expressly told that want of chastity is considered a merit in the
bride, because it is held to be the best testimony to the value of
her attractions. There are thus various reasons why courtesans and
licentious women may be held in respect and sought after, and we need
not, therefore, resort to Sir John Lubbock’s far-fetched hypothesis.




CHAPTER V

A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

(_Continued_)


We are indebted to Mr. Lewis H. Morgan for information as to the
names of various degrees of kinship among no fewer than 139 different
races or tribes. This collection shows that very many peoples have
a nomenclature of relationships quite different from our own. Mr.
Morgan divides the systems into two great classes, the descriptive
and the classificatory, which he regards as radically distinct. “The
first,” he says, “which is that of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian
families, rejecting the classification of kindred, except so far as
it is in accordance with the numerical system, describes collateral
consanguinei, for the most part, by an augmentation or combination of
the primary terms of relationship. These terms, which are those for
husband and wife, father and mother, brother and sister, and son and
daughter, to which must be added, in such languages as possess them,
grandfather and grandmother, and grandson and granddaughter, are thus
restricted to the primary sense in which they are here employed. All
other terms are secondary. Each relationship is thus made independent
and distinct from every other. But the second, which is that of the
Turanian, American Indian, and Malayan families, rejecting descriptive
phrases in every instance, and reducing consanguinei to great classes,
by a series of apparently arbitrary generalizations, applies the
same terms to all the members of the same class. It thus confounds
relationships, which, under the descriptive system, are distinct, and
enlarges the signification both of the primary and secondary terms
beyond their seemingly appropriate sense.”[435]

The most primitive form of the classificatory group is the system
of the “Malayan family,”[436] which prevails among the Hawaiians,
Kingsmill Islanders, Maoris, and, presumably, also among several
other Polynesian and Micronesian tribes.[437] According to this
system, all consanguinei, near and remote, are classified into five
categories. My brothers and sisters and my first, second, third, and
more remote male and female cousins, are the first category. To all
these without distinction I apply the same term. My father and mother,
together with their brothers and sisters, and their first, second, and
more remote cousins, are the second category. To all these without
distinction I apply likewise the same term. The brothers, sisters, and
several cousins of my grandparents I denominate as if they were my
grandparents; the cousins of my sons and daughters, as if they were
my sons and daughters; the grandchildren of my brothers and sisters
and their several cousins, as if they were my own grandchildren. All
the individuals of the same category address each other as if they
were brothers and sisters. Uncleship, auntship, and cousinship being
ignored, we have, as far as the nomenclature is considered, only
grandchildren.[438]

From this system of nomenclature all the others belonging to the
classificatory group have, according to Mr. Morgan, been gradually
developed. The system of the Two-Mountain Iroquois differs from that
of the Hawaiians essentially in two respects only, the mother’s
brother being distinguished by a special term, and so also a sister’s
children. The Micmac system is somewhat more advanced. Not only does
a man call his sister’s son his nephew, but a woman applies the same
term to her brother’s son; and not only is a mother’s brother termed
an uncle, but also the father’s sister is distinguished by a special
term, as an aunt. A father’s brother is called a “little father;”
and a mother’s sister, a “little mother.” Still more advanced is the
system of the Wyandots, which may be regarded as the typical system of
the Indians.[439] A mother’s brother’s son and a father’s sister’s son
are no longer called by the same terms as brothers, but are recognized
as cousins; and women apply to their mother’s brother’s grandsons no
longer the same term as to their sons, but call them nephews.

It is needless to enter into further details. Those who shrink from
the trouble of reading through Mr. Morgan’s extensive tables, will
find an excellent summary of them in the fifth chapter of Sir John
Lubbock’s great work on ‘The Origin of Civilization.’ It may, however,
be added that the most advanced system of the classificatory group is
that of the Karens and Eskimo, which differs from our own in three
respects only. The children of cousins are termed nephews; the children
of nephews, grandchildren; and a grandfather’s brothers and sisters,
respectively, grandfathers and grandmothers. “Hence,” says Sir John
Lubbock, “though the Karens and Eskimo have now a far more correct
system of nomenclature than that of many other races, we find, even in
this, clear traces of a time when these peoples had not advanced in
this respect beyond the lowest stage.”[440]

From these systems of nomenclature Mr. Morgan draws very far-reaching
conclusions, assuming that they are necessarily to be explained by
early marriage customs. Thus, from the “Malayan system,” he infers
the former prevalence of “marriage in a group” of all brothers
and sisters and cousins of the same grade or generation; or, more
correctly, his case is, that if we can explain the “Malayan system”
on the assumption that such a general custom once existed, then we
must believe that it did formerly exist. “Without this custom,” he
says, “it is impossible to explain the origin of the system from the
nature of descents. There is, therefore, a necessity for the prevalence
of this custom amongst the remote ancestors of all the nations which
now possess the classificatory system, if the system itself is to
be regarded as having a natural origin.”[441] The family resulting
from this custom he calls, in his latest work, the “consanguine
family,” and in this, consisting of a body of kinsfolk, within which
there prevailed promiscuity, or “communal marriage,” between all men
and women of the same generation, the family in its first stage is
recognized.[442] Mr. Morgan believes, however, that as a necessary
condition antecedent to this form of the family, promiscuity, in a
wider sense of the term, may be theoretically deduced, though, as he
says, “it lies concealed in the misty antiquity of mankind beyond the
reach of positive knowledge.”[443]

It is needless here to consider whether the last conclusion holds good.
I shall endeavour to prove that Mr. Morgan’s inference of a stage of
promiscuous intercourse even within the prescribed limits is altogether
untenable. All depends on the point whether the “classificatory
system” is a system of blood-ties, the nomenclature having been founded
on blood-relationship, as near as the parentage of individuals could be
known. Mr. Morgan assumes this, instead of proving it.

Yet in the terms themselves there is, generally, nothing which
indicates that they imply an idea of consanguinity. Professor Buschmann
has given us a very interesting list of the names for father and
mother in many different languages.[444] The similarity of the terms
is striking. “Pa,” “papa,” or “baba,” for instance, means father in
several languages of the Old and New World, and “ma,” “mama,” means
mother. The Tupis in Brazil have “paia” for father, and “maia” for
mother;[445] the Uaraguaçú, respectively, “paptko” and “mamko.”[446]
In other languages the terms for father are “ab,” “aba,” “apa,”
“ada,” “ata,” “tata”; those for mother, “ama,” “emä,” “ana,”
“ena,” &c. According to Buschmann, there are four typical forms of
words for each of these ideas: for father, “pa,” “ta,” “ap,” “at”;
for mother, “ma,” “na,” “am,” “an.” Sometimes, however, the meaning
of the types is reversed. Thus, in Georgian,[447] as well as in the
Mahaga language of Ysabel,[448] “mama” stands for father; whilst the
Tuluvas in Southern India call the father “amme,” and the mother
“appe.”[449]

The terms used often fall outside of the types mentioned. In the Lifu
tongue, for example, one term for father is “kaka;”[450] in the Duauru
language of Baladea, “chicha”;[451] in the Maréan tongue, “chacha”
or “cheche.”[452] Again, among the Chalcha Mongols and some related
peoples, mother is “ekè.”[453] In the Kanúri language, of Central
Africa, the mother is called “ya”;[454] while the Kechua in Brazil
call the father “yaya.”[455] Among the Bakongo, as I am informed by
Mr. Ingham, “se” means father; in Finnish, “isä.” Again, by the
Brazilian Bakaĭri, the mother is called “ise”;[456] and, by the people
of Aneiteum, New Hebrides, “risi.”[457]

Similar terms are often used for other relationships. The Greek,
“πάππος” signifies grandfather, and “μάμμα” grandmother. In the
Kanúri language, “yaya” stands for elder brother;[458] and, in
Lifuan, “mama” and “dhina” are terms for brother, whilst mother is
“thine.”[459]

The origin of such terms is obvious. They are formed from the easiest
sounds a child can produce. “‘Pa-pa,’ ‘ma-ma,‘ 'tata,’ and
‘apa,’ ‘ama,’ ‘ata,’” Professor Preyer says, “emerge originally
spontaneously, the way of the breath being barred at the expiration,
either by the lips (_p_, _m_), or by the tongue (_d_, _t_).”[460]
Yet the different races vary considerably with regard to the ease
with which they produce certain sounds. Thus the pronunciation of the
labials is very difficult to many Indians,[461] on account of which
their terms for father, mother, or other near kinsfolk, often differ
much from the types given by Professor Buschmann.

It is evident that the terms borrowed from the children’s lips have
no intrinsic meaning whatever. Hence, if a Bakaĭri child calls its
father and father’s brother “tsogo,” its mother and mother’s sister
“tsego”;[462] if a Macúsi names his paternal uncle “papa” as well as
his father, and an Efatese names his father and all the tribe brothers
of his father “ava” or “tama”;[463] if the Dacotahs apply the term
“ahta” not only to the father, but also to the father’s brother, to
the mother’s sister’s husband, to the father’s father’s brother’s son,
&c., and the term “enah” not only to the mother, but also to the
mother’s sister, to the mother’s mother’s sister’s daughter, &c.;[464]
if, among the New Caledonians, an uncle, taking the place of a father,
is called “baba” like the father himself, and an aunt is called
“gnagna” like a mother;[465] if, as Archdeacon Hodgson of Zanzibar,
writes to me, a native of Eastern Central Africa uses the words “baba”
and “mama” not only for father and mother respectively, but also, very
commonly, for “any near relationship or even external connection;” if,
finally, the Semitic word for father, “ab” (“abu”), is not only used
in a wide range of senses, but, to quote Professor Robertson Smith,
“in all dialects is used in senses quite inconsistent with the idea
that procreator is the radical meaning of the word,”[466]—we certainly
must not, from these designations, infer anything as to early marriage
customs.

Of course there are other terms applied to kinsfolk besides words
taken from the lips of children, or words derived from these. But
though considerable, their number has been somewhat exaggerated.
Thus, for instance, Professor Vámbéry, in his work upon the primitive
culture of the Turko-Tartars, says that the terms for mother, “ana”
or “ene” have originally the meaning of woman or nurse, being derived
from the roots “an” and “en.”[467] Exactly the reverse seems to be
the fact, the terms for mother being the primitive words. In the same
way, I cannot but think that Professor Max Müller and several other
philologists are in error in deriving “pitár,” “pater,” “father,”
from the root “pa,” which means to protect, to nourish; and “mâtár,”
“mater,” “mother,” from the root “ma,” to fashion.[468] It seems,
indeed, far more natural, as has been pointed out by Sir J. Lubbock
and others, that the roots “pa,” to protect, and “ma,” to fashion,
come from “pa,” father, and “ma,” mother, and not _vice versa_.[469]
I am the more inclined to accept this explanation, as Mr. A. J. Swann
informs me, from Kavala Island, Lake Tanganyika, that among the Waguha,
the words “baba,” and “tata,” which mean father, also have the
meaning of protector, provider.

I do not deny that relationships—especially in the collateral and
descending lines—are in some cases denoted by terms derived from roots
having an independent meaning; but the number of those that imply an
idea of consanguinity does not seem to be very great. Mr. Bridges
writes that, among the Yahgans, “the names ‘imu’ and ‘dabi’—father and
mother—have no meaning apart from their application, neither have any
of their other very definite and ample list of terms for relatives,
except the terms ‘macu’ and ‘macipa’ son and daughter. These terms
refer to ‘magu’ which means parturition; ‘cipa’ (‘keepa’) signifies
woman or female.” In Bakongo, according to Mr. Ingham, “se” and
“tata” denote father; “mama,” “mbuta,” and “ngudi,” mother;
“nfumu,” elder brother or sister; “mbunzi,” younger brother; and
“mbusi,” younger sister. “Nfumu” means also Sir, chief; “mbuta”
means “the one who bore,” from “buta,” or “wuta,” to beget; and
“ngudi,” “the one we descended from.” Again, Mr. Radfield informs
me that, in the language of Lifu, the term for father means root;
the term for mother, foundation or vessel; the term for sister,
forbidden or “not to be touched;” and the terms for eldest and younger
brother, respectively, ruler and ruled. It is possible—I should even
say probable—that, in these instances also, the designations for
relationships are the radical words. Besides, it should be observed
that, in Yahgan, “the terms for relatives are strictly reserved for
such, neither are they interchanged,” and that in Bakongo, the terms
“tata” and “mama” are used as signs of respect to any one, whilst
the terms “mbuta” and “ngudi” seem to be applied exclusively to the
mother.

Not only has Mr. Morgan given no evidence for the truth of his
assumption that the “classificatory system” is a system of blood-ties,
but this assumption is not even fully consistent with the facts he
has himself stated. It is conceivable that uncertainty as regards
fatherhood might have led a savage to call several men his fathers, but
an analogous reason could never have induced him to name several women
his mothers. Hence, if a man applies the same term to his mother’s
sisters as to his mother, and he himself is addressed as a son by a
woman who did not give birth to him, this evidently shows that the
nomenclature, at least in certain cases, cannot be explained by the
nature of descent.[470]

There can be scarcely any doubt that the terms for relationships are,
in their origin, terms of address. “The American Indians,” says
Mr. Morgan, “always speak to each other, when related, by the term
of relationship, and never by the personal name of the individual
addressed.”[471] From a psychological point of view, it would, indeed,
be surprising if it could be shown that primitive men, in addressing
all the different members of their family or tribe, took into
consideration so complicated a matter as the degree of consanguinity.
Can we really believe that a savage whose intelligence, perhaps, was so
deficient that he was scarcely able to count his own fingers, applied
the same term to his cousins as to his brothers, because he was not
certain whether, after all, they were not his brothers and that, when
he did make a distinction between them, he did so _because_ they were
begotten by different fathers? Facts show that savages generally
denominate their kindred according to much simpler principles, the
names being given chiefly with reference to sex and age, as also to the
external or social, relationship in which the speaker stands to the
person whom he addresses.

In every language there are different designations for persons of
different sexes. In the rudest system of nomenclature, the Hawaiian,
father and other kinsmen of the same generation are called “makua
kana;” mother, mother’s sisters, father’s sisters, &c., “makua
waheena,” “kana” and “waheena” being the terms for male and female.
A son is called “kaikee kana,” a daughter “kaikee waheena,” whilst
“kana” alone is applied to husband, husband’s brother, and sister’s
husband, and “waheena” to wife, wife’s sister, brother’s wife, &c.

There are also separate terms in every language for relations belonging
to different generations. Among the lower races especially, age, or,
more exactly, the age of the person spoken to compared with that of the
speaker, plays a very important part in the matter of denomination.
According to Dr. Davy, the Veddahs appear to be without names; “a
Veddah interrogated on the subject, said, ‘I am called a man: when
young, I was called the little man: and when old, I shall be called
the old man.’”[472] The Hawaiians, as we are informed by Judge
Andrews, have no definite general word for brother in common use. But
“kaikuaána” signifies any one of my brothers, or male cousins, older
than myself, I being a male, and any one of my sisters, or female
cousins, older than myself, I being a female; whilst “kaikaina”
signifies a younger brother of a brother, or a younger sister of a
sister.[473] Such distinguishing epithets applied to older and younger
are, in fact, very frequently met with among uncivilized peoples. Thus,
touching the Andamanese, Mr. Man states that “brothers and sisters
speak of one another by titles that indicate relative age: that is,
their words for brother and sister involve the distinction of elder or
younger.” A like system is adopted by them in respect to half-brothers,
half-sisters, cousins, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law.[474] In
certain languages, too, there are special terms for an uncle on the
father’s side older than the father, and for an uncle younger than
he;[475] and in the Fulfúlde tongue, the age of the uncles is so
minutely specified, that the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth
uncle, on both the father’s and the mother’s side, are each called by a
particular name.[476]

The wider meaning in which many terms for kinship are used bear witness
in the same direction. The Rev. J. Sibree states that, in Hova, “ray,”
father, does not take the sense the corresponding word in many Semitic
languages has, of “maker” of a thing, but it is used in a wide sense
as an elder or superior; and “rény,” mother, is also used in a
wide sense as a respectful way of addressing an elderly woman.[477]
Mr. Swann writes to me that, among the Waguha, West Tanganyika, men
advanced in years are termed “baba,” father, whilst, in other parts
of Equatorial Africa, according to Mr. Reade, old men are addressed as
“rera,” father, and old women as “ngwe,” mother.[478] The Russian
“batushka” and “matushka,” as also the Swedish “far” and “mor,”
are often used in a similar way. Again, Mr. Cousins asserts that,
among the natives of Cis-Natalian Kafirland, the terms for father,
mother, brother, and sister, are not restricted to them only, but are
applied equally to other persons of a similar age, whether related
or otherwise. “‘Bawo,’ father,” he says, “means elder or older,
‘bawo-kulu’ means a big-father, one older than father.” Probably
“bawo,” as belonging to the type “pa,” was originally used as a
term of address, from which the sense of elder or older was derived;
but this does not interfere with the matter in question. The Rev. E.
Casalis, writing of the Basutos, states that “in addressing a person
older than one’s self, one says, ‘My father, my mother;’ to an equal,
‘My brother;’ and to inferiors, ‘My children.’”[479] The Finnish
“isä” and the Votyak “ai,” father, the Lappish “Aja,” and the
Esthonian “äi,” grandfather, are evidently related to, and probably
the roots of, the Finnish “iso” and “äijä” which mean big.[480] The
Chukchi use, besides “atta” for father and “mámang” for mother,
“empynátchyo” and “émpyngau” respectively, which obviously have the
same root as “émpytchin,” elder or older.[481] The Brazilian Uainumá
call a father “paii,” but also “pechyry,” _i.e._, old.[482] “Les
jeunes Australiens,” says Bishop Salvado, “ont coutume d’appeler
‘mama’ ou ‘maman’ (c’est-à-dire-père) tous les vieillards, comme
aussi ‘N-angan’ (ou mère) les femmes avancées en âge.”[483] According
to Nicolaus Damascenus, the Galactophagi denominated “all old men
fathers; young men, sons; and those of equal age, brothers.”[484] In
German, the parents are “die Eltern,” the older (“die Aelteren”),
and they are also called familiarly “die Alten;” the father, “der
Alte;” and the mother, “die Alte” or “Altsche.”[485] Again, among
the North American Indians, old people are very commonly named
grandfathers and grandmothers;[486] whilst the Finnish “ämmä” does
not signify grandmother only, but old woman in general.[487] Among the
Tsuishikari Ainos, the maternal grandfather and grandmother of a child
are called both by _him_, and his _father_, “henki” and “unarabe”
respectively.[488]

As to the collateral line, it should be observed that, in Ćagatai, an
elder sister is called “egeći,” which actually means old woman “ege,”
old, big; “eći,” woman, sister.[489] In Hungarian, where “bátya”
stands for elder brother, an uncle is “nagybátya,” _i.e._, a big elder
brother.[490] Among many Ural-Altaic peoples, the same term is applied
to an elder brother as to an uncle, to an elder sister as to an
aunt.[491] Were we to follow Mr. Morgan’s way of reasoning, we should,
from this nomenclature, come to very curious conclusions as to the
early marriage customs of the peoples in question.

Again, in the Galibi language of Brazil, “tigami” signifies young
brother, son, and little child indiscriminately;[492] and several
languages have no other words for son and daughter than those for lad
and girl.[493] Thus, in Hawaiian, a son is called male child, or more
properly, little male; and a daughter, female child or girl.[494] Mr.
George Bridgman states that, among the Mackay blacks of Queensland, the
word for daughter is used by a man for any young woman belonging to
the class which his daughter would belong to if he had one.[495] And,
speaking of the South Australians, Eyre says, “In their intercourse
with each other, natives of different tribes are exceedingly
punctilious and polite; ... almost everything that is said is prefaced
by the appellation of father, son, brother, mother, sister, or some
other similar term, corresponding to that degree of relationship
which would have been most in accordance with their relative ages and
circumstances.”[496]

All those names, refer, as previously mentioned, not to the absolute,
but to the relative, age of the person addressed. Often, too, there is
a certain relativity in the use of words denominating sex. Mr. Dall
remarks, for instance, that among the Eskimo, the form of the terms
of relationship “appears to depend in some cases more on the sex of
the speaker than on that of the person to whom the term refers.” In
Eastern Central Africa, “if a man have a brother and a sister, he is
called one thing by the brother, but quite a different thing by the
sister.”[497] And several other instances of the same kind are to be
found in Mr. Morgan’s tables.

As for the third factor influencing the terms of address—_i.e._, the
social relationship which exists between the addresser and the one
addressed,—it is obvious that different designations are applied to
enemies and friends, to strangers and members of the family-circle,
nay, generally, to persons to whom one stands in an altogether
different external relationship. The importance of this factor is
evident from several statements. Thus, among the Hovas, according to
Mr. Sibree, the words for brother and sister “are also used widely
for any person whom one meets and desires to act towards in a friendly
manner.”[498] The Fuegians says Mr. Bridges, form certain kinds of
friendships, and “speak of aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins,
nieces and nephews, &c., which are only so through the friendships
established.”[499] Among the Waguha, strangers are called “ndugu,”
brother, if of the same tribe;[500] and Mr. Hartshorne tells us that
the Veddahs applied to him the term “hura,” or cousin.[501] We
can understand, then, why the same name, as a rule, is used by the
savage to denote just the persons of the same sex and of like age
who belong to his own family-circle; and why, as a consequence, the
nomenclature is rich or poor according as that circle is small or
large. The Yahgans, for instance, who live in families rather than in
tribes, have a very definite list of terms for kinsfolk. They have
different appellations for nephews and nieces on the brother’s side,
and nephews and nieces on the sister’s side, and their words for
uncle and aunt differ according as this relationship is paternal or
maternal. They have also special terms for father-, mother-, son-and
daughter-, brother-and sister-in-law.[502] On the other hand, the
larger, the body of kinsfolk that keep closely together, and the less
it is differentiated, as regards the functions of its various members,
the more comprehensive are generally the terms of address. The
“classificatory system of relationship” must, therefore, have emerged
at a time when the separate families had already united in larger
bodies.

The same principle explains how it happens that a maternal uncle is
almost always distinguished from a father by a separate term, whilst
this is not the case with an uncle on the father’s side, the former
generally living in another community from his nephew, and, besides,
very frequently standing to him in a quite peculiar relationship
through the rules of succession. It may be fairly assumed, too, that
a mother’s sister much oftener than a father’s sister is called a
mother, because sisters, among savages, keep as a rule, far more
closely together, when married, than brothers and sisters; sometimes
even, especially among the North American Indians, they are the wives
of the same man. If we add to this that a father’s brother’s son and
a mother’s sister’s son are more commonly addressed as brothers than
as father’s sister’s son and a mother’s brother’s son, it becomes
obvious to how great an extent the nomenclature is influenced by
external relations. But as a certain kind of external relationship is
invariably connected with a certain degree, or certain degrees, of
blood-relationship, the designations given with reference to the former
have been taken as terms for the latter.

The basis on which Mr. Morgan has built his hypothesis must be
considered, then, altogether untenable.[503] It cannot be proved
that, where the “classificatory system” prevails, the nomenclature
was intended to express the degree of consanguity so exactly as
he assumes, or that it had originally anything whatever to do with
descent. On the contrary, I have endeavoured to show that the case
was probably just the reverse; so that no inference regarding early
marriage customs is to be drawn from the terms for relationships. Even
now, in Spanish, a brother’s great-grandson is called grandson; in
Bulgarian, as also in Russian, a father’s father’s brother is termed a
grandfather, and a father’s father’s sister a grandmother; the Greek
“ἁνεψιός” appears to have been applied to a nephew, a grandson, and a
cousin; “neef,” in Dutch, still expresses these three relationships
indiscriminately; in Flemish and Platt Deutsch, “nichte” is applied
to a female cousin as well as to a niece; and Shakspeare, in his will,
describes his granddaughter, Susannah Hall, as “my niece.”[504]
Surely, nobody would look upon these designations as relics of ancient
times, when there really might have been some uncertainty as to kinship
in the direction which the terms indicate. Mr. Morgan himself admits
that, in Latin, “nepos” did not originally signify “either a nephew,
grandson or cousin, but that it was used promiscuously to designate a
class of persons next without the primary relationships.”[505]

       *       *       *       *       *

Thirty years ago, in a work of prodigious learning,[506] the Swiss
jurist, Dr. Bachofen, drew attention to the remarkable fact that a
system of “kinship through mothers only” prevailed among several
ancient peoples. Moreover, partly from actual statements of old
writers, partly from traditions and myths, he came to the conclusion
that such a system everywhere preceded the rise of “kinship through
males.” A few years later, though quite independently of him, Mr.
McLennan set forth exactly the same hypothesis, being led to it
chiefly by extensive studies in modern ethnology. While, however,
Bachofen explained the phenomenon as a consequence of the supremacy
of women, Mr. McLennan regarded it as due to the uncertain paternity
which resulted from early promiscuity. “It is inconceivable,” he
says, “that anything but the want of certainty on that point could
have long prevented the acknowledgment of kinship through males; and
in such cases we shall be able to conclude that such certainty has
formerly been wanting—that more or less promiscuous intercourse between
the sexes has formerly prevailed. The connection between these two
things—uncertain paternity and kinship through females only, seems so
necessary—that of cause and effect—that we may confidently infer the
one where we find the other.”[507]

It must be observed that the facts adduced as examples of what Mr.
McLennan calls “kinship through females only” in most instances imply,
chiefly, that children are named after their mothers, not after their
fathers, and that property and rank succeed exclusively in the female
line. If these customs were to be explained as relics of ancient
promiscuity, we certainly should have to admit that such a state was
formerly very prevalent in the human race. Yet we could not be sure
that it prevailed universally. For, though the number of peoples among
whom descent and inheritance follow the mother’s side only, is very
considerable,[508] the number of those among whom the male line is
recognized, is scarcely less—even apart from the civilized nations
of Europe and Asia. At present, when anthropologists affirm with so
much assurance that a system of exclusive “kinship through females”
prevailed everywhere before the tie of blood between father and child
had found a place in systems of relationships, it seems appropriate to
give a list of peoples among whom such a system does _not_ prevail—a
list, however, which cannot pretend to completeness.

Starting, then, with North America, which is acknowledged to be, or to
have been, one of the chief centres of “mother-right,” or metrocracy,
we meet there with many aboriginal nations among whom a son, as a rule
takes the father’s name and becomes his heir.[509] Thus Cranz states
that, among the Eskimo of Greenland, “when a husband dies, his eldest
son inherits his house, tent, and woman’s boat, and besides must
maintain the mother and children, who share the furniture and clothes
amongst themselves.”[510] Among the Indians bordering on the south-east
coast of the river St. Lawrence, according to Heriot, the eldest son
took the name of his father with the addition of one syllable.[511] The
Californian tribes[512] and the Dacotahs[513] recognized chieftainship
as hereditary in the male line; and, with reference to the latter,
Mr. Prescott remarks that they cannot well forget relationships, as
the names of father and mother are both recollected for three or four
generations.[514] Among the Ahts, the eldest son takes all the property
left by his father, and the head-chiefs rank is hereditary in the male
line.[515] The paternal system prevails, moreover, in thirteen other
tribes mentioned by Mr. Frazer in his essay on “Totemism.”[516]

In Mexico, Yucatan, San Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, succession
ran from father to son; and in Vera Paz, according to Las Casas,
kinship was so exclusively recognized in the male line, that the people
there thought the most remote kin in their own lineage to be more
closely related than the daughter of their mother, provided she was
not of the same father. On the other hand, Piedrahita tells us that,
among the Chibchas, the sons of sisters, and, in default of such, the
brothers of the king, were the heirs to the crown of Bogota, but that
the sons had a right to the personal property of their father; whilst,
according to Herrera, the property was inherited by the brothers, and
if there were none living, by the _sons_ of those who were dead.[517]

Among the Caribs, kinship was reckoned in the female line, but the
authority of the chiefs was hereditary in the male line only, the
children of sisters being excluded from the succession.[518] Among
the Macas Indians in Ecuador, property descends from father to
son;[519] among the Guaycurûs, Abipones, and Araucanians, nobility, or
chieftainship, was hereditary in the male line;[520] and the Brazilian
aborigines, or at least some of them, laid particular stress upon
kinship through fathers.[521] Again, with reference to the Yahgans of
Tierra del Fuego, Mr. Bridges writes, “A child belongs equally to the
clan of its father and mother as regards duty of revenge, but is always
reckoned a member of the father’s clan only. Children are generally
named after their grandparents, paternal or maternal indifferently.
They are quite as much attached to their mother’s relatives and these
to them, as to their paternal relatives; the only difference is that
they are integral parts of the father’s clan, not of the mother’s.”
Speaking of the same people, M. Hyades remarks, “L’héritage se
transmet à l’époux survivant, ou à défaut, au fils aîné.”[522] In
short, the paternal system, so far as we know, predominates among the
aborigines of South America.

Passing to the Pacific Islands, we find that, though rank and clan
are commonly inherited there through the mother, property generally
goes in the male line. In Tonga, the son succeeds his father in homage
and title,[523] and here, as well as in Fiji, on the father’s death,
his possessions descend to his children.[524] Ellis tells us that, in
Tahiti, the child of a chief was invested, soon after its birth, with
the name and office of its father,[525] and in the case of there being
no children, the brother of the deceased assumed the government. In
other families property always went to the eldest son.[526] Among the
Hawaiians, the rank of the principal and inferior chiefs, the offices
of the priests, as also other situations of honour and influence,
descended from father to son,[527] although on the whole, the female
line predominated.[528] In the Hervey Islands, children belonged either
to the father’s or mother’s clan, according to arrangement; usually,
however, the father had the preference.[529] In New Caledonia, kinship
is reckoned in the male line,[530] and in Lifu, as Mr. Radfield informs
me, children belong to the paternal clan. In the Caroline Group, landed
property succeeds mostly from father to son, children are named after
their father’s father or mother’s father, and, apparently, the rank of
the father influences that of the son, at least if he be a chief.[531]
Among the Rejangs[532] and Bataks[533] of Sumatra, as also in several
other islands belonging to the Indian Archipelago,[534] and in New
Guinea,[535] the male line prevails. In the Kingsmill Islands, “if a
chief has several children by different wives, the son of the mother of
the highest rank is the successor.”[536] And, in New Zealand, nobility
was inherited both in the male and female line; but on the death of
a man, his eldest son took the family name which his father had held
before him.[537]

Australian children are generally named after their mother’s clan; but
this is not the case in every tribe.[538] Among the Gournditch-mara,
Turra, Moncalon, Torndirrup, and some other tribes, the male line
prevails.[539] With reference to the Narrinyeri, the Rev. G. Taplin
states that a man’s children belong to his tribe (_i.e._ clan), and
not to their mother’s; that property descends from father to son, and
that, in case of a man dying without issue of his own, his possessions
are always transmitted to the brother’s children.[540] Again, in the
Dieyerie tribe of South Australia, the sons take the father’s clan, the
daughters the mother’s.[541] Even where children are named after their
mother, inheritance may go from father to son. Thus, among the West
Australians, the hunting ground or landed property descends in the male
line, though “children of either sex always take the family name of
their mother.”[542]

Among the Todas, all children belong to the father’s family, and
inheritance runs through males only.[543] The same is the case with
most of the Indian Hill Tribes: either all the sons dividing their
father’s property equally, as among the Gonds, Bodo, and Dhimáls; or
the eldest son getting the largest share, as among the Kandhs, Karens,
and Nagas; or the youngest born male being the only heir, as among
the Hos; or the favourite son succeeding without reference to age,
as among the Mishmis.[544] Among the Pahárias, too, sons inherit,
and nephews by sisters get no share.[545] The law of succession
among the Singphos gives to the eldest son all the landed property
of the father, to the youngest all his personal property, while the
rest inherit nothing.[546] Among the Santals, children belong to the
father’s clan;[547] and the same is the case with the offspring of
intermarriages of Lepchas and Limbus and Butias.[548] Touching the
Karens, Dr. A. Bunker writes to me, “A child takes a name of its
own, and of neither of the parents; but usually the father, being the
stronger, takes the child in case of separation. It is regarded as
belonging to both parents, so far as blood goes.” If we add to this
that the male line prevails in Arabia,[549] Tibet,[550] throughout
Russian Asia,[551] and among the Ainos,[552] it must be admitted
that the system of “kinship through females only” is of very rare
occurrence in Asia, being restricted, so far as I know, to a few parts
of India, Ceylon, and the Malay Archipelago.[553]

It is much more prevalent among the African races. Yet, even among
them, there are many instances where succession runs in the male line.
A king or chief of the Somals[554] and Ba-kwileh[555] is succeeded by
his son. Among the Fulah, this dignity is transmitted to the brother,
while, in other instances, succession goes from father to son.[556]
Among the Negroes of the Gold Coast, according to Bosman, the eldest
son succeeded his father in office, though kinship was reckoned through
the mother all along this coast, except at Accra.[557] Dr. A. Sims
writes that, among the Bateke, “the child is considered as belonging
to the father and mother equally,” and takes the grandfather’s or
grandmother’s name. Among the Waguha, according to Mr. Swann, children
are generally named after the father. In Lánda, the eldest son inherits
all his father’s possessions, wives included.[558] Among the Damaras,
whose divisions into clans are derived from the mother, the eldest son
of the chief wife, nevertheless, is the successor of his father;[559]
and the same rule prevails among the Bechuanas.[560] The Rev. A.
Eyles states that all Zulu children belong to the father’s tribe, and
are called by his name or by the name of some of his ancestors.[561]
According to Mr. Cousins,[562] this is essentially true of various
Kafir tribes, the first son, however, never being named after the
grandfather, but always after the father. Warner, Brownlee, and E. 
v. Weber assert also that, among the people, inheritance passes
from father to son.[563] Le Vaillant and Kolben state the same with
reference to the Hottentots and Bushmans;[564] and Andersson affirms
that, among the Namaquas, daughters take the father’s name, sons the
mother’s.[565] Finally, in the part of Madagascar where Drury was,
kinship does not seem to have been, in every case, reckoned through the
female, though in that island children generally follow the condition
of the mother.[566]

As for ancient peoples, Bachofen has adduced from the works of
classical writers evidence for the uterine line having prevailed among
several of them. But, to quote Sir Henry Maine, “the greatest races
of mankind, when they first appear to us, show themselves at or near
a stage of development in which relationship or kinship is reckoned
exclusively through males.”[567] Several writers have, it is true,
endeavoured to prove that, among the primitive Aryans, descent was
traced through females only;[568] but the evidence does not seem to be
conclusive. Much importance has been attributed to the specially close
connection which, according to Tacitus, existed between a sister’s
children and their mother’s brothers;[569] but Dr. Schrader observes
that, in spite of this prominent position of the maternal uncle in
the ancient Teutonic family, the _patruus_ distinctly came before
the _avunculus_, the agnates before the cognates, in testamentary
succession. He also suggests that, when the head of a household died,
the women of his family passed under the guardianship of the eldest
son, and that a woman’s children had therefore, quite naturally, a
peculiarly intimate relation to their maternal uncle.[570] It is safe
to say with Professor Max Müller, that we can neither assert nor deny
that in unknown times the Aryans ever passed through a metrocratic
stage.[571]

Even if it could be proved—which is doubtful—that, in former times, a
system of “kinship through females only,” fully developed, prevailed
among all the peoples whose children take the mother’s name and are
considered to belong to her clan, though succession runs in the male
line, we should still have to account for the fact that a large number
of peoples exhibit no traces of such a system.[572] And to them belong
many of the rudest races of the world—such as the aborigines of Brazil,
the Fuegians, Hottentots, Bushmans, and several very low tribes in
Australia and India. The inference that “kinship through females only”
has everywhere preceded the rise of “kinship through males,” would,
then, be warranted only on condition that the cause, or the causes, to
which the maternal system is owing, could be proved to have operated
universally in the past life of mankind. From Mr. McLennan’s point of
view, such an inference would be inadmissible, as he cannot prove the
former occurrence of a universal stage of promiscuity or polyandry,
leading to uncertain paternity—the cause to which he attributes that
system.

Yet it is far from being so inconceivable as Mr. McLennan assumes,
that “anything but the want of certainty on that point could have
long prevented the acknowledgment of kinship through males.”[573]
Paternity, as Sir Henry Maine remarks, is “matter of inference, as
opposed to maternity, which is matter of observation.”[574] Hence it
is almost beyond doubt that the father’s participation in parentage
was not recognized as soon as the mother’s.[575] Now, however, there
does not seem to be a single people which has not made the discovery
of fatherhood. In reply to my question whether the Fuegians consider
a child to descend exclusively or predominantly from either of the
parents, Mr. Bridges certainly writes that, according to his idea, they
“consider the maternal tie much more important than the paternal, and
the duties connected with it of mutual help, defence, and vengeance
are held very sacred.” But it is doubtful whether this refers to the
mere physiological connection between the child and its parents. Dr.
Sims informs me that, among the Bateke, the function of both parents in
generation is held alike important, and the Waguha of West Tanganyika,
as Mr. Swann states, also recognize the part taken by both. The same
is asserted by Archdeacon Hodgson concerning certain other tribes of
Eastern Central Africa, though, among them, children take the name of
the mother’s tribe. Again, the Naudowessies, according to Carver, had
the very curious idea that their offspring were indebted to their
father for their souls, the invisible part of their essence, and to the
mother for their corporeal and visible part; hence they considered it
“more rational that they should be distinguished by the name of the
latter, from whom they indubitably derive their being, than by that of
the father, to which a doubt might sometimes arise whether they are
justly entitled.”[576] Moreover, it seems as if the father’s share in
parentage, once discovered, was often exaggerated. Thus, referring to
some tribes of New South Wales, Mr. Cameron tells us that, although
the father has nothing to do with the disposal of his daughter, as she
belongs to the clan of her mother’s brother, they “believe that the
daughter emanates from her father solely, being only nutured by her
mother.”[577] Indeed, Mr. Howitt has found in every Australian tribe,
without exception, with which he has acquaintance, the idea that the
child is derived from the male parent only. As a black fellow once put
it to him, “The man gives the child to a woman to take care of for
him, and he can do whatever he likes with his own child.”[578] Again,
Mr. Cousins writes that, according to Kaffir ideas, a child descends
chiefly, though not exclusively, from the father; and the ancient
Greeks, as well as the Egyptians[579] and Hindus,[580] maintained a
similar view. Nay, Euripides states distinctly that, in his day, the
universally accepted physiological doctrine recognized only the share
taken by the father in procreation, and Hippocrates, in combating this
opinion, and contending that the child descended from both parents,
seems to admit that it was a prevalent heresy.[581] Finally, it seems
probable that the custom known under the name of “La Couvade”—that is,
the odd rule, prevalent among several peoples in different parts of
the world, requiring that the father, at the birth of his child, shall
retire to bed for some time, and fast or abstain from certain kinds of
food—implies some idea of relationship between the two.[582]

Admitting, however, that there was a time when fatherhood, in the
physiological sense of the term, was not discovered, I do not think
that the preference given to the female line is due to this fact. If
the denomination of children and the rules of succession really were
in the first place dependent on ideas of consanguinity, it might be
expected that a change with reference to the latter would be followed
by a change in the former respect also. But the ties of blood have
exercised a far less direct influence on the matter in question than
is generally supposed, the system of “kinship through females only”
being, properly speaking, quite different from what the words imply.

There may be several reasons for naming children after the mother
rather than after the father, apart from any consideration of
relationship. Especially among savages, the tie between a mother
and child is much stronger than that which binds a child to the
father.[583] Not only has she given birth to it, but she has also for
years been seen carrying it about at her breast. Moreover, in cases
of separation, occurring frequently at lower stages of civilization,
the infant children always follow the mother, and so, very often, do
the children more advanced in years. Is it not natural, then, that
they should keep the name of the mother rather than that of a father
whom they scarcely know? Mr. Belt tells us that the men and women even
of the christianised lower classes of Nicaragua often change their
mates, and the children, in such cases remaining with the mother, take
their surname from her.[584] According to Swann, the Creeks conferred
the honour of a chief on the issue of the female line, because it
was impossible to trace the right by the male issue, women only
exceptionally having more than two children by the same father.[585]
And touching the Khasias, one of the few tribes in India among whom
the female line prevails, Dr. Hooker states that they have a very
lax idea of marriage, divorce and exchange of wives being common and
attended with no disgrace; “the son therefore often forgets his
father’s name and person before he grows up, but becomes strongly
attached to his mother.”[586]

Speaking of certain negro tribes, Winterbottom suggested long ago that
the prevalence of the female line was to be explained by the practice
of polygyny,[587] and Dr. Starcke has recently called attention to
the same point.[588] The Rev. D. Macdonald likewise remarks, in
his account of the Efatese of the New Hebrides, that the idea that
children are more closely related to the mother than to the father
is an idea perfectly natural among a polygynous people.[589] It is
a customary arrangement in polygynous families that each wife has a
hut for herself, where she lives with her children; but even where
this is not the case, mother and children naturally keep together as
a little sub-family. No wonder, then, if a child takes its name after
the mother rather than after the father. This is the simplest way of
pointing out the distinction between the issue of different wives, a
distinction which is of special importance where it is accompanied
by different privileges as to succession. It is worth noticing that,
among the Negroes, who are probably the most polygynous race in the
world, the female line is extremely prevalent; whereas, among the Hill
Tribes of India, who are on the whole, monogamists, children, with
few exceptions, take the name of the father. With reference to the
Basutos, a Bechuana tribe, Mr. Casalis observes that the authority
of the eldest maternal uncle preponderates to excess, especially in
polygynous families, where the children have no strong affection for
their father.[590]

Further, among several peoples a man, on marrying, has to quit his
home, and go to live with his wife in the house of her father, of whose
family he becomes a member. This is a common practice among several of
the North American tribes,[591] and prevailed, in the southern part of
the New World, among the Caribs.[592] In some parts of Eastern Central
Africa, also, a man who marries a full grown girl “immediately leaves
his own village and proceeds to build a house in the village of his
wife.”[593] Among the Sengirese, according to Dr. Hickson, the man
always goes to his wife’s house, unless he be the son of a rajah, in
which case he may do as he pleases.[594] Dr. Hooker tells us that,
among the Khasias, “the husband does not take his wife home, but
enters her father’s household, and is entertained there.”[595] And in
Sumatra, in the mode of marriage called “ambel anak,” the father of
a virgin makes choice of some young man for her husband, who is taken
into his house to live there in a state between that of a son and that
of a debtor.[596]

According to Dr. Starcke, this custom is due to the great cohesive
power of the several families, which causes them to refuse to part
with any of their members. “Since men are more independent,” he says,
“they are also less stationary; they can no longer attract the women
to themselves, and are therefore attracted by them.[597] Under such
circumstances, there is nothing astonishing in the fact that children
are named after the mother’s tribe or clan, which is the case in
all the instances just given of peoples among whom the husband has
to settle down with his father-in-law. Indeed, Dr. Tylor has found
that, whilst the number of coincidences between peoples among whom
the husband lives with the wife’s family and peoples among whom the
maternal system prevails, is proportionally large, the full maternal
system never appears among peoples whose exclusive custom is for the
husband to take his wife to his own home.[598] And it is a remarkable
fact that where both customs—the woman receiving her husband in her own
hut, and the man taking his wife to his—occur side by side among the
same people, descent in the former cases is traced through the mother,
in the latter through the father.[599] In Japan, should there be only
daughters in the family, a husband is procured for the eldest, who
enters his wife’s family, and, at the same time, takes its name.[600]

Again, as to the rules of succession, Dr. Starcke has set forth the
hypothesis that they are dependent on local connections, those persons
being each other’s heirs who dwell together in one place. Among the
Iroquois, for instance, at the death of a man, his property is divided
among his brothers, sisters, and mother’s brothers, whilst the property
of a woman is transmitted to her children and sisters, but not to
her brothers. “Owing to the faculty of memory,” Dr. Starcke says,
“childhood and youth involve a young man in such a web of associations
that he afterwards finds it hard to detach himself from them. The man
who, when married, has lived as a stranger in the house of another,
clings to the impressions of his former home, and his earlier household
companions become his heirs. But the brother who has wandered elsewhere
stands in a more remote relation to his sister than do the sisters and
the children living with her in the parental home, and he is therefore
excluded from the inheritance.”[601]

Though agreeing, in the main, with Dr. Starcke’s hypothesis, I do not
think it affords a complete explanation of the matter. It certainly
accounts for the fact that, under the maternal system, it is just the
nearest relatives on the mother’s side who are a man’s heirs, to the
exclusion of other members of the clan. But, if succession really
depended upon local relations only, or upon the remembrance of such
relations in the past, it would be the most natural arrangement,
where father and children lived together till the latter were grown
up, for the father to be succeeded by his son. It seems probable that
the causes which make children take their mother’s name, have also
directly exercised some influence upon the rules of succession; but I
am inclined to believe that the power of the name itself has been of
the highest importance in that respect.

By means of family names former connections are kept up, and the past
is associated with the present. Even we ourselves are generally more
disposed to count kin with distant relatives having our own surname
than with those having another. And upon man in a savage state language
exercises, in this matter, a much greater influence than upon us. With
reference to the aborigines of Western Australia, Sir George Grey
observes, “Obligations of family names are much stronger than those
of blood;” and a “Saurian,” or a “Serpent,” from the East considers
himself related to a “Saurian,” or a “Serpent,” from the West, though
no such relationship may exist.[602] Among the Ossetes, according
to Baron von Haxthausen, a man is considered more nearly related to
a cousin a hundred times removed, who bears his name, than to his
mother’s brother; and he is bound to take blood revenge for the former,
while the latter is in fact not regarded as a relative at all.[603]
Speaking of certain Bantu tribes, Mr. McCall Theal remarks that their
aversion to incestuous marriages is so strong, that a man will not
marry a girl who belongs to another tribe, if she has the same family
name as himself, although the relationship cannot be traced.[604] Is
it not a justifiable presumption that a similar association of ideas
has influenced the rules of succession also,—all the more so, where
community of name implies community of worship as well? It should be
observed that in every case—at least so far as I know—where rank and
property are inherited through females only, children are named after
the mother,—but not _vice versa_, thanks to the direct influence of
local and other connections. In China, a man is even strictly forbidden
to nominate as his heir an individual of a different surname.[605]

It is a difficult, sometimes even a hopeless, task to try to find out
the origin of savage laws and customs, and I do not pretend to have
given an exhaustive explanation of those in question. But it seems to
be sufficiently clear, from what has been said, that we have no right
to ascribe them to uncertain paternity; nay, that such an assumption
is not even probably true. No one has yet exhibited any general
coincidence of what we consider moral and immoral habits with the
prevalence of the male and female line among existing savages. Among
the Barea, for instance, as among the Negroes of Loango, inheritance
goes through mothers only, though adultery is said to be extremely
rare;[606] whilst, on the other hand, among the wanton natives of
Tahiti, possessions always descend to the eldest son. With the Todas
and Tibetans, among whom paternity is often actually uncertain on
account of their polyandrous marriage customs, succession runs through
the male line only. “If one or more women,” Mr. Marshall says with
reference to the former, “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.”[607] Among the Reddies, a son—although it often happens
that he does not know his real father—is the heir of his mother’s
husband.[608] And, in India and Ceylon, female kinship is associated
with polyandry of the _beena_ type—where the husbands come to live
with the wife in or near the house of her birth; and male kinship with
that of the _deega_ type—where the wife goes to live in the house and
village of her husband.[609]

Lastly, as Mr. Spencer remarks, avowed recognition of kinship in the
female line only, shows by no means an unconsciousness of male kinship.
As a proof of this may be adduced the converse custom which the early
Romans had of recognizing no legal relationship between children of the
same mother and of different fathers. For, if it cannot be supposed
that an actual unconsciousness of motherhood was associated with this
system, neither is there any adequate warrant for the supposition that
actual unconsciousness of fatherhood was associated with the system of
“kinship through females only” among savages.[610]

The prevalence of the female line would not presuppose general
promiscuity even if, in some cases, it were dependent on uncertainty as
to fathers.[611] The separation of husband and wife, adultery on the
woman’s side, and the practice of lending wives to visitors occurring
very frequently among many savage nations, the proverb which says, “It
is a wise child that knows his own father,” holds true for a large
number of them. According to Mr. Ingham, the Bakongo, who trace their
descent through the mother only, assert as a reason for this custom
uncertain paternity; but nevertheless, as we have already seen, they
would be horrified at the idea of promiscuous intercourse.

       *       *       *       *       *

Having now examined all the groups of social phenomena adduced as
evidence for the hypothesis of promiscuity, we have found that, in
point of fact, they are no evidence. Not one of the customs alleged as
relics of an ancient state of indiscriminate cohabitation of the sexes,
or “communal marriage,” presupposes the former existence of that
state. The numerous facts put forward in support of the hypothesis do
not entitle us to assume that promiscuity has ever been the prevailing
form of sexual relations among a single people, far less that it has
constituted a general stage in the social development of man, and,
least of all, that such a stage formed the starting-point of all human
history.

It may seem to the reader that this question has received more
attention than it deserves. But I have discussed it so fully not only
because of the importance of the subject, but because of the insight
the customs mentioned give us into sexual and family relations very
different from our own, and because the unscientific character of the
conclusions we have tested shows most clearly that sociology is still a
science in its infancy.

Even now my criticism is not finished. Having shown that the hypothesis
of promiscuity has no foundation in fact, I shall endeavour, in the
next chapter, to demonstrate that it is opposed to all the correct
ideas we are able to form with regard to the early condition of man.




CHAPTER VI

A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

(_Concluded_)


Against the hypothesis of promiscuity Sir Henry Maine has urged that
a good deal of evidence seems to show that promiscuous intercourse
between the sexes tends to a pathological condition very unfavourable
to fecundity; and “infecundity, amid perpetually belligerent savages,
implies weakness and ultimate destruction.”[612]

Dr. Carpenter refers to the efforts of the American 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-owners through the prohibition of the slave-trade.[613] It
is also a well-known fact that prostitutes very seldom have children,
while, according to Dr. Roubaud, those of them who marry young easily
become mothers.[614] “Il ne pousse pas d’herbe dans les chemins où
tout le monde passe,” Dr. Bertillon remarks.[615] And, 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.

It may perhaps be urged that the practice of polyandry prevails among
several peoples without any evil results as regards fecundity being
heard of. But polyandry scarcely ever implies continued promiscuous
intercourse of many men with one woman. In Tibet, for example, where
the brothers of a family very often have a common wife, more than one
are seldom at home at the same time.[616] Mr. Talboys Wheeler has
even suggested that polyandry arose among a pastoral people, whose
men were away from their families for months at a time, so that the
duty of protecting these families would naturally be undertaken by
the brothers in turn.[617] Again, among the Kaniagmuts, the second
husband was only a deputy who acted as husband and master of the house
during the absence of the true lord;[618] and the same was the case
in Nukahiva.[619] But especially remarkable is the following practice
connected with polyandry. In the description given by Bontier and Le
Verrier of the conquest and conversion of the Canarians in 1402 by
Jean de Bethencourt we read that, in the island of Lancerote, most of
the women have three husbands, “who wait upon them alternately by
months; the husband that is to live with the wife the following month
waits upon her and upon her other husband the whole of the month that
the latter has her, and so each takes her in turn.”[620] Mr. Harkness
tells us about a Toda who, having referred to his betrothal to his wife
Pilluvāni and the subsequent betrothal of the latter to two others,
Khakhood and Tūmbut, said, “Now, according to our customs, Pilluvāni
was to pass the first month with me, the second with Khakhood, and the
third with Tūmbut.”[621] Among the Kulus, in the Himalaya Mountains,
when parents sell a daughter to several brothers, she belongs during
the first month to the eldest brother, during the second to the next
eldest, and so on;[622] whilst, as regards the Nairs, whose women,
except those of the first quality, may marry twelve husbands if they
pleased. Hamilton states that “all the husbands agree very well, for
they cohabit with her in their turns, according to their priority of
marriage, ten days, more or less, according as they can fix a term
among themselves.”[623]

       *       *       *       *       *

The strongest argument against ancient promiscuity is, however, to be
derived from the psychical nature of man and other mammals. Mr. Darwin
remarks that from what we know of the jealousy of all male quadrupeds,
armed, as many of them are, with special weapons for battling with
their rivals, promiscuous intercourse is utterly unlikely to prevail
in a state of nature. “Therefore,” he continues, “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.”[624] Yet,
according to the same naturalist, it seems certain, from the lines of
evidence afforded by Mr. Morgan, Mr. McLennan, and Sir J. Lubbock, that
almost promiscuous intercourse at a later time was extremely common
throughout the world;[625] and a similar view is held by some other
writers.[626] But if jealousy can be proved to be universally prevalent
in the human race at the present day, it is impossible to believe that
there ever was a time when man was devoid of that powerful feeling.
Professor Giraud-Teulon[627] and Dr. Le Bon[628] assert, indeed, that
it is unknown among almost all civilized peoples; but this assertion
will be found to be groundless.

Starting from the very lowest races of men: we are told that the
Fuegians “are exceedingly jealous of their women, and will not
allow any one, if they can help it, to enter their huts, particularly
boys.”[629] Several writers assert the same as regards the
Australians.[630] Thus, according to Sir George Grey, “a stern and
vigilant jealousy is commonly felt by every married man;”[631] and Mr.
Curr states that, in most tribes, a woman “is not allowed to converse
or have any relations whatever with any adult male, save her husband.
Even with a grown-up brother she is always forbidden to exchange a
word.”[632] With reference to the Veddahs of Ceylon, Mr. Bailey says
that, with the very smallest cause, the men are exceedingly jealous of
their most unattractive wives, and are very careful to keep them apart
from their companions.[633]

According to a Thlinket myth, the jealousy of man is older than the
world itself. There was an age, it is supposed, when men groped in the
dark in search of the world. At that time a Thlinket lived who had a
wife and sister; and he was so jealous of his wife, that he killed all
his sister’s children because they looked at her.[634]

Great jealousy is met with among the Atkha Aleuts, according to
Father Yakof; among the Kutchin Indians, according to Richardson and
Hardisty; among the Haidahs, according to Dixon; among the Tacullis,
according to Harmon; among the Crees, according to Richardson.[635]
The Indians on the Eastern side of the Rocky Mountains visited by
Harmon, in their fits of jealousy, “often cut off all the hair from
the heads of their wives, and, not unfrequently, cut off their noses
also; and should they not in the moment of passion have a knife at
hand, they will snap it off at one bite, with their teeth.... The man
is satisfied in thus revenging a supposed injury; and having destroyed
the beauty of his wife, he concludes that he has secured her against
all future solicitations to offend.”[636] In California, if a married
native woman is seen even walking in the forest with another man
than her husband, she is chastised by him, whilst a repetition of
the offence is generally punished with speedy death.[637] Among the
Creeks, “it was formerly reckoned adultery, if a man took a pitcher
of water off a married woman’s head, and drank of it.”[638] The Moquis
allow their wives to work only indoors, afraid of having rivals.[639]
The Arawaks,[640] as also the Indians of Peru,[641] are stated to
commit horrible crimes of jealousy. The Botocudos, who are known to
change wives very frequently, are, nevertheless, much addicted to that
passion.[642] And, regarding the Coroados of Brazil, v. Spix and v.
Martius say that revenge and jealousy are the only passions that can
rouse their stunted soul from its moody indifference.[643]

In the Sandwich Islands, according to Lisiansky, jealousy was extremely
prevalent,[644] and, in Nukahiva, the men punish their wives with
severity upon the least suspicion of infidelity.[645] The Areois of
Tahiti, too, although given to every kind of licentiousness, are
described by Ellis as utterly jealous.[646] The same is said of the
New Caledonians and New Zealanders;[647] whilst, in the Pelew Islands,
it is forbidden even to speak about another man’s wife or mention her
name.[648] In short, the South Sea Islanders are, as Mr. Macdonald
remarks, generally jealous of the chastity of their wives.[649]

Among the Malays of Sumatra, the husband jealously guards his wife
as long as his affection lasts;[650] and, concerning several other
tribes of the Indian Archipelago, Riedel says that the men are very
much addicted to the same passion.[651] Captain Arnesen observed the
great jealousy of the Samoyedes.[652] Dr. A. O. Heikel informs me that
a Tartar may repudiate his wife if he sees her shaking hands with a
man. Among the nomadic Koriaks, many wives are killed by passionate
husbands. Hence their women endeavour to be very ugly: they refrain
from dressing their hair or washing, and walk about ragged, as the
husbands take for granted that, if they dress themselves, they do so in
order to attract admirers.[653]

Among the Beni-Mzab, a man who speaks in the street to a married
woman of quality is punished with a fine of two hundred francs and
banishment for four years.[654] In the Nile countries and many other
parts of Africa, it is customary for the men to preserve the fidelity
of their wives in a way not unlike a method used in the age of the
Crusades.[655] With reference to the inhabitants of Fida, Bosman tells
us that a rich negro will not suffer any man to enter the houses where
his wives reside, and on the least suspicion will sell them to the
Europeans;[656] whilst in Dahomey, if a wayfarer meets any of the royal
wives on the road, a bell warns him “to turn off or stand against a
wall while they pass.”[657]

That jealousy is a powerful agent in the social life of civilized
nations is a fact which it is unnecessary to dwell upon. In Mohammedan
countries, a woman is not allowed to receive male visitors, or to go
out unveiled,[658] it being unlawful for the Moslem to see the faces
of any other women than those whom he is forbidden to marry and his
own wives and female slaves.[659] A man who penetrates into the harem
of another man may easily lose his life; and Dr. Polak states that, in
Persia, a European physician cannot, without being considered indecent,
even ask about the health of a Mohammedan’s wife and daughter, though
they are ill.[660] Again, in Japan, as I am told by a native of the
country, it was customary for women when getting married, to have
their eyebrows shaved off, because thick and beautiful eyebrows are
considered one of a woman’s greatest ornaments. At the same time,
according to Mr. Balfour, their teeth are stained black, which can only
have the effect of making the wife less attractive to the husband,—as
well as to other men.[661] This reminds us of the wide-spread practice
of depriving a woman of her ornaments as soon as she is married.

The prevalence of jealousy in the human race is best shown by the
punishments inflicted for adultery; although it may be that the
proprietary feeling here plays an important part. In a savage country a
seducer may be thankful if he escapes by paying to the injured husband
the value of the bride or some other fine, or if the penalty is reduced
to a flogging, to his head being shaved, his ears cut off, one of his
eyes destroyed, his legs speared, &c., &c. He must consider himself
very lucky if he is merely paid in his own coin, or if the punishment
falls on his wife, who, in that case, seems to be looked upon as the
real cause of her husband’s unfaithfulness.[662] Most commonly, among
uncivilized nations, the seducer is killed, adultery on the woman’s
side being considered a heinous crime, for which nothing but the
death of the offender can atone. Among the Waganda, it is, as a rule,
punished even more severely than murder;[663] and, in parts of New
Guinea, capital punishment is said to be almost unknown except for
adultery.[664]

Mr. Reade remarks that, among savages generally, it is the seducer who
suffers, not the victim.[665] Yet this holds good for certain peoples
only,[666] the faithless wife being generally discarded, beaten, or
ill-treated in some other way, and very frequently killed. Often, too,
she is disfigured by her jealous husband, so that no man may fall in
love with her in future. Thus, among several peoples of North America,
India, and elsewhere, her nose is cut or bitten off,—a practice which
also prevailed in ancient Egypt.[667] As late as the year 1120 the
Council of Neapolis in Palestine decreed that an adulterer should be
castrated, and the nose of an unfaithful wife cut off;[668] whilst, in
the “Uplands-lag,” an old Swedish provincial law, it is prescribed
that an adulteress who cannot pay the fine of forty marks, shall lose
her hair, ears, and nose.[669] The Creeks and some Chittagong Hill
tribes likewise cut off the ears of a woman who has been guilty of
infidelity;[670] and many other people are in the habit of shaving her
head.[671]

Among a large number of peoples, a husband not only requires chastity
from his wife, but demands that the woman whom he marries shall be a
virgin. There can be little doubt, I think, that this requirement owes
its origin to the same powerful feeling that keeps watch over marital
faithfulness.

Among the Ahts, for example, “a girl who was known to have lost her
virtue, lost with it one of her chances of a favourable marriage.”[672]
Among the Chippewas, according to Mr. Keating, no woman could expect
to be taken as a wife by a warrior unless she had lived in strict
chastity.[673] Statements to the same effect are made with reference
to other Indian tribes.[674] Again, when one of the Chichimecs of
Central Mexico marries, if the girl proves not to be a virgin, she may
be returned to her parents.[675] A very similar custom prevailed among
the Nicaraguans and Azteks,[676] and exist still among several tribes
of the Indian Archipelago and in New Guinea;[677] whilst, in Samoa,
valuable presents were given for a girl who had preserved her virtue,
the bride’s purity being proved in a way that will not bear the light
of description.[678]

“In many parts of Africa,” says Mr. Reade, “no marriage can be
ratified till a jury of matrons have pronounced a verdict of purity
on the bride;[679] it being customary to return a girl who is found
not to have been entirely chaste, and to claim back the price paid
for her.[680] Dr. Grade states that among the Negroes of Togoland, a
much higher price is paid for a bride who is a virgin than for any
other.[681] Among the Somals, a fallen girl cannot become a man’s
legitimate wife;[682] whilst, in the Soudan and other parts of Africa
where girls are subjected to infibulation, that incontinence may be
made impossible, no young woman who is not infibulated can get a
husband.[683]

The Jewish custom of handing “the tokens of the damsel’s virginity”
to her parents, to be kept as evidence in case of a later accusation,
is well-known.[684] A practice not very dissimilar to this prevails in
China,[685] Arabia,[686] and among the Chuvashes,[687] with whom the
_signum innocentiae_ is exhibited even _coram populo_. In Persia,[688]
as also in Circassia,[689] a girl who is not a virgin when she marries,
runs the risk of being put away after the first night. Among several
nations belonging to the Russian Empire, according to Georgi, the
bridegroom may claim a fine in case of the bride being found to have
lost her virtue;[690] and, among the Chulims, if the Mosaic testimony
of chastity is wanting, the husband goes away and does not return
before the seducer has made peace with him.[691] As to the ancient
Germans, Tacitus states that, by their laws, virgins only could
marry.[692]

A husband’s pretensions may reach even farther than this. He often
demands that the woman he chooses for his wife shall belong to him, not
during his lifetime only, but after his death.

The belief in another life is almost universal in the human race. As
that life is supposed to resemble this, man having the same necessities
there as here, part of his property is buried with him. And so strong
is the idea of a wife being the exclusive property of her husband,
that, among several peoples, she may not even survive him.

Thus, formerly, among the Comanches, when a man died, his favourite
wife was killed at the same time.[693] In certain Californian tribes,
widows were sacrificed on the pyre with their deceased husbands;[694]
and Mackenzie was told that this practice sometimes occurred among
the Crees.[695] In Darien and Panama, on the death of a chief, all
his concubines were interred with him.[696] When one of the Incas
died, says Acosta, the woman whom he had loved best, as well as his
servants and officers, were put to death, “that they might serve him
in the other life.”[697] The same custom prevailed in the region of the
Congo, as also in some other African countries.[698] “It is no longer
possible to doubt,” says Dr. Schrader, “that ancient Indo-Germanic
custom ordained that the wife should die with her husband.”[699] In
India, as is well known, widows were sacrificed, until quite recently,
on the funeral pile of their husbands;[700] whilst, among the Tartars,
according to Navarette, on a man’s death, one of his wives hanged
herself “to bear him company in that journey.” Among the Chinese,
something of the same kind seems to have been done occasionally in
olden times.[701]

Turning to other quarters of the world: in Polynesia, and especially
in Melanesia, widows were very commonly killed.[702] In Fiji, for
instance, they were either buried alive or strangled, often at their
own desire, because they believed that in this way alone could they
reach the realms of bliss, and that she who met her death with the
greatest devotedness, would become the favourite wife in the abode
of spirits. On the other hand, a widow who did not permit herself to
be killed was considered an adulteress.[703] In the New Hebrides,
according to the missionary John Inglis, a wife is strangled, even when
her husband is long absent from home.[704]

If the husband’s demands are less severe, his widow is not on that
account always exempted from every duty towards him after his death.
Among the Tacullies, she is compelled by the kinsfolk of the deceased
to lie on the funeral pile where the body of her husband is placed,
whilst the fire is lighting, until the heat becomes unbearable. Then,
after the body is consumed, she is obliged to collect the ashes and
deposit them in a small basket, which she must always carry about
with her for two or three years, during which time she is not at
liberty to marry again.[705] Among the Kutchin Indians, the widow, or
widows, are bound to remain near the body for a year to protect it
from animals, &c.; and only when it is quite decayed and merely the
bones remain, are they permitted to remarry, “to dress their hair,
and put on beads and other ornaments to attract admirers.”[706] Again,
among the Minas on the Slave Coast, the widows are shut up for six
months in the room where their husband is buried.[707] With the Kukis,
according to Rennel, a widow was compelled to remain for a year beside
the tomb of her deceased husband, her family bringing her food.[708]
In the Mosquito tribe, “the widow was bound to supply the grave of
her husband with provisions for a year, after which she took up the
bones and carried them with her for another year, at last placing them
upon the roof of her house, and then only was she allowed to marry
again.”[709]

In Rotuma and the Marquesas Islands,[710] as well as among the Tartars
and Iroquois,[711] a widow was never allowed to enter a second time
into the married state. Among the ancient Peruvians, says Garcilasso
de la Vega, very few widows who had no children ever married again,
and even widows who had children continued to live single; “for this
virtue was much commended in their laws and ordinances.”[712] Nor is it
in China considered proper for a widow to contract a second marriage,
and in genteel families such an event rarely, if ever, occurs. Indeed,
a lady of rank, by contracting a second marriage, exposes herself
to a penalty of eighty blows.[713] Again, the Arabs, according to
Burckhardt, regard everything connected with the nuptials of a widow
as ill-omened, and unworthy of the participation of generous and
honourable men.[714]

Speaking of the Aryans, Dr. Schrader remarks that, when sentiments
had become more humane, traces of the old state of things survived in
the prohibitions issued against the second marriage of widows.[715]
Even now, according to Dubois, the happiest lot that can befall a
Hindu woman, particularly one of the Brahman caste, is to die in the
married state. The bare mention of a second marriage for her would be
considered the greatest of insults, and, if she married again, “she
would be hunted out of society, and no decent person would venture at
any time to have the slightest intercourse with her.”[716] Again, among
the Bhills, when a widow marries, the newly-wedded pair, according
to a long-established custom, are obliged to leave the house before
daybreak and pass the next day in the fields, in a solitary place,
some miles from the village, nor may they return till the dusk. The
necessity of the couple passing the first day of their marriage in
this way, like outcasts, is, writes Sir J. Malcolm, “to mark that
sense of degradation which all the natives of Hindustan entertain
against a woman marrying a second husband.”[717] The South Slavonians,
says Krauss, regard a widow’s remarriage as an insult to her former
consort;[718] and a similar view prevailed in ancient Greece, according
to Pausanias,[719] and among the Romans.[720] The early Christians,
also, strongly disapproved of second marriages by persons of either
sex, although St. Paul had peremptorily urged that the younger widows
should marry.[721] Indeed the practice of second nuptials was branded
with the name of a legal adultery, and the persons who were guilty of
so scandalous an offence against Christian purity were soon excluded
from the honours and even from the alms of the Church.[722]

Much more commonly, however, the prohibition of a second marriage
refers only to a certain period after the husband’s death. Thus, among
the Chickasaws, widows were obliged to live a chaste single life for
three years at the risk of the law of adultery being executed against
the recusants;[723] whilst, among the Creeks, a widow was looked upon
as an adulteress if she spoke or made free with any man within four
summers after the death of her husband.[724] Among the Old Kukis,
widowers and widows could not marry within three years, and then
only with the permission of the family of the deceased.[725] Among
the Kunáma, too, the period of widowhood must not be shorter than
three years, in Saraë not less than two.[726] The Arawaks, British
Columbians, and Mandans required that the head of the widow should be
shaved, and she was not permitted to marry again before her shorn locks
regained their wonted length.[727] Among the Hovas, Ainos, Patagonians,
&c., the widow has to live a single life for a year at least after her
husband’s death,[728] and among some other peoples for six months.[729]

It may perhaps be supposed that the object of these prohibitions is to
remove all apprehensions as to pregnancy. But this cannot be the case
when the time of mourning lasts for a year or more. In Saraë, where a
widow is bound to celibacy for two years, a divorced wife is prevented
from marrying within two months only, as Munzinger says, “in order to
avoid all uncertainty as to pregnancy;”[730] and, among the Bedouins,
a divorced woman has, for the same reason, to remain unmarried for no
longer time than forty days.[731] Moreover, certain peoples, especially
those among whom monogamy is the only recognized form of marriage, or
among whom polygyny is practised as a rare exception, prohibit the
speedy remarriage not only of widows but of widowers.[732]

The meaning of the interdict appears also from the common rule that
a wife, after her husband’s death, shall give up all her ornaments,
and have her head shaved, her hair cut short, or her face blackened.
Among certain Indians, the law compels the widow through the long term
of her mourning to refrain from all public company and diversions,
under pain of being considered an adulteress, and, likewise to go with
flowing hair without the privilege of oil to anoint it;[733] whilst, in
Greenland tales, it is said of a truly disconsolate widow, “She mourns
so, that she cannot be recognised for dirt.”[734]

Hence we see how deep-rooted is the idea that a woman belongs
exclusively to one man. Savages believe that the soul of the deceased
can return and become a tormentor of the living. Thus a husband, even
after his death, may punish a wife who has proved unfaithful.

According to travellers’ statements, there are, indeed, peoples
almost devoid of the feeling of jealousy, and the practice of lending
or prostituting wives is generally taken as evidence of this. But
jealousy, as well as love, is far from being the same feeling in
the mind of a savage as in that of a civilized man. A wife is often
regarded as not very different from other property, and an adulterer as
a thief.[735] In some parts of Africa, he is punished as such, having
his hands, or one of them, cut off.[736] The fact that a man lends his
wife to a visitor no more implies the absence of jealousy than other
ways of showing hospitality imply that he is without the proprietary
feeling. According to Wilkes, the aborigines of New South Wales “will
frequently give one of their wives to a friend who may be in want of
one; but notwithstanding this laxity they are extremely jealous, and
are very prompt to resent any freedom taken with their wives.”[737]

A married woman is never permitted to cohabit with any man but the
husband, except with the husband’s permission; and this permission
is given only as an act of hospitality or friendship, or as a means
of profit. When we are told that a negro husband uses his wife for
entrapping other men and making them pay a heavy fine;[738] that, among
the Crees, adultery is considered no crime “provided the husband
receives a valuable consideration for his wife’s prostitution;”[739] or
that, in Nukahiva, husbands sometimes offer their wives to foreigners
“from their ardent desire of possessing iron, or other European
articles,”[740]—we must not infer from this profligacy that jealousy
is unknown to man at early stages of civilization. On the contrary,
such practices are due chiefly to contact with “higher culture,” which
often has the effect of misleading natural instincts. “Husbands,
after the degradation of a pseudo-civilization,” says Mr. Bonwick,
“are sometimes found ready to barter the virtue of a wife for a piece
of tobacco, a morsel of bread, or a silver sixpence.”[741] Mr. Curr
observes that, among the Australian natives, “husbands display much
less jealousy of white men than of those of their own colour,” and that
they will more commonly prostitute their wives to strangers visiting
the tribe than to their own people.[742] “Under no circumstances,”
says Sir George Grey, “is a strange native allowed to approach the
fire of a married man.”[743] According to Bosman, the Negroes of Benin
were very jealous of their wives with their own countrymen, though
not in the least with European foreigners;[744] and Lisiansky states
exactly the same as regards the Sandwich Islanders.[745] In California,
says Mr. Powers, “since the advent of the Americans the husband often
traffics in his wife’s honour for gain, and even forces her to infamy
when unwilling; though in early days he would have slain her without
pity and without remorse for the same offence.”[746] The like is true
of the Columbians about Puget Sound;[747] and Georgi remarks that
the nomadic Koriaks torment their wives by their jealousy, sometimes
even killing them from this passion; whereas those Koriaks who lead a
stationary life, being far more advanced in civilization, are so little
addicted to it, that they even have a relish for seeing foreigners make
love to their wives, whom they dress accordingly.[748]

If the hypothesis of an annual pairing time in the infancy of mankind
holds good, jealousy must at that stage have been a passion of very
great intensity.

It may, however, be supposed that this feeling, though belonging to
human nature, has been restrained by certain conditions which have
made it necessary, or desirable, for a man to share his wife with
other men. Thus polyandry now prevails in several parts of the world.
But I shall endeavour to show, later on, that this practice is due
chiefly to scarcity of women, and commonly implies an act of fraternal
benevolence, the eldest and first married brother in a family giving
his younger brothers a share in his wife, if they would otherwise be
obliged to live unmarried. Hence polyandry can by no means, as Mr.
McLennan suggests, be regarded as “a modification of and advance from
promiscuity.” It owes its origin to causes, or a cause, which never
would have produced general communism in women. Besides, it can be
proved that polyandry is abhorrent to the rudest races of men.

It has been suggested, too, that man’s gregarious way of living made
promiscuity necessary. The men of a group, it is said, must either have
quarrelled about their women and separated, splitting the horde into
hostile sections, or indulged in promiscuous intercourse. But it is
hard to understand why tribal organization in olden times should have
prevented a man having his special wife, since it does not do so among
savages still existing. Primitive law is the law of might; and it is
impossible to believe that the stronger men, who generally succeeded
in getting the most comely women, voluntarily gave their weaker
rivals a share in their precious capture. Regarding the aborigines
of Queensland, Lumholtz states that as a rule, it is difficult for
men to marry before they are thirty years of age, the old men having
the youngest and best-looking wives, while a young man must consider
himself fortunate if he can get an old woman.[749] It more commonly
happens among savages, however, that almost every full-grown man is
able to get a wife for himself; and when this is the case, there is
still less reason for assuming communism in women.

It is not, of course, impossible that, among some peoples, intercourse
between the sexes may have been almost promiscuous. But 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
of promiscuity, instead of belonging, as Professor Giraud-Teulon
thinks,[750] to the class of hypotheses which are scientifically
permissible, has no real foundation, and is essentially unscientific.




CHAPTER VII

MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY


With wild animals sexual desire is not less powerful as an incentive
to strenuous exertion than hunger and thirst. In the rut-time, the
males even of the most cowardly species engage in mortal combats; and
abstinence, or at least voluntary abstinence, is almost unheard of in a
state of nature.[751]

As regards savage and barbarous races of men, among whom the relations
of the sexes under normal conditions take the form of marriage,
nearly every individual strives to get married as soon as he, or she,
reaches the age of puberty.[752] Hence there are far fewer bachelors
and spinsters among them than among civilized peoples. Harmon found
that among the Blackfeet, Crees, Chippewyans, and other aboriginal
tribes on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, celibacy was a rare
exception;[753] and Ashe noted the same fact among the Shawanese.[754]
Prescott states of the Dacotahs, “I do not know of a bachelor among
them. They have a little more respect for the women and themselves,
than to live a single life.”[755] Indeed, according to Adair, many
Indian women thought virginity and widowhood the same as death.[756]
Among the Eastern Greenlanders, visited by Lieutenant Holm, only one
unmarried woman was met with.[757]

The Charruas, says Azara, “ne restent jamais dans le célibat, et ils
se marient aussitôt qu’ils sentent le besoin de cette union.”[758]
As regards the Yahgans, Mr. Bridges writes that “none but mutes and
imbeciles remained single, except some lads of vigour who did so from
choice, influenced by licentiousness. But no woman remained unmarried;
almost immediately on her husband’s death the widow found another
husband.”

Among the wild nations of Southern Africa, according to Burchell,
neither men nor women ever pass their lives in a state of
celibacy;[759] and Bosman assures us that very few negroes of the
Gold Coast died single, unless they were quite young.[760] Among the
Mandingoes, Caillié met with no instance of a young woman, pretty or
plain, who had not a husband.[761] Barth reports that the Western
Touaregs had no fault to find with him except that he lived in
celibacy; they could not even understand how this was possible.[762]

Among the Sinhalese there are hardly any old bachelors and old
maids;[763] and Mr. Marshall says of the Todas, “No unmarried class
exists, to disturb society with its loves and broils; ... it is a
‘very much married’ people. Every man and every woman, every lad and
every girl is somebody’s husband or wife; tied at the earliest possible
age.... With the exception of a cripple girl, and of those women who,
past the child-bearing age, were widows, I did not meet with a single
instance of unmarried adult females.”[764] Among the Toungtha, it
is unheard of for a man or woman to be unmarried after the age of
thirty, and among the Chukmas, a bachelor twenty-five years old is
rarely seen.[765] The Muásís consider it a father’s duty to fix upon
a bridegroom as soon as his daughter becomes marriageable.[766] Among
the Burmese[767] and the Hill Dyaks of Borneo,[768] old maids and old
bachelors are alike unknown. Among the Sumatrans, too, instances of
persons of either sex passing their lives in a state of celibacy are
extremely rare:—“In the districts under my charge,” says Marsden,
“are about eight thousand inhabitants, among whom I do not conceive
it would be possible to find ten instances of men of the age of thirty
years unmarried.”[769] In Java, Mr. Crawfurd “never saw a woman of
two-and-twenty that was not, or had not been, married.”[770] In Tonga,
according to Mariner, there were but few women who, from whim or
some accidental cause, remained single for life.[771] In Australia,
“nearly all the girls are betrothed at a very early age;” and Mr.
Curr never heard of a woman, over sixteen years of age, who, prior to
the breakdown of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites,
had not a husband.[772] As to the natives of Herbert River, Northern
Queensland, Herr Lumholtz says that though the majority of the young
men have to wait a long time before they get wives, it is rare for a
man to die unmarried.[773]

Indeed, so indispensable does marriage seem to uncivilized man, that
a person who does not marry is looked upon almost as an unnatural
being, or, at any rate, is disdained.[774] Among the Santals, if a
man remains single, “he is at once despised by both sexes, and is
classed next to a thief, or a witch: they term the unhappy wretch
‘No man.’”[775] Among the Kafirs, a bachelor has no voice in the
kraal.[776] The Tipperahs, as we are told by Mr. J. F. Browne, do not
consider a man a person of any importance till he is married;[777]
and, in the Tupi tribes, no man was suffered to partake of the
drinking-feast while he remained single.[778] The Fijians even believed
that he who died wifeless was stopped by the god Nangganangga on the
road to Paradise, and smashed to atoms.[779]

It may also be said that savages, as a rule, marry earlier in life
than civilized men. A Greenlander, says Dr. Nansen, often marries
before there is any chance of the union being productive.[780] Among
the Californians, Mandans, and most of the north-western tribes in
North America, marriage frequently takes place at the age of twelve
or fourteen.[781] In the wild tribes of Central Mexico, girls are
seldom unmarried after the age of fourteen or fifteen.[782] Among the
Talamanca Indians, a bride is generally from ten to fourteen years old,
whilst a man seldom becomes a husband before fourteen.[783] In certain
other Central American tribes, the parents try to get a wife for their
son when he is nine or ten years old.[784]

Among the natives of Brazil, the man generally marries at the age of
from fifteen to eighteen, the woman from ten to twelve.[785] According
to Azara, the like was the case with the Guaranies of the Plata,
whilst, among the Guanas, “celle qui se marie le plus tard, se marie à
neuf ans.”[786] In Tierra del Fuego, as we are informed by Lieutenant
Bove, a girl looks about for a husband when twelve or thirteen years
old, and a youth marries at the age of from fourteen to sixteen.[787]

Many African peoples, _e.g._, the Abyssinians,[788] the Beni-Amer,
the Djour tribes on the White Nile,[789] the Arabs of the Sahara, the
Wakamba, and the Ba-kwileh,[790] are likewise said to marry very young.
Marriage usually takes place, among the Bongos when they are from
fifteen to seventeen years old, but in many other tribes at an earlier
age.[791]

Among the Sinhalese, when a young man has reached the age of eighteen
or twenty, it is the duty of his father to provide him with a proper
wife.[792] Among the Bodo and Dhimáls, “marriage takes place at
maturity, the male being usually from twenty to twenty-five years of
age, and the female from fifteen to twenty.”[793] A Santal lad marries,
as a rule, about the age of sixteen or seventeen, and a girl at that
of fifteen;[794] whilst a Kandh boy marries when he reaches his tenth
or twelfth year, his wife being usually about four years older.[795]
The Khyoungtha,[796] Munda Kols,[797] Red Karens,[798] Siamese,[799]
Burmese,[800] Mongols,[801] and other Asiatic peoples, are also known
to marry early. Among the Ainos, the young women are considered
marriageable at the age of sixteen or seventeen, and the men marry
when about nineteen or twenty.[802] Again, among the Lake Dwellers of
Lob-nor, girls enter into matrimony at the age of fourteen or fifteen,
men at the same age, or a little later;[803] whilst, among the Malays,
according to Mr. Bickmore, the boys usually marry for the first time
when about sixteen, and the girls at the age of thirteen or fourteen,
and occasionally still earlier.[804]

Passing to the Australian continent: among the natives of New South
Wales, the parties are in most cases betrothed very early in life, the
young man claiming his wife later on, as soon as he arrives at the
proper age.[805] According to Mr. Curr, “girls become wives at from
eight to fourteen years of age.”[806] At Port Moresby, New Guinea,
“few men over twenty years of age remain single;” and the Maoris in
New Zealand are stated to marry very young.[807]

Moreover, celibacy is comparatively rare not only among savage and
barbarous, but among several civilized races.

Among the Azteks, no young man lived single till his twenty-second
year, unless he intended to become a priest, and for girls the
customary marrying-age was from eleven to eighteen. In Tlascala,
according to Clavigero, the unmarried state was, indeed, so despised
that a full-grown man who would not marry had his hair cut off for
shame.[808] Again, among the ancient Peruvians, every year, or every
two years, each governor in his district had to arrange for the
marriage of all the young men at the age of twenty-four and upwards,
and all the girls from eighteen to twenty.[809]

In Japan, as I am told by a Japanese friend, old maids and old
bachelors are almost entirely unknown, and the same is the case in
China.[810] “Almost all Chinese,” says Dr. Gray, “robust or infirm,
well-formed or deformed, are called upon by their parents to marry so
soon as they have attained the age of puberty. Were a grown-up son
or daughter to die unmarried, the parents would regard it as most
deplorable.” Hence a young man of marriageable age, whom consumption
or any other lingering disease had marked for its own, would be called
upon by his parents or guardians to marry at once.[811] Nay, so
indispensable is marriage considered among this people, that even the
dead are married. Thus the spirits of all males who die in infancy, or
in boyhood, are in due time married to the spirits of females who have
been cut off at a like early age.[812]

Marco Polo states the prevalence of the same practice among the
Tartars.[813] In Corea, says the Rev. John Ross, “the male human being
who is unmarried is never called a ‘man,’ whatever his age, but goes
by the name of ‘yatow;’ a name given by the Chinese to unmarriageable
young girls: and the ‘man’ of thirteen or fourteen has a perfect right
to strike, abuse, order about the ‘yatow’ of thirty, who dares not as
much as open his lips to complain.”[814]

Mohammedan peoples generally consider marriage a duty both for men and
women.[815] “Nothing,” says Carsten Niebuhr, “is more rarely to be
met with in the East, than a woman unmarried after a certain time of
life.” She will rather marry a poor man, or become second wife to a man
already married, than remain in a state of celibacy.[816] Among the
Persians, for instance, almost every girl of good repute is married
before her twenty-first year, and old bachelors are unknown.[817] In
Egypt, according to Mr. Lane, it is improper and even disreputable to
abstain from marrying when a man has attained a sufficient age, and
when there is no just impediment.[818]

Among the Hebrews, celibacy was nearly unheard of, as it is among the
Jews of our day. They have a proverb that “he who has no wife is no
man.”[819] “To an ancient Israelite,” Michaelis remarks, “it would
indeed have appeared very strange to have seen, though but in a vision,
a period in the future history of the world, when it would be counted
sanctity and religion to live unmarried.”[820] Marriage was by the
Hebrews looked upon as a religious duty. According to the Talmud, the
authorities can compel a man to marry, and he who lives single at the
age of twenty is accursed by God almost as if he were a murderer.[821]

The ancient nations of the Aryan stock, as M. Fustel de Coulanges
and others have pointed out, regarded celibacy as an impiety and
a misfortune: “an impiety, because one who did not marry put the
happiness of the Manes of the family in peril; a misfortune, because he
himself would receive no worship after his death.” A man’s happiness
in the next world depended upon his having a continuous line of male
descendants, whose duty it would be to make the periodical offerings
for the repose of his soul.[822]

Thus, according to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ marriage is the twelfth
Sanskāra, and hence a religious duty incumbent upon all.[823] “Until
he finds a wife, a man is only half of a whole,” we read in the
‘Brahmadharma’;[824] and, among the Hindus of the present day, a man
who is not married is considered to be almost a useless member of
society, and is, indeed, looked upon as beyond the pale of nature. It
is also an established national rule, that women are designed for no
other end than to be subservient to the wants and pleasures of men;
consequently, all women without exception are obliged to marry, when
husbands can be found for them, and those who cannot find a husband
commonly fall into the state of concubinage.[825] Among the ancient
Iranians, too, it was considered a matter of course that a girl should
be married on reaching the years of puberty.[826]

The ancient Greeks regarded marriage as a matter not merely of private,
but also of public interest. This was particularly the case at Sparta,
where criminal proceedings might be taken against those who married
too late, and against those who did not marry at all. In Solon’s
legislation marriage was also placed under the inspection of the State,
and, at Athens, persons who did not marry might be prosecuted, although
the law seems to have grown obsolete in later times. But independently
of public considerations, there were private reasons which made
marriage an obligation.[827] Plato remarks that every individual is
bound to provide for a continuance of representatives to succeed
himself as ministers of the Divinity;[828] and Isaeus says, “All they
who think their end approaching, look forward with a prudent care that
their houses may not become desolate, but that there may be some person
to attend to their funeral rites, and to perform the legal ceremonies
at their tombs.”[829]

To the Roman citizen, as Mommsen observes, a house of his own and the
blessing of children appeared the end and essence of life;[830] and
Cicero’s treatise ‘De Legibus’—a treatise which generally reproduces,
in a philosophic form, the ancient laws of Rome—contains a law,
according to which the Censors had to impose a tax upon unmarried
men.[831] But in later periods, when sexual morality reached a very low
ebb in Rome, celibacy—as to which grave complaints were made as early
as 520 B.C.—naturally increased in proportion, especially among the
well-off classes. Among these, marriage came to be regarded as a burden
which people took upon themselves at the best in the public interest.
Indeed, how it fared with marriage and the rearing of children, is
shown by the Gracchan agrarian laws, which first placed a premium
thereon;[832] whilst, later on, the _Lex Julia et Papia Poppæa_ imposed
various penalties on those who lived in a state of celibacy after a
certain age,[833]—but with little or no result.[834]

Again, the Germans, as described by Cæsar, accounted it in the highest
degree scandalous to have intercourse with the other sex before the
twentieth year.[835] Tacitus also asserts that the young men married
late, and the maidens did not hurry into marriage.[836] But it seems
probable that at a later age celibacy was almost unknown among
the Germans, except in the case of women who had once lost their
reputation, for whom neither beauty, youth, nor riches could procure a
husband.[837] As for the Slavs, it should be observed that, among the
Russian peasantry celibacy is even now unheard of.[838] When a youth
reaches the age of eighteen, he is informed by his parents that he
ought to marry at once.[839]

There are, however, even in savage life, circumstances which compel
certain persons to live unmarried for a longer or shorter time. When a
wife has to be bought, a man must of course have some fortune before he
is able to marry. Thus, as regards the Zulus, Mr. Eyles writes to me
that “young men who are without cattle have often to wait many years
before getting married.”[840] When Major-General Campbell asked some
of the Kandhs why they remained single, they replied that they did so
because wives were too expensive.[841] Among the Munda Kols and Hos,
in consequence of the high prices of brides, are to be found “what
are probably not known to exist in other parts of India, respectable
elderly maidens.”[842] In the New Britain Group, too, according to Mr.
Romilly, the purchase sum is never fixed at too low a price, hence “it
constantly happens that the intended husband is middle-aged before he
can marry.”[843] Similar statements are made in a good many books of
travels.[844]

Polygyny, in connection with slavery and the unequal distribution
of property, acts in the same direction. In Makin, one of the
Kingsmill Islands, a great number of young men were unmarried owing
to the majority of the women being monopolized by the wealthy and
powerful.[845] Among the Bakongo, according to Mr. Ingham, as also
among the Australians,[846] polygyny causes celibacy among the poorer
and younger men; and Dr. Sims says the like of the Bateke, Mr. Cousins
of the Kafirs, Mr. Radfield of the inhabitants of Lifu. Among the
Kutchin Indians, according to Hardisty, there are but few young men who
have wives—unless they can content themselves with some old cast-off
widow—on account of all the chiefs, medicine men, and those who possess
rank acquired by property having two, three, or more wives.[847] For
the same reason many men of the lower classes of the Waganda are
obliged to remain single, in spite of the large surplus of women.[848]
In Micronesia, also, it is common for the poorer class and the slaves
to be doomed to perpetual celibacy.[849] Among the Thlinkets, a slave
cannot acquire property, nor marry, except by consent of his master,
which is rarely given;[850] and in the Soudan the case seems to be the
same.[851]

But we must not exaggerate the importance of these obstacles to
marriage. When the man is not able to buy a wife for himself, he may,
in many cases, acquire her by working for some time with her parents,
or by eloping with her. Moreover, as Sir John Lubbock remarks, the
price of a wife is generally regulated by the circumstances of the
tribe, so that nearly every industrious young man is enabled to
get one.[852] Speaking of the Sumatrans, Marsden observes that the
necessity of purchasing does not prove such an obstacle to matrimony as
is supposed, for there are few families who are not in possession of
some small substance, and the purchase-money of the daughters serves
also to provide wives for the sons.[853] Again, polygyny is, as we
shall see further on, almost everywhere restricted to a small minority
of the people, and is very often connected with the fact that there is
a surplus of women. Thus, among the polygynous Waguha, as I am informed
by Mr. Swann, unmarried grown-up men do not exist, the women being more
numerous than the men. At any rate, we may conclude that at earlier
stages of civilization, when polygyny was practised less extensively
and women were less precious chattels than they afterwards became,
celibacy was a much rarer exception than it is now among many of the
lower races.

Passing to the peoples of Europe, we find, from the evidence adduced by
statisticians, that modern civilization has proved very unfavourable
to the number of marriages. In civilized Europe, in 1875, more than a
third of the male and female population beyond the age of fifteen lived
in a state of voluntary or involuntary celibacy. Excluding Russia, the
number of celibates varied from 25·57 per cent. in Hungary to 44·93 per
cent. in Belgium. And among them there are many who never marry.[854]
In the middle of this century, Wappäus found that, in Saxony, 14·6 per
cent. of the unmarried adult population died single; in Sweden, 14·9
per cent.; in the Netherlands, 17·2 per cent.; and in France, 20·6
per cent.[855] Of the rest, many marry comparatively late in life.
Thus, in Denmark, only 19·43 per cent. of the married men were under
twenty-five, and in Bavaria (in 1870-1878), only 16.36, whilst the
figures for England and Russia look more favourable, being respectively
51·90 per cent. (in 1872-1878), and 68·31 per cent. (in 1867-1875). Of
the married women, on the other hand, only 5·09 per cent. are below
the age of twenty in Sweden, 5·40 per cent. in Bavaria, 7·44 per cent.
in Saxony, 14·86 per cent. in England, &c.; but in Hungary as many as
35·16 per cent., and in Russia even 57·27 per cent.[856] The mean age
of the bachelors who enter into matrimony is 26 years in England and
28·48 in France, that of the spinsters respectively 24·07 and 25·3.[857]

As a rule, the proportion of unmarried people has been gradually
increasing in Europe during this century,[858] and the age at which
people marry has risen. In England we need not go further back than
two decades, to find a greater tendency on the part of men to defer
marriage to later age than was formerly the case.[859] Finally, it must
be noted that in country districts single men and women are more seldom
met with, and marriage is generally concluded earlier in life, than in
towns.[860]

There are, indeed, several factors in modern civilization which account
for the comparatively large number of celibates. In countries where
polygyny is permitted, women have a better chance of getting married
than men, but in Europe the case is reversed. Here, as in most parts
of the world, the adult women outnumber the adult men. If we reckon
the age for marriage from twenty to fifty years, a hundred men may, in
Europe, choose amongst a hundred and three or four women, so that about
three or four women per cent. are doomed to a single life on account of
our obligatory monogamy.[861]

The chief cause, however, of increasing celibacy is the difficulty of
supporting a family in modern society. The importance of this factor
is distinctly proved by statistics. It has been observed that the
frequency of marriages is a very sensible barometer of the hopes which
the mass of people have for the future; hard times, wars, commercial
crises, &c., regularly depressing the number of marriages, whilst
comparative abundance has the opposite effect.[862]

In non-European countries into which a precocious civilization has
not been introduced, the population is more nearly in proportion to
the means of subsistence, and people adapt their mode of life more
readily to their circumstances. In most cases a man can earn his
living sooner;[863] and a wife far from being a burden to her husband,
is rather a help to him, being his labourer or sometimes even his
supporter. Moreover, children, instead of requiring an education that
would absorb the father’s earnings, become, on the contrary, a source
of income. Thus Mr. Bickmore asserts that, among the Malays, difficulty
in supporting a family is unknown.[864] Carsten Niebuhr states that, in
the East, men are as disposed to marry as women, “because their wives,
instead of being expensive, are rather profitable to them.”[865] And,
speaking of the American Indians, Heriot says that children form the
wealth of savage tribes.[866]

To a certain extent, the like is true of the agricultural classes of
Europe. A peasant’s wife helps her husband in the field, tends the
cattle, and takes part in the fishing. She cooks and washes, sews,
spins, and weaves. In a word, she does many useful things about which
women of the well-off classes never think of troubling themselves.
Hence in Russia, as we are informed by M. Pietro Semenow, the small
agriculturists, who form an enormous proportion of the population, are
in the habit of arranging for the marriage of their sons at as early an
age as possible in order to secure an additional female labourer.[867]

Even in cities it is not among the poorest classes that celibacy is
most frequent. A “gentleman,” before marrying, thinks it necessary to
have an income of which a mere fraction would suffice for a married
workman. He has to offer his wife a home in accordance with her
social position and his own; and unless she brings him some fortune,
she contributes but little to the support of the family. Professor
Vallis has made out that, in the nobility and higher _bourgeoisie_ of
Sweden, only 32 per cent. of the male population and 26 per cent. of
the female population are married, whilst the averages for the whole
population amount to 34 and 32 per cent. respectively.[868] Some such
disproportion must always exist when the habits of life are luxurious,
and the amount of income does not correspond to them. And it is obvious
that women have to suffer from this trouble more than men, the life of
many of them being comparatively so useless, and their pretensions,
nevertheless, so high.

Another reason why the age for marriage has been raised by advancing
civilization is, that a man requires more time to gain his living by
intellectual than by material work. Thus, miners, tailors, shoemakers,
artisans, &c., who earn in youth almost as much as in later life,
marry, as a rule, earlier than men of the professional class.[869] In
most European countries the decrease in the number of married people is
also partly due to the drafting of young men into the army, and their
retention in it in enforced bachelorhood during the years when nature
most strongly urges to matrimony.

Of course these conditions affect directly the marriage age only of
men, but indirectly they influence that of women also. Many fall in
love with their future wives long before they are able to form a home,
and those who marry late generally avoid very great disparity of
age.[870]

In one respect the average age at which women marry may be said to
depend directly upon the degree of civilization. Dr. Ploss has justly
pointed out that the ruder a people is, and the more exclusively a
woman is valued as an object of desire, or as a slave, the earlier in
life is she generally chosen;[871] whereas, if marriage becomes a union
of souls as well as of bodies, the man claims a higher degree of mental
maturity from the woman he wishes to be his wife.

At the lower stages of human development, the pleasures of life consist
chiefly in the satisfaction of natural wants and instincts. Hence
savages and barbarians scarcely ever dream of voluntarily denying
themselves “domestic bliss.” But, as a writer in ‘The Nation’ says,
“by the general diffusion of education and culture, by the new
inventions and discoveries of the age, by the increase of commerce
and intercourse and wealth, the tastes of men and women have become
widened, their desires multiplied, new gratifications and pleasures
have been supplied to them. By this increase of the gratifications of
existence the relative share of them which married life affords has
become just so much less. The domestic circle does not fill so large a
place in life as formerly. It is really less important to either man
or woman. Married life has lost in some measure its advantage over a
single life. There are so many more pleasures, now, that can be enjoyed
as well or even better in celibacy.”[872]

It has further been suggested that the development of the mental
faculties has made the sexual impulse less powerful. That instinct
is said to be most excessive in animals which least excel in
intelligence, the beasts which are the most lascivious, as the ass,
the boar, &c., being also the most stupid;[873] and M. Forel even
believes that, among the ants, increase of mind-power may have led to
the sterility of the workers.[874] Idiots, too, are known to display
very gross sensuality.[875] Yet the suggestion that decrease of sexual
desire is a necessary attendant upon mental evolution cannot, so far as
I know, by any means be considered scientifically proved, though we may
safely say that if, among primitive men, pairing was restricted to one
season of the year, the sexual instinct became gradually less intense
as it became less periodical. A higher degree of forethought and
self-control has, moreover, to a certain extent put the drag on human
passions.

Finally, there can be no doubt that the higher development of feeling
has helped to increase the number of those who remain single. “By
the diffusion of a finer culture throughout the community,” says
the above-mentioned writer in ‘The Nation,’ “men and women can
less easily find any one whom they are willing to take as a partner
for life; their requirements are more exacting; their standards of
excellence higher; they are less able to find any who can satisfy their
own ideal, and less able to satisfy anybody else’s ideal. Men and
women have, too, a livelier sense of the serious and sacred character
of the marriage union, and of the high motives from which alone it
should be formed. They are less willing to contract it from any lower
motives.”[876]

In what direction is the civilized world tending with regard to these
matters? Will the number of celibates increase as hitherto, or will
there be some backward movement in that respect? A definite answer
cannot yet be given, since much will depend on economical conditions
which it is impossible at present to foresee.

       *       *       *       *       *

Before this chapter is closed, it may be worth while to glance at the
curious notion that there is something impure and sinful in marriage,
as in sexual relations generally. The missionary Jellinghaus found
this idea prevalent among the Munda Kols in Chota Nagpore. Once when
he asked them, “May a dog sin?” the answer was, “If the dog did
not sin how could he breed?”[877] In Efate, of the New Hebrides,
according to Mr. Macdonald, sexual intercourse is regarded as something
unclean;[878] and the Tahitians believed that, if a man refrained
from all connection with women some months before death, he passed
immediately into his eternal mansion without any purification.[879]
It is perhaps for a similar reason that the Shawanese have a great
respect for certain persons who observe celibacy,[880] and that,
among the Californian Karok, a man who touches a woman within three
days before going out hunting is believed to miss the quarry.[881]
Among several peoples, as the Brazilian aborigines,[882] the Papuans
of New Guinea,[883] certain tribes in Australia,[884] the Khyoungtha
of the Chittagong Hills,[885] and the Khevsurs of the Caucasus,[886]
continence is required from newly married people for some time
after marriage. The same is the case with several peoples of Aryan
origin; and Dr. v. Schroeder even believes that this custom can be
traced back to the primitive times of the Indo-European race.[887]
In ancient Mexico, the Mazatek bridegroom kept apart from the bride
during the first fifteen days of his wedded life, both spending the
time in fasting and penance.[888] In Greenland, according to Egede, if
married couples had children before a year was past, or if they had
large families, they were blamed, and compared to dogs.[889] In Fiji,
husbands and wives do not usually spend the night together, except as
it were by stealth; it is quite contrary to Fijian ideas of delicacy
that they should sleep under the same roof. Thus a man spends the day
with his family, but absents himself on the approach of night.[890]
Speaking of certain American Indians, Lafitau remarks, “Ils n’osent
aller dans les cabanes particulières où habitent leurs épouses, que
durant l’obscurité de la nuit; ... ce seroit une action extraordinaire
de s’y présenter de jour.”[891] Moreover, in spite of the great
licentiousness of many savage races, a veil of modesty, however
transparent, is generally drawn over the relations of the sexes.[892]

The same notion of impurity doubtless explains the fact that certain
persons devoted to religion have to live a single life. In the
Marquesas Islands, no one could become a priest without having lived
chastely for several years previously.[893] In Patagonia, according
to Falkner, the male wizards were not allowed to marry,[894] and the
same prohibition applied to the priests of the Mosquito Indians and
the ancient Mexicans.[895] In Peru, there were virgins dedicated to
the Sun, who lived in seclusion to the end of their lives; and besides
the virgins who professed perpetual virginity in the monasteries,
there were other women, of the blood royal, who led the same life in
their own houses, having taken a vow of chastity. “These women,”
says Garcilasso de la Vega, “were held in great veneration for their
chastity and purity, and, as a mark of worship and respect, they were
called ‘Occlo,’ which was a name held sacred in their idolatry.”[896]
In Mexico, also, certain religious women were bound to chastity,
although their profession was but for one year. Speaking of these nuns,
the pious Father Acosta remarks, “The devil hath desired to be served
by them that observe Virginitie, not that chastitie is pleasing unto
him, for he is an uncleane spirite, but for the desire he hath to take
from the great God, as much as in him lieth, this glory to be served
with cleanness and integrity.”[897] Justinus tells us of Persian Sun
priestesses, who, like the Roman vestals and certain Greek priestesses,
were obliged to refrain from intercourse with men;[898] and according
to Pomponius Mela, the nine priestesses of the oracle of a Gallic deity
in Sena were devoted to perpetual virginity.[899]

The Buddhistic doctrine teaches that lust and ignorance are the two
great causes of the misery of life, and that we should therefore
suppress lust and remove ignorance. We read in the ‘Dhammika-Sutta’
that “a wise man should avoid married life as if it were a burning
pit of live coals.”[900] Sensuality is altogether incompatible with
wisdom and holiness. According to the legend, Buddha’s mother, who
was the best and purest of the daughters of men, had no other sons,
and her conception was due to supernatural causes.[901] And one of
the fundamental duties of monastic life, by an infringement of which
the guilty person brings about his inevitable expulsion from Buddha’s
Order, is, that “an ordained monk may not have sexual intercourse, not
even with an animal. The monk who has sexual intercourse is no longer
a monk.”[902] Mr. Wilson, indeed, states that, in Tibet, some sects of
the Lamas are allowed to marry; but those who do not are considered
more holy. And in every sect the nuns must take a vow of absolute
continence.[903] Again, the Chinese laws enjoin celibacy upon all
priests, Buddhist or Taouist.[904]

In India, where, according to Sir Monier Williams, married life has
been more universally honoured than in any other country of the world,
celibacy has, nevertheless, in instances of extraordinary sanctity,
always commanded respect.[905] “Those of their Sannyâsis,” says
Dubois, “who are known to lead their lives in perfect celibacy,
receive, on that account, marks of distinguished honour and respect.”
But the single state, which is allowed to those who devote themselves
to a life of contemplation, is not tolerated in any class of women.[906]

Among a small class of Hebrews, too, the idea that marriage is impure
gradually took root. The Essenes, says Josephus, “reject pleasures
as an evil, but esteem continence and the conquest over our passions
to be virtue. They neglect wedlock.”[907] This doctrine exercised
no influence upon Judaism, but probably much upon Christianity. St.
Paul held celibacy to be preferable to marriage:—“He that giveth his
virgin in marriage doeth well,” he says; “but he that giveth her
not in marriage doeth better.”[908] Yet, as for most men continence
is not possible, marriage is for them not only a right but a duty.
“It is good for a man not to touch a woman; nevertheless, to avoid
fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have
her own husband.... If they (the unmarried and widows) cannot contain,
let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”[909] A much
stronger opinion as to the superiority of celibacy is expressed by
most of the Fathers of the Church. Origen thought marriage profane and
impure. Tertullian says that celibacy must be chosen, even if mankind
should perish. According to St Augustine, the unmarried children will
shine in heaven as beaming stars, whilst their parents will look
like the dim ones.[910] Indeed, as Mr. Lecky observes, the cardinal
virtue of the religious type became the absolute suppression of the
whole sensual side of our nature, and theology made the indulgence of
one passion almost the sole unchristian sin.[911] It was a favourite
opinion among the Fathers that, if Adam had preserved his obedience to
the Creator, he would have lived for ever in a state of virgin purity,
and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise
with a race of innocent and immortal beings. The use of marriage was in
fact permitted to his fallen posterity only as a necessary expedient
for the continuance of the human species, and as a restraint, however
imperfect, on the natural licentiousness of desire.[912] But, though it
may be marriage that fills the earth, says St. Jerome, it is virginity
that replenishes heaven.[913]

These opinions led by degrees to the obligatory celibacy of the secular
and regular clergy. The New Testament gives us no intimation that,
during the lifetime of the apostles, monastic vows were taken by men
of any age, or by unmarried women, and hardly any of the apostles
themselves were celibates.[914] But gradually, as continence came to
be regarded as a cardinal virtue, and celibacy as the nearest approach
to the Divine perfection, a notion that the married state is not
consistent with the functions of the clergy became general. As early
as the end of the fourth century, the continence of the higher grades
of ecclesiastics was insisted on by a Roman synod, but no definite
punishment was ordered for its violation.[915] Gregory VII.—who “looked
with abhorrence on the contamination of the holy sacerdotal character,
even in its lowest degree, by any sexual connection”—was the first who
prescribed with sufficient force the celibacy of the clergy. Yet, in
many countries, it was so strenuously resisted, that it could not be
carried through till late in the thirteenth century.[916]

As for the origin of this notion of sexual uncleanness, it may
perhaps be connected with the instinctive feeling, to be dealt with
later on, against intercourse between members of the same family or
household. Experience, I think, tends to prove that there exists a
close association between these two feelings, which shows itself
in many ways. Sexual love is entirely banished from the sphere of
domestic life, and it is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that when it
appears in other relations, an association of ideas attaches a notion
of impurity to the desire and a notion of shame to its gratification.
Evidently, also, the religious enforcement of celibacy is intimately
allied to the belief that sexual intercourse is the great transmitter
of original sin, as well as to the abhorrence of every enjoyment which
is considered to degrade the spiritual nature of man.




CHAPTER VIII

THE COURTSHIP OF MAN


Speaking of the male and female reproductive cells of plants, Professor
Sachs remarks that, wherever we are able to observe an external
difference between the two, the male cell behaves actively in the
union, the female passively.[917] In this respect there is an analogy
between plants and many of the lower animals. In the case of some
lowly-organised animals, which are permanently affixed to the same
spot, the male element is invariably brought to the female. There are
other instances in which the females alone are fixed, and the males
must be the seekers. Even when the males and females of a species
are both free, it is almost always the males that first approach the
females.[918]

As Mr. Darwin points out, we can see the reason why, in the first
instance, the male plays the active part:—“Even if the ova were
detached before fertilisation, and did not require subsequent
nourishment or protection, there would yet be greater difficulty in
transporting them than the male element because, being larger than
the latter, they are produced in far smaller numbers.”[919] He adds,
however, that, with respect to forms of which the progenitors were
primordially free, it is difficult to understand why the males should
invariably have acquired the habit of approaching the females, instead
of being approached by them. Perhaps the explanation may be that the
seeker is more exposed to danger than the one sought after, and that
the death of a male at the pairing time is less disadvantageous for
the existence of the species than the death of a female. At any rate,
we may say with Mr. Darwin that it is necessary that the males should
be endowed with strong passions in order that they may be efficient
seekers; and the acquirement of such passions would naturally follow
from the more eager males leaving a larger number of offspring than the
less eager.[920]

The rule holds good for the human race, the man generally playing a
more active, the woman a more passive, part in courtship. The latter,
as it has been said, “requires to be courted.” Yet, curiously enough,
there are a few peoples among whom the reverse seems to be the case,
just as, among the lower animals also, there are some species of which
the females are the courters.[921] Among the Moquis in New Mexico,
according to Dr. Broeck, “instead of the swain asking the hand of the
fair one, she selects the young man who is to her fancy, and then her
father proposes the match to the sire of the lucky youth.”[922] In
Paraguay, we are told, the women were generally endowed with stronger
passions than the men,[923] and were allowed to make proposals;[924]
and among the Garos, according to Colonel Dalton, it is not only
the privilege but even the duty of the girl to speak first, any
infringement of this rule being summarily and severely punished. “If
a male makes advances to a girl,” he says, “and the latter, rejecting
them, chooses also to tell her friends that such tenders of affection
have been made to her, it is looked on as an insult to the whole
‘mahári’ (motherhood) to which the girl belongs, a stain only to be
obliterated by the blood of pigs, and liberal libations of beer at the
expense of the ‘mahári’ to which the man belongs.”[925] According
to Mr. Batchelor, it constantly occurs among the Ainos that the
proposal of marriage comes in the first place from the girl;[926] and
in Polynesia,[927] as also among the Kafirs of Natal[928] and certain
tribes in Oregon,[929] the same is sometimes the case.

It often happens that the parents of both parties make up the match;
and among several peoples the man pays his suit by proxy. But these
instances are of no particular importance.

       *       *       *       *       *

In most animal species courtship takes place in nearly the same way.
During the season of love, the males even of the most timid animals
engage in desperate combats with each other for the possession of the
female, and she, although comparatively passive, nevertheless often
exercises a choice, selecting one of the rivals. This fighting for a
female occurs even among insects,[930] and is of universal prevalence
in the order of the Vertebrata. We may, with Haeckel, regard it as a
modification and a special kind of the struggle for existence.[931]

There can be no doubt that our primeval human ancestors had, in the
same way, to combat for their brides. Even now this kind of courtship
is far from being unknown. Speaking of the Northern Indians, Hearne
states that “it has ever been the custom among those people for the men
to wrestle for any woman to whom they are attached; and, of course, the
strongest party always carries off the prize. A weak man, unless he
be a good hunter and well-beloved, is seldom permitted to keep a wife
that a stronger man thinks worth his notice.... This custom prevails
throughout all their tribes, and causes a great spirit of emulation
among their youth, who are upon all occasions, from their childhood,
trying their strength and skill in wrestling.[932] Richardson also saw,
more than once, a stronger man assert his right to take the wife of a
weaker countryman. “Any one,” he says, “may challenge another to
wrestle, and, if he overcomes, may carry off his wife as the prize....
The bereaved husband meets his loss with the resignation which custom
prescribes in such a case, and seeks his revenge by taking the wife
of another man weaker than himself.”[933] With reference to the Slave
Indians, Mr. Hooper says, “If a man desire to despoil his neighbour of
his wife, a trial of strength of a curious nature ensues: they seize
each other by the hair, which is worn long and flowing, and thus strive
for the mastery, until one or another cries _peccavi_. Should the
victor be the envious man, he has to pay a certain number of skins for
the husband-changing woman.”[934]

Among the Californians also, conflicting claims sometimes arise
between two or more men in regard to a woman; and, among the Patwin,
it occasionally happened that men who had a quarrel about a woman
fought a duel with bows and arrows at long distances.[935] In Mexico,
a duel often decided the conflict between two competing suitors.[936]
Among the Guanas, according to Azara, the men frequently do not marry
till they are twenty years old or more, as before that age they cannot
conquer their rivals.[937] Among the Muras, the wives are most commonly
gained in a combat with fists between all the lovers of the girl; and
the same is the case with the Passés.[938]

Among the Australian aborigines, quarrels are perhaps for the most
part occasioned by “the fair sex.”[939] Speaking of the natives near
Herbert Vale, Northern Queensland, Herr Lumholtz says that, “if a
woman is good-looking, all the men want her, and the one who is most
influential, or who is the strongest, is accordingly generally the
victor.”[940] Hence, the majority of the young men must wait a long
time before they get wives, as they have not the courage to fight the
requisite duel for one with an older man.[941] In the tribes of Western
Victoria, described by Mr. Dawson, a young chief who cannot get a wife,
and falls in love with one belonging to a chief who has more than two,
can, with her consent, challenge the husband to single combat, and, if
the husband is defeated, the conqueror makes her his legal wife.[942]
Narcisse Peltier, who, during seventeen years, was detained by a tribe
of Queensland Australians, states that the men “not unfrequently fight
with spears for the possession of a woman.”[943]

In New Zealand, if a girl had two suitors with equal pretensions, a
kind of “pulling match” was arranged in which the girl’s arms were
dragged by each of the suitors in opposite directions, the stronger
man being the victor;[944] and, according to the Rev. R. Taylor, there
is in the Maori language even a special term for denoting such a
struggle.[945] In Samoa, as also in the Fiji Islands, women have always
been one of the chief causes of fighting;[946] and of the natives of
Makin, of the Kingsmill Group, Mr. Wood assures us that “they have
no wars, and very few arms, and seldom quarrel except about their
women.”[947]

Among the South African Bushmans, the “stronger man will sometimes
take away the wife of the weaker.”[948] The people of Wadaï are
notorious for their desperate fights for women; and, among the young
men of Baghirmi, bloody feuds between rivals are far from being of rare
occurrence.[949]

In the islands outside Kamchatka there prevailed formerly a very
curious custom, as reported by Steller. If a husband found that a rival
had been with his wife, he would admit that the rival had at least an
equal claim to her. “Let us try, then,” he would say, “which of us
has the greater right, and shall have her.” After that they would take
off their clothes and begin to beat each other’s backs with sticks;
and he who first fell to the ground, unable to bear any more blows,
lost his right to the woman.[950]

Among the ancient Hindus, says Mr. Samuelson, “it was a custom in
royal circles, when a princess became marriageable, for a tournament
to be held, and the victor was chosen by the princess as her husband.”
This custom was known as the “Swayamvara,” or “Maiden’s Choice,” and
it is often mentioned in the ancient legends.[951]

In Greek legends and myths, we meet with several instances of fighting
or emulation for women. Pausanias tells us that Danaus established a
race for his daughters, and that “he that outran all the rest was to
have the first choice, and take her whom he most approved; he that was
next in order was to have the second choice, and so on to the last; and
those who had no suitors were ordered to wait till new ones came to
the course.”[952] According to Pindar, Antæus, father of a fair-haired
and greatly-praised daughter, who had many suitors, stationed the
whole company of them at the end of the race-course, saying that he
should have her for his bride who should prove foremost in the race and
first touch her garments.[953] Icarus likewise proposed a race for the
suitors of Penelope;[954] and, as Mr. Hamilton remarks, “the triumph
of Odysseus over the Suitors is the real end of the Odyssey.”[955]

According to Dr. Krauss, the South Slavonian youths on Palm Sunday,
the day for presentiments of love, wrestle with each other, believing
that he who proves the stronger will get the prettier wife.[956] Arthur
Young informs us of the following strange custom which prevailed in
the interior of Ireland in his time:—“There is a very ancient custom
here,” he says, “for a number of country neighbours among the poor
people to fix upon some young woman that ought, as they think, to be
married; they also agree upon a young fellow as a proper husband for
her; this determined, they send to the fair one’s cabin to inform her
that on the Sunday following ‘she is to be horsed,’ that is, carried
on men’s backs. She must then provide whisky and cider for a treat, as
all will pay her a visit after mass for a hurling match. As soon as
she is horsed the hurling begins, in which the young fellow appointed
for her husband has the eyes of all the company fixed on him: if he
comes off conqueror, he is certainly married to the girl; but if
another is victorious, he as certainly loses her, for she is the prize
of the victor.... Sometimes one barony hurls against another, but a
marriageable girl is always the prize.”[957]

       *       *       *       *       *

The sexual struggle in the animal kingdom is not always of a violent
kind. As Mr. Darwin has pointed out, males often try by peaceful
emulation to charm the female. In many species of birds the male seems
to endeavour to gain his bride by displaying his colours and ornaments
before her, or exciting her by his love-notes, songs, and antics. But
among the lower Mammals he wins her, apparently, much more through
the law of battle than through the display of his charms.[958] There
can scarcely be any doubt that the same was the case with primitive
men; but we need not mount many steps of human progress to find that
courtship involves something more than a mere act of strength or
courage on the part of the male. It is not only in civilized countries
that it often means a prolonged making of love to the woman. Mariner’s
words with reference to the women of Tonga hold true for a great many,
not to say all, savage and barbarous races now existing. “It must
not be supposed,” he says, “that these women are always easily won;
the greatest attentions and most fervent solicitations are sometimes
requisite, even though there be no other lover in the way. This happens
sometimes from a spirit of coquetry, at other times from a dislike to
the party, &c.”[959]

Though generally playing the less active part in courtship, the woman
does not by any means indulge in complete passivity. Mr. Hooper tells
us that, among the Indians at James’s Bay, “two young Indian women
were observed some years ago in violent conflict.... After a lengthened
and determined struggle the weakest succumbed to the superior prowess
of her fortunate adversary. It appeared that these girls were in love
with the same man, and had self-instituted this mode of deciding their
claims.”[960] Among the Wintun of California, according to Mr. Powers,
when any man other than a chief attempts to introduce into his wigwam a
second partner of his bosom, the two women dispute for the supremacy,
often in a desperate pitched battle with sharp stones; “they maul each
other’s faces with savage violence, and if one is knocked down her
friends assist her to regain her feet, and the brutal combat is renewed
until one or the other is driven from the wigwam.”[961] Peltier states
that, in the Australian tribe already referred to, the women, of whom
from two to five commonly belong to each man, fight among themselves
about him, “their weapons being heavy staves, with which they beat one
another about the head till the blood flows.”[962] In the Kingsmill
Islands, women sometimes, from jealousy, carry a small weapon, watching
an opportunity of making an attack upon their rivals, desperate
fights being the consequence;[963] and, among the Kamchadales also,
the females are said to have fought for the males.[964] But far more
commonly women try to secure men’s love by coquetry or the display of
their charms. Finally, whilst the men are generally the courters, the
women may in many, perhaps most cases, accept or refuse their proposals
at pleasure.

The next chapter will be devoted to an account of some of the most
common means by which the sexes endeavour, or formerly endeavoured,
to make themselves attractive to one another, and to stimulate each
other’s passions. Then we shall see how far woman has the liberty of
disposing of her own hand, and, at the same time, note cases in which
the man also, with regard to his marriage, has to submit to some
other’s will.




CHAPTER IX

MEANS OF ATTRACTION


The desire for self-decoration, although a specifically human quality,
is exceedingly old. There are peoples destitute of almost everything
which we regard as necessaries of life, but there is no people so
rude as not to take pleasure in ornaments. The ancient barbarians who
inhabited the south of Europe at the same time as the reindeer and the
mammoth, brought to their caves brilliant and ornamental objects.[965]
The women of the utterly wretched Veddahs in Ceylon decorate themselves
with necklaces of brass beads, and bangles cut from the chank
shell.[966] The Fuegians “are content to be naked,” but “ambitious
to be fine.”[967] The Australians, without taking the slightest pride
in their appearance, so far as neatness or cleanliness is concerned,
are yet very vain of their own rude decorations.[968] And of the rude
Tasmanians, Cook tells us that they had no wish to obtain useful
articles, but were eager to secure anything ornamental.

“Great as is the vanity of the civilized,” says Mr. Spencer, “it is
exceeded by that of the uncivilized.”[969] The predilection of savages
for ornaments has been sufficiently shown by travellers in almost
every part of the world. Feathers and beads of different colours,
flowers, rings, anklets, and bracelets, are common embellishments. A
fully-equipped Santal belle, for instance, carries two anklets, and
perhaps twelve bracelets, and a necklace weighing a pound, the total
weight of ornaments on her person amounting to thirty-four pounds of
bell metal,—“a greater weight,” says Captain Sherwill, “than one
of our drawing-room belles could well lift.”[970] Besides this, the
body is transformed in various ways. The lips, the sides of the nose,
and the lobes of the ear are especially ill-treated. Hardly any woman
in Eastern Central Africa is without a lip-ring; they say it makes
them look pretty, and “the bigger the ring, the more they value
themselves!”[971] The Shulis bore a hole in the underlip and insert in
it a piece of crystal three or four inches long, which sways about as
they speak;[972] and similar customs are common among other African
peoples,[973] as also in some parts of North and South America.[974]
The Papuans perforate the septum of the nose and insert in the hole
sticks, claws of birds, &c.[975] The most common practice is to pierce,
enlarge, or somehow mutilate the ear-lobes. Certain North American
Indians,[976] the Arecunas and Botocudos of South America,[977] and
the East African Wa-taïta[978] pull them down almost to the shoulders.
Among the Easter Islanders, says Beechey, “the lobe, deprived of its
ear-ring, hangs dangling against the neck, and has a very disagreeable
appearance, particularly when wet. It is sometimes so long as to be
greatly in the way; to obviate which, they pass the lobe over the upper
part of the ear, or more rarely, fasten one lobe to the other, at the
back of the head.”[979]

Scarcely less subject to mutilations are the teeth. In the Malay
Archipelago, the filing and blackening of the teeth are thought
to produce a most beautiful result, white teeth being in great
disesteem.[980] The Australians often knock out one or two front teeth
of the upper jaw, and several tribes in New Guinea file their teeth
sharp.[981] Again, the Damaras file the middle teeth in the upper jaw
into the form of a swallow’s tail, and knock out four teeth in the
lower jaw; whilst one of the Makalaka tribes, north of the Zambesi, and
the Matongas, on its bank, “break out their top incisor-teeth from the
sheerest vanity. Their women say that it is only horses that eat with
all their teeth, and that men ought not to eat like horses.”[982]

Many savage men take most pride in the hair of the head. Now it is
painted in a showy manner, now decorated with beads and tinsel, now
combed and arranged with the most exquisite care. The Kandhs have
their hair, which is worn very long, drawn forward and rolled up till
it looks like a horn projecting from between the eyes. Around this it
is their delight to wear a piece of red cloth, and they insert the
feathers of favourite birds, as also a pipe, comb, &c.[983] The men
of Tana, of the New Hebrides, wear their hair “twelve and eighteen
inches long, and have it divided into some six or seven hundred little
locks or tresses;”[984] and, among the Latúka, a man requires a period
of from eight to ten years to perfect his coiffure.[985] In North
America, Hearne saw several men about six feet high, who had preserved
“a single lock of their hair that, when let down, would trail on the
ground as they walked.”[986] Other Indians practise the custom of
shaving the head and ornamenting it with the crest of deer’s hairs; and
wigs are used by several savage peoples.[987] The Indians of Guiana,
the Fuegians, Chavantes, Uaupés,[988] and other tribes are in the habit
of pulling out their eyebrows.

Scarcely anything has a greater attraction for the savage mind than
showy colours. “No matter,” says Dr. Holub, “how ill a traveller in
the Marutse district may be, and how many bearers he may require, if he
only has a good stock of blue beads he may always be sure of commanding
the best attention and of securing the amplest services; his beads will
prove an attraction irresistible to sovereign and subject, to man,
woman, and child, to freeman and bondman alike.”[989] The practice of
ornamenting one’s self with gaudy baubles and painting the body with
conspicuous colours is, indeed, extremely prevalent. Of Santal men at
a feast, Sir W. Hunter says that, “if all the colours of the rainbow
were not displayed by them, certainly the hedgehog, the peacock, and
a variety of the feathered tribe had been laid under contribution in
order to supply the young Santal beaux with plumes.”[990] Especially
does the savage man delight in paint. Red ochre is generally looked
upon as the chief embellishment, whilst, of the other colours, black
and white are probably most in use. The Naudowessies paint their faces
red and black, “which they esteem as greatly ornamental.”[991] Among
the Guaycurûs, many men paint their bodies half red, half white.[992]
Throughout the Australian continent the natives stain themselves with
black, red, yellow, and white.[993] In Fiji, a small quantity of
vermilion is esteemed “as the greatest possible acquisition.”[994] In
New Zealand, the lips of both sexes are generally dyed blue; and in
Santa Cruz, or Egmont Island, Labillardière observed with surprise that
“there was very much diffused a fondness for white hair, which formed
a striking contrast to the colour of their skin.”[995]

“Not one great country can be named,” Mr. Darwin says, “from the
Polar regions in the north to New Zealand in the south, in which the
aborigines do not tattoo themselves.”[996] This practice was followed
by the ancient Assyrians, Britons, and Thracians,[997] as it is
followed by most savages still. And it may be said without exaggeration
that there is no visible part of the human body, except the eyeball,
that has escaped from being disfigured in this way. Some of the Easter
Islanders tattoo their foreheads in arched lines, as also the edges
of their ears, and the fleshy part of their lips.[998] The Abyssinian
women occasionally prick their gums entirely blue.[999] The Mundrucûs
tattooed even their eyelids.[1000] And, speaking of the tattooing of
the Sandwich Islanders, Freycinet remarks, “Aucune partie de leur
corps n’en est exempte; le nez, les oreilles, les paupières, le sommet
de la tête, le bout de la langue même dans quelques circonstances, en
sont surchargés non moins que la poitrine, le dos, les jambes, les bras
et la paume des mains.”[1001]

Often cicatrices are made in the skin, without any colouring matter
being used. Some tribes of Madagascar, for instance, are in the habit
of making marks, “which are intended to be ornamental,” by slight
incisions in the skin.[1002] The natives of Tana ornament themselves
by “cutting or burning some rude device of a leaf or a fish on the
breast, or upper part of the arm.”[1003] The Australians throughout the
continent scar their persons, as Mr. Curr assures us, only as a means
of decoration.[1004] And, in Fiji, “rows of wart-like spots are burned
along the arms and backs of the women, which they and their admirers
call ornamental.”[1005]

It has been suggested that many of these practices sprang from other
motives than a desire for decoration; and some are said to have had
a religious origin. The Australian Dieyerie, on being asked why he
knocks out two front teeth of the upper jaw of his children, can answer
only that, when they were created, the Muramura, a good spirit, thus
disfigured the first child, and, pleased at the sight, commanded
that the like should be done to every male or female child for ever
after.[1006] The Pelew Islanders believe that the perforation of the
septum of the nose is necessary for winning eternal bliss;[1007] and
the Nicaraguans say that their ancestors were instructed by the gods
to flatten the children’s heads.[1008] Again, in Fiji, it is supposed
that the custom of tattooing is in conformity with the appointment of
the god Dengei, and that its neglect is punished after death.[1009] A
similar idea prevails among the Kingsmill Islanders and Ainos;[1010]
and the Greenlanders formerly believed that the heads of those girls
who had not been deformed by long stitches made with a needle and black
thread between the eyes, on the forehead, and upon the chin, would be
turned into train tubs, and placed under the lamps in heaven, in the
land of souls.[1011] But such tales are not of much importance, as any
usage practised from time immemorial may easily be ascribed to the
command of a god.

Mr. Frazer suggests that several of the practices here mentioned are
fundamentally connected with totemism.[1012] In order to put himself
more fully under the protection of the totem, the clansman, according
to Mr. Frazer, is in the habit of assimilating himself to it by
the arrangement of his hair and the mutilation of his body; and of
representing the totem on his body by cicatrices, tattooing, or paint.
Thus the Buffalo clans of the Iowa and Omahas wear two locks of hair in
imitation of horns; whilst the Small Bird clan of the Omahas “leave
a little hair in front, over the forehead, for a bill, and some at the
back of the head, for the bird’s tail, with much over each ear for the
wings;” and the Turtle subclan cut off all the hair from a boy’s head,
except six locks which are arranged so as to imitate the legs, head,
and tail of a turtle. The practice of knocking out the upper front
teeth at puberty, Mr. Frazer continues, is, or was once, probably an
imitation of the totem; and so also the bone, reed, or stick which
some Australian tribes thrust through the nose. The Haidahs of Queen
Charlotte Islands have always, and the Iroquois commonly, their totems
tattooed on their persons, and certain other tribes have on their
bodies tattooed figures of animals, which Mr. Frazer thinks likely to
be totem marks. According to one authority, the raised cicatrices of
the Australians are sometimes arranged in patterns representing the
totem; and, among a few peoples, the totem is painted on the person of
the clansman.[1013]

Mr. Frazer’s theory is supported by exceedingly few facts whereas
there is an enormous mass of cases in which we have no right whatever
to infer a connection with totemism. It is, indeed, impossible to
see how most of the practices considered in this chapter could have
originated in this way. How is it possible to explain the knocking
out of the upper front teeth or the thrusting of a stick through the
nose as imitations of totem animals? And how are we to connect the
mutilations of the ears and other parts of the body, and the various
modes of self-decoration, with totemism? Since all such practices are
universally considered to improve the appearance, and, as will be shown
presently, take place at the same period of life, we may justly infer
that the cause to which they owe their origin is fundamentally one and
the same. As for tattooing, Professor Gerland assumes that the tattooed
marks were originally figures of totem animals, though they are no
longer so;[1014] but an assumption of that kind is not permissible
in a scientific investigation. And even in those rare cases, where
a connection between tattooing and totemism undoubtedly exists, we
cannot be sure whether this connection is not secondary. At present
tattooing is everywhere regarded exclusively, or almost exclusively, as
a means of decoration, and Cook states expressly that, in the South
Sea Islands, at the time of their discovery, it was in no way connected
with religion.[1015] Nor can I agree with Mr. Spencer that tattooing
and other kinds of mutilation were practised originally as a means
of expressing subordination to a dead ruler or a god.[1016] Equally
without evidence is Mr. Colquhoun’s opinion that the custom originated
in the wish either to make a man more fearful in battle, or to render
the body invulnerable by the tattooing of charms on it.[1017]

It is true, no doubt, that this practice subserves various ends. Mr.
Keyser speaks of a chief in New Guinea who had sixty-three blue tattoo
lines on his chest, which represented the number of enemies he had
slain.[1018] Moreover, the tattooed marks make it possible for savages
to distinguish their own clansmen from their enemies;[1019] though
I cannot think, with Chenier,[1020] that this was their original
object. Again, many ornaments are really nothing but trophy-badges,
and many things used for ornaments were at first substitutes for
trophies, having some resemblance to them;[1021] whilst others are
carried as signs of opulence.[1022] I do not deny, either, that men
may sometimes paint their bodies in order to inspire their enemies
with fear in battle, or that the use of red ochre and fat is good as
a defence against changes of weather, flies, and mosquitoes.[1023]
Nevertheless, it seems to be beyond doubt that men and women began to
ornament, mutilate, paint, and tattoo themselves chiefly in order to
make themselves attractive to the opposite sex,—that they might court
successfully, or be courted.

It is noteworthy that in all parts of the world the desire for
self-decoration is strongest at the beginning of the age of puberty,
all the above-named customs being practised most zealously at that
period of life. Concerning the Dacotahs, Mr. Prescott states that both
sexes adorn themselves at their courtships to make themselves more
attractive, and that “the young only are addicted to dress.”[1024] The
Oráon, according to Colonel Dalton, is likewise particular about his
personal appearance “only so long as he is unmarried.”[1025] Among the
Let-htas in Indo-China, it is the unmarried youths that are profusely
bedecked with red and white bead necklaces, wild boars’ tusks, brass
armlets, and a broad band of black braid below the knee.[1026] Speaking
of the Encounter Bay tribe of South Australia, the Rev. A. Meyer says
that “the plucking out of the beard and anointing with grease and
ochre (which belong to the initiatory ceremony) the men may continue
if they please till about forty years of age, for they consider it
ornamental, and fancy that it makes them look younger, and gives
them an importance in the eyes of the women.”[1027] In Fiji, says
Mr. Anderson, the men, “who like to attract the attention of the
opposite sex, don their best plumage;”[1028] and when Mr. Bulmer once
asked an Australian native why he wore his adornments, the native
answered “that he wore them in order to look well, and to make himself
agreeable to the women.”[1029]

It is when boys or girls approach puberty that, in the north-west
part of North America, they have their lower lip perforated for the
labret;[1030] that, among the American Eskimo, the African Masarwas,
and certain Australian natives, the cartilage between the nostrils is
pierced for the reception of a piece of bone, wood, or shell.[1031] At
the same age, among the Chibchas and the aborigines of the Californian
Peninsula, holes were made in the ears.[1032] It is at this period of
life, also, that the Chaymas of New Andalusia, the Pelew Islanders, and
the natives of New Britain have their teeth blackened, as black teeth,
both for men and women, are considered an indispensable condition of
beauty;[1033] and that, in several parts of Africa and Australia, they
knock out some teeth, knowing that otherwise they would run the risk
of being refused on account of ugliness.[1034] Among the Nicobarese,
among whom the men blacken their teeth from the period of puberty,
this disfigurement is indeed so favourably regarded by the fair sex
that a woman “would scorn to accept the addresses of one possessing
white teeth, like a dog or pig.”[1035] Mr. Crawfurd tells us that,
in the Malay Archipelago, the practice of filing and blackening the
teeth, already referred to, is a necessary prelude to marriage, the
common way of expressing the fact that a girl has arrived at puberty
being that “she has had her teeth filed.”[1036] And, with reference
to some of the natives of the Congo countries, Tuckey states that the
two upper front teeth are filed by the men, so as to make a large
opening, and scars are raised on the skin, both being intended by the
men as ornamental, and “principally done with the idea of rendering
themselves agreeable to the women.”[1037]

The important part played by the hair of the head as a stimulant of
sexual passion appears in a curious way from Mr. Sibree’s account of
King Radàma’s attempt to introduce European customs among the Hovas
of Madagascar. As soon as he had adopted the military tactics of the
English, he ordered that all his officers and soldiers should have
their hair cut; but this command produced so great a disturbance among
the women of the capital that they assembled in great numbers to
protest against the king’s order, and could not be quieted till they
were surrounded by troops and their leaders cruelly speared.[1038]
Everywhere it is the young and unmarried people who are most anxious
to dress their hair.[1039] Thus, among the Bunjogees, a Chittagong
Hill tribe, the young men “stuff a large ball of black cotton into
their topknot to make it look bigger.”[1040] In the Tenimber Group,
the lads decorate their long locks with leaves, flowers, and feathers,
as Riedel says, “only in order to please the women.”[1041] Among the
Tacullies, “the elderly people neglect to ornament their heads, in
the same manner as they do the rest of their persons, and generally
wear their hair short. But the younger people of both sexes, who feel
more solicitous to make themselves agreeable to each other, wash and
paint their faces and let their hair grow long.”[1042] And in the
Admiralty Islands, according to Professor Moseley, “only the young men
of apparently from eighteen to thirty, or so, wear the hair long and
combed out into a mop or bush,” whilst the boys or older men wear the
hair short.[1043]

Passing to the practice of painting the body: Dr. Sparrman tells us
that the two Hottentots whom he had in his service, when they expected
to meet some girls of their own nation, painted their noses, cheeks,
and the middle of the forehead with soot.[1044] On Flinders Island,
whither the remnant of the Tasmanians were removed, a rebellion nearly
burst out when orders were once issued forbidding the use of ochre
and grease, for “the young men feared the loss of favour in the eyes
of their countrywomen.”[1045] Among the Guarayos, the suitor, when
courting, keeps for some days close to the cabin of the mistress of
his heart, he being painted from head to foot, and armed with his
battle club.[1046] In certain parts of Australia, when a boy arrives
at the age of puberty, his hair, body, and limbs are profusely smeared
with red ochre and fat, this being one of the rites by which he is
initiated into the privileges of manhood.[1047] Again, with reference
to the Ahts, Mr. Sproat remarks that “some of the young men streak
their faces with red, but grown-up men seldom now use paint, unless
on particular occasions.” The women cease to use it about the age of
twenty-five.[1048]

The girls are generally painted when they arrive at the epoch of the
first menstruation.[1049] Thus, among certain Equatorial Africans,
they are rubbed with black, red, and white paints in the course of a
ceremony which, according to Mr. Reade, is essentially of a Phallic
nature.[1050] If a young maiden of the Tapoyers of Brazil “be
marriageable, and yet not courted by any, the mother paints her with
some red colour about the eyes.”[1051]

The act of tattooing, also, generally takes place at the age of
puberty, in the case of men as well as in that of women. It is about
that period that, in the underlip of all freeborn female Thlinkets,
“a slit is made parallel with the mouth, and about half an inch
below it;”[1052] that, among the Eskimo, pigments of various dye are
pricked on the chin, at the angles of the mouth, and across the face
over the cheek-bones;[1053] that, in some South American tribes,
incisions are made from the shoulders of the girl to her waist, “when
she is regarded as a delicious morsel for the arms of an ardent
lover.”[1054] At the same age, either or both sexes are subject to
tattooing among the Guarayos,[1055] Abipones,[1056] Baris,[1057]
Gonds,[1058] Dyaks,[1059] Negritos of the Philippines,[1060] South
Sea Islanders,[1061] Australians,[1062] &c. Among the Nagas of Upper
Assam, it was the custom “to allow matrimony to those only who made
themselves as hideous as possible by having their faces elaborately
tattooed.”[1063] The Makalaka girls, before they could marry, had to
submit to horrible torture, about four thousand stitches being made
in the skin of the chest and stomach, and a black fluid being rubbed
into the wounds.[1064] In New Zealand, according to the Rev. R. Taylor,
it was the great ambition of the young to have fine tattooed faces,
“both to render themselves attractive to the ladies, and conspicuous
in war.”[1065] In Samoa, until a young man was tattooed, he could not
think of marriage, but as soon as this was done, he considered himself
entitled to all the privileges of mature years.[1066] “When it is
all over,” says Mr. Pritchard, “and the youths thoroughly healed, a
grand dance is got up on the first available pretext to display the
tattooing, when the admiration of the fair sex is unsparingly bestowed.
And this is the great reward, long and anxiously looked forward to by
the youths as they smart under the hands of the ‘matai.’”[1067] Often,
however, the operation is accomplished not at once, but at different
times, that the patients may be able to bear the inflammation and pain
at every stage of the process; and not unfrequently it begins when the
girls are quite young children, being constantly added to until they
marry.[1068]

The real object of the custom is shown also by several other
statements. When Mertens asked the natives of Lukunor what was the
meaning of tattooing, one of them answered, “It has the same object
as your clothes, that is, to please the women.”[1069] Bancroft
remarks that young Kadiak wives “secure the affectionate admiration
of their husbands by tattooing the breast and adorning the face with
black lines.”[1070] The raised cuts of the Australians, according to
Mr. Palmer, are “merely ornamental and convey no idea of tribal
connection,” the women marking themselves in this manner “to add to
their looks, and to make themselves attractive.”[1071] Barrington
assures us that, among the natives of Botany Bay, “scars are, by
both sexes, deemed highly ornamental;”[1072] and, in the Eucla tribe,
according to Mr. W. Williams, both sexes make horizontal scars on
the chest and vertical scars on the upper arm “for the purpose of
ornamentation.”[1073] In Ponapé, as we are informed by von Kubary
and Finsch, tattooing is practised only as a means of improving the
appearance;[1074] and, in New Guinea, the women tattoo themselves “to
please the men.”[1075] Bock remarks, “As the Dyak women are tattooed
to please their lovers, so the Laos men undergo the ordeal for the sake
of the women.”[1076]

In Samoa, great licentiousness was connected with the custom of
tattooing; and, in Tahiti, the chiefs prohibited it altogether on
account of the obscene practices by which it was invariably accompanied
in that island.[1077] The Tahitians have also a very characteristic
tale of its origin. Taaroa, their god, and Apouvaru had a daughter, who
was called Hinaeree-remonoi. “As she grew up, in order to preserve
her chastity, she was made ‘pahio,’ or kept in a kind of enclosure,
and constantly attended by her mother. Intent on her seduction, the
brothers invented tattooing, and marked each other with the figure
called Taomaro. Thus ornamented, they appeared before their sister,
who admired the figures, and, in order to be tattooed herself, eluding
the care of her mother, broke the enclosure that had been erected for
her preservation, was tattooed, and became also the victim to the
designs of her brothers. Tattooing thus originated among the gods,
and was first practised by the children of Taaroa, their principal
deity. In imitation of their example, and for the accomplishment of the
same purposes, it was practised among men.... The two sons of Taaroa
and Apouvaru were the gods of tattooing. Their images were kept in
the temples of those who practised the art professionally, and every
application of their skill was preceded by a prayer addressed to them,
that the operation might not occasion death, that the wounds might soon
heal, that the figures might be handsome, attract admirers, and answer
the ends of wickedness designed.”[1078]

This legend is especially instructive because it shows how a custom
which had originally nothing to do with religion may in time take a
more or less religious character. Professor Wundt holds that, in most
cases, religious ideas are the original sources from which customs
flow;[1079] but it is far more probable that the connection between
religion and custom is often secondary. Nearly every practice which for
some reason or other has come into fashion and taken root among the
people, is readily supposed to have a divine sanction; and this is one
of the reasons why conservatism as to religion is so often accompanied
by conservatism in other matters. This must especially be the case
among savage men who identify their ancestors with their gods, and
consequently look upon ancient customs as divine institutions.

It is, indeed, difficult to believe that the motives which gave rise to
tattooing can have been different from those which led to the painting
of the body. The chief distinction between the two is, that the
tattooed marks are indelible, being neither extinguished nor rendered
fainter by lapse of time. Hence the prevalence of tattooing may be
explained by a general desire among savages to make the decorations of
the body permanent. Sometimes, too, the custom seems to be kept up as a
test of courage.[1080]

Even to European tastes the incised lines and figures have in many
cases a certain beauty. Thus, speaking of the Gambier Islanders,
Beechey assures us that the tattooing undoubtedly improves their
appearance; and Yate remarks that “nothing can exceed the beautiful
regularity with which the faces and thighs of the New Zealanders are
tattooed,” the volutes being perfect specimens, and the regularity
mechanically correct.[1081] Forster observed that, among the natives
of Waitahoo (Marquesas Islands), the punctures were disposed with the
utmost care, so that the marks on each leg, arm, and cheek and on the
corresponding muscles were exactly similar.[1082] Among the Tahitians,
according to Darwin, the ornaments follow the curvature of the body so
gracefully, that they have a very pleasing and elegant effect; and,
among the Easter Islanders, “all the lines were drawn with much taste,
and carried in the direction of the muscle.”[1083] The fact that the
tattooed lines follow closely the natural forms of the body in order to
render them more conspicuous, has been observed in the case of other
peoples also,[1084] and it would be ridiculous to regard such marks as
transformed images of gods.

The facts stated seem to show that the object of tattooing,[1085]
as well as of other kinds of self-decoration or mutilation, was to
stimulate the sexual desire of the opposite sex. To us it appears
strange that such repugnant practices as that of perforating the septum
of the nose or removing teeth should owe their origin to coquetry, but
we must not judge of the taste of savages by our own. In this case the
desire for self-decoration is to a great extent identical with the wish
to attract attention, to excite by means of the charm of novelty.[1086]
At all stages of civilization people like a slight variety, but
deviations from what they are accustomed to see must not be too great,
nor of such a kind as to provoke a disagreeable association of ideas.
In Cochin China, where the women blacken their teeth, a man said of
the wife of the English Ambassador contemptuously that “she had
white teeth like a dog;”[1087] and the Abipones in South America, who
carefully plucked out all the hairs with which our eyes are naturally
protected, despised the Europeans for their thick eyebrows, and called
them brothers to the ostriches, who have very thick brows.[1088] We, on
the other hand, would dislike to see a woman with a crystal or a piece
of wood in her lip.

It is a common notion that women are by nature vainer and more addicted
to dressing and decorating themselves than men. This certainly does
not hold good for savage and barbarous peoples in general. It is true
that, among many of them, tattooing is exclusively or predominantly
limited to the women, and that the men sometimes wear fewer ornaments.
But several travellers, as for instance Dr. Schweinfurth[1089] and
Dr. Barth,[1090] who have a vast experience of African races, agree
that the reverse is usually the case. The women of all the tribes of
Indians Richardson saw on his route through the northern parts of the
fur countries, adorned their persons less than the men of the same
tribes; and the like is said of the Comanches.[1091] Among the Uaupés,
Mr. Wallace observed “that the men and boys appropriated all the
ornaments.”[1092] The native women of Orangerie Bay of New Guinea,
except that they are tattooed, adorn themselves less than the men,
and none of them paint their faces and bodies, as the men frequently
do.[1093] In the Admiralty Islands, young girls “sometimes have a
necklace or two on, but they never are decorated to the extent to which
the men are,” it being evidently not considered good taste for them to
adorn their persons.[1094] Among the aborigines of the New Hebrides,
New Hanover, New Ireland,[1095] and Australia,[1096] adornments are
almost entirely monopolised by the men, the “fair sex” being content
with their natural charms.

It has been suggested that the plainer appearance of the women
depends upon their oppressed and despised position, as well as upon
the selfishness of the men.[1097] But it is doubtful whether this is
the true explanation. Savage ornaments, generally speaking, are not
costly things, and even where the state of women is most degraded
a woman may, if she pleases, paint her body with red ochre or put
a piece of wood through her lip or a feather through the cartilage
of the nose. In Eastern Central Africa, for instance, the women are
more decorated than the men, although they hold an inferior position,
being viewed as beasts of burden, and doing all the harder work. “A
woman,” says Mr. Macdonald, “always kneels when she has occasion to
talk to a man.”[1098] Almost the same is said of the female Indians of
Guiana;[1099] whereas in the Yule Island, on the Coast of New Guinea,
and in New Hanover, the women are less given to personal adornment
than the men, although they are held in respect, have influence in
their families, and exercise, in some villages, much authority, or even
supremacy.[1100]

Of all the various kinds of self-ornamentation tattooing is the most
laborious. Yet, in Melanesia, it is chiefly women that are tattooed,
though they are treated as slaves; whilst in Polynesia, where the
_status_ of women is comparatively good, this practice is mainly
confined to the men.[1101] In Fiji, where women were fearfully
oppressed, genuine tattooing was found on them only.[1102]

It is expressly stated of the women of several savage peoples that
they are less desirous of self-decoration than the men. Speaking of
the Aleuts on the Fur-Seal Islands of Alaska, Mr. Elliott says, “In
these lower races there is much more vanity displayed by the masculine
element than the feminine, according to my observation; in other words,
I have noticed a greater desire among the young men than among the
young women of savage and semi-civilised people to be gaily dressed,
and to look fine.”[1103] Among the Gambier Islanders, according to
Beechey, the women “have no ornaments of any kind, and appeared quite
indifferent to the beads and trinkets which were offered them.”[1104]
In Tierra del Fuego, Lieutenant Bove found the men more desirous of
ornaments than the women; and Proyart made a similar observation with
regard to the people of Loango.[1105] Again, touching the Crees,
Mackenzie remarks that “the women, though by no means inattentive to
the decoration of their own persons, appear to have a still greater
degree of pride attending to the appearance of the men, whose faces are
painted with more care than those of the women.”[1106]

It is difficult, then, to believe that the inferior position of the
weaker sex accounts for the comparative scarcity of female ornaments.
The fact may to some extent be explained by Mr. Spencer’s suggestion,
that ornaments have partly originated from trophy-badges, and Professor
Wundt’s, that they indicate rank and fortune: but these explanations
apply only to a few cases. If it be true that man began to decorate
himself chiefly in order to stimulate the passions of the opposite sex,
we may conclude that the vanity of the men is, in the first place,
due to the likings of the women, and that the plainer appearance
of the women is a consequence of the men’s greater indifference to
their ornaments. Mr. Darwin has shown that, among our domesticated
quadrupeds, individual antipathies and preferences are exhibited much
more commonly by the female than by the male,[1107] and the same, as
we shall see, is in some measure the case with man also. It is the
women rather than the men that have to be courted. Thus, with reference
to the natives of Gippsland, Mr. Brough Smyth, on the authority of
Mr. Bulmer, states, “The ornaments worn by the females were not much
regarded by the men. The woman did little to improve her appearance;
... if her physical aspect was such as to attract admirers she was
content.”[1108]

It should also be noted that among savages it is, as a rule, the man
only that runs the risk of being obliged to lead a single life. Hence
it is obvious that to the best of his ability he must endeavour to
be taken into favour by making himself as attractive as possible. In
civilized Europe, on the other hand, the opposite occurs. Here it is
the woman that has the greatest difficulty in getting married—and she
is also the vainer of the two.

The hypothesis as to the origin of the customs in question, set forth
in this chapter, presupposes of course that savage girls enjoy great
liberty in the choice of a mate. It will be seen subsequently that
there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of that presumption.

At a higher stage of civilization the tendency of mankind is to give
up savage ornaments, and no longer to regard mutilations of the body
as improving the appearance. In Persia, women still wear the nose-ring
through one side of the nostril,[1109] but to a European such a custom
would be extremely displeasing. In the Western world the ear-ring is
the last vanishing relic of savage taste.

       *       *       *       *       *

From the naked body the ornaments were transferred to clothing, partly
because climate made clothes necessary, partly for another reason. “A
savage begins,” Professor Moseley says, “by painting or tattooing
himself for ornament. Then he adopts a movable appendage, which he
hangs on his body, and on which he puts the ornamentation which he
formerly marked more or less indelibly on his skin. In this way he is
able to gratify _his taste for change_.”[1110]

It is usually said that man began to cover his body for two reasons:
first, to protect himself from frost and damp; secondly, on account of
a feeling of shame.

There can be no doubt that, when man emigrated from his warm native
home and settled down in less hospitable zones, it became necessary for
him to screen himself from the influences of a raw climate. The Eskimo
wrap themselves up in furs, and the wretched natives of Tierra del
Fuego throw a piece of sealskin over one of their shoulders, “on the
side from which the wind blows.”[1111]

The second motive, too, seems acceptable at first sight. The savage men
of the tropics, though otherwise entirely naked, commonly wear a scanty
dress which Europeans might readily suppose to be used for the sake
of decency. Nothing of the sort is found in any other animal species;
hence Professor Wundt concludes that shame is “a feeling specifically
peculiar to man.”[1112]

But why should man blush to expose one part of the body more than
another? This is no matter of course, but a problem to be solved.

The feeling in question cannot be regarded as originally innate in
mankind. There are many peoples, who, though devoid of any kind of
dress, show no trace of shame, and others who, when they dress
themselves, pay not the least regard to what we consider the first
requirements of decency.

Thus, in the northern parts of the Californian Peninsula, both men and
women have been found in a state of nudity.[1113] Among the Miwok,
according to their own confession, persons of both sexes and of all
ages were formerly absolutely naked.[1114] Lyman found the same to be
the case with the Paiuches in northern Colorado, Columbus with the
aborigines of Hispaniola, Pizarro with the Indians of Coca, v. Humboldt
with the Chaymas, Wallace with the Purupurús, v. Schütz-Holzhausen with
the Catamixis, Prince Maximilian with the Puris at St. Fidelis, Azara
with certain Indians in the neighbourhood of the river Paraguay.[1115]
In some Indian tribes the men alone go naked,[1116] in others the
women.[1117] Again, in North America, Mackenzie met a troop of
natives, of whom the men wore many ornaments and much clothing, but
had, apparently, not the slightest notion of bashfulness. And of the
Fuegians we are told that, although they have the shoulder or the back
protected by a sealskin, the rest of the body is perfectly naked.[1118]

The men of most Australian tribes, and in many cases the women, wear
no clothes except in cold weather, when they throw a kangaroo skin
about their shoulders. “They are as innocent of shame,” says Mr.
Palmer, “as the animals of the forests.”[1119] In Tasmania, too,
the aborigines were usually naked, or, when they covered themselves,
they showed that the idea of decency had not occurred to them.[1120]
The same is said of some tribes in Borneo[1121] and Sumatra,[1122]
the people of Jarai, bordering upon the empire of Siam,[1123] the
inhabitants of the Louisiade Archipelago,[1124] Solomon Islands,[1125]
Penrhyn Island, and some other islands of the South Sea;[1126] whilst,
in others, only the men generally go naked.[1127] The Papuans of the
south-west coast of New Guinea “glory in their nudeness, and consider
clothing to be fit only for women.”[1128] In one part of Timor, on the
other hand,[1129] as also in a tribe of the Andamanese,[1130] it is the
women that are devoid of any kind of covering.

Passing to Africa, we meet with instances of the same kind. Concerning
the Wa-taveita of the eastern equatorial region, Mr. Johnston remarks
that “both sexes have little notion or conception of decency, the men
especially seeming to be unconscious of any impropriety in nakedness.
What clothing they have is worn as an adornment or for warmth at night
and early morning.”[1131] The Wa-chaga and Mashukulumbe generally go
about naked,[1132] and so do the Bushmans, except when they use a
piece of skin barely sufficient to cover the back.[1133] Again, among
the Bubis of Fernando Po[1134] and the natives of Balonda[1135] and
Loango,[1136] the women have no sort of covering, whilst, among the
Negroes of the Egyptian Soudan,[1137] the Baris,[1138] Shilluk,[1139]
Dinka,[1140] Watuta,[1141] and Masai,[1142] this is the case with
the men only. Apud Masaios membrum virile celare turpe existimatur,
honestum expromere, atque etiam ostentare.[1143] In Lancerote also,
according to Bontier and Le Verrier, the men used no covering; and,
in Teneriffe, “the inhabitants went naked, except some few who wore
goatskins.”[1144]

It might perhaps be supposed that the feeling of modesty, though
not originally innate, appeared later on, at a certain stage of
civilization, either spontaneously or from some unknown cause. This
seems, indeed, to be the opinion of Professor Wundt, who says that man
began to cover himself from decency.[1145] But let us see what covering
savages often use.

A fashionable young Wintun woman, says Mr. Powers, wears a girdle of
deer-skin, the lower edge of which is slit into a long fringe with a
polished pine-nut at the end of each strand, while the upper border
and other portions are studded with brilliant bits of shell.[1146] The
Botocudos use a covering which has little resemblance to a garment; and
their neighbours, the Patachos and Machacaris, make this trifle still
smaller, a thread being sufficient clothing, according to their notion
of modesty.[1147] When a Carib girl attained the age of ten or twelve
years, she assumed around the waist “a piece of cotton cloth worked
and embroidered with minute grains of shells of different colours,
decorated in the lower part with fringe.”[1148] Similar ornamental
skirts are in use among the Macusís, Arawaks, and other South American
peoples.[1149] Among the Guaycurûs, the men had no covering, except
a narrow bandage round the loins, which was of coloured cotton, and
often adorned with glass beads.[1150] The Australians of Port Essington
occasionally wear girdles of finely twisted human hair, and the men
sometimes add a tassel of the hair of the opossum or flying squirrel,
suspended in front.[1151] The women on the Lower Murray manufacture
round mats of grass or reeds, which they fasten upon their backs,
“tying them in front, so that they almost resemble the shell of a
tortoise.”[1152] In Tahiti, a “maro,” composed of red and yellow
feathers, was considered a present of very great value, and the women
thought it “most ornamental” to enfold their loins with many windings
of cloth.[1153] Dr. Seemann states that, in Fiji, the girls “wore
nothing save a girdle of hibiscus-fibres, about six inches wide, dyed
black, red, yellow, white, or brown, and put on in such a coquettish
way, that one thought it must come off every moment.”[1154] A similar
practice is common in the islands of the Pacific, fringes made of
cocoa-nut fibre or of leaves slit into narrow strips or filaments of
bark, frequently dyed with gaudy colours, being, in most of these
islands, the only garment of the natives. This costume, with its
conspicuous tint and mobile fringe, has a most graceful appearance and
a very pretty effect, but is far from being in harmony with our ideas
of modesty. In the island of Yap, according to Cheyne, “the dress of
the males, if such it may be called, is slovenly in the extreme. They
wear the ‘maro’ next them, and, by way of improvement, a bunch of bark
fibres dyed red, over it.”[1155] In New Caledonia, in Forster’s time,
the natives only tied “a string round the middle and another round
the neck;”[1156] whilst, in some other groups, the costume of the men
consisted of nothing but a leaf,[1157] a mussel,[1158] or a shell.[1159]

In Sumatra, according to Marsden, young women, before they are of an
age to be clothed, have a plate of silver in the shape of a heart
hung in front by a chain of the same metal.[1160] Among the Garos of
Bengal, the women wear merely a very short piece of striped blue cotton
round the waist. The men have a very narrow waist-cloth tied behind
and then brought up between the legs; the portion hanging over in
front is sometimes adorned with brass boss-like ornaments, and white
long-shaped beads.[1161] In Lukungu, the entire covering of most of the
women consists of a narrow string with some white china beads threaded
on it.[1162] The Hottentot women, according to Barrow, bestowed their
largest and most splendid ornaments upon the little apron, about
seven or eight inches wide, that hung from the waist. “Great pains,”
he says, “seem to be taken by the women to attract notice towards
this part of their persons. Large metal buttons, shells of the cypræa
genus, with the apertures outwards, or anything that makes a great
show, are fastened to the borders of this apron.”[1163] The Bushman
women of South Africa, met with by the same traveller, had as their
only covering a belt of springbok’s skin, the part which was intended
to hang in front being cut into long threads. But the filaments, he
says, “were so small and thin that they answered no sort of use as
a covering; nor, indeed, did the females, either old or young, seem
to feel any sense of shame in appearing before us naked.”[1164] And
among the Negroes of Benin, according to Bosman, the girls had no other
garment than some strings of coral twisted about the middle.[1165]

It seems utterly improbable that such “garments” owe their origin to
the feeling of shame. Their ornamental character being obvious, there
can be but little doubt that men and women originally, at least in
many cases, covered themselves not from modesty, but on the contrary,
in order to make themselves more attractive—the men to women, and the
women to men.

In a state where all go perfectly nude, nakedness must appear quite
natural, for what we see day after day makes no special impression
upon us. But when one or another—whether man or woman—began to put on
a bright-coloured fringe, some gaudy feathers, a string with beads, a
bundle of leaves, a piece of cloth, or a dazzling shell, this could not
of course escape the attention of the others; and the scanty covering
was found to act as the most powerful attainable sexual stimulus.[1166]
Hence the popularity of such garments in the savage world.

Several travellers have noticed that there is nothing indecent in
absolute nakedness when the eyes have got accustomed to it. “Where all
men go naked, as for instance in New Holland,” says Forster, “custom
familiarizes them to each other’s eyes, as much as if they went wholly
muffled up in garments.”[1167] Speaking of a Port Jackson woman who was
entirely uncovered, Captain Hunter remarks, “There is such an air of
innocence about her that clothing scarcely appears necessary.”[1168]
With reference to the Uupés, Mr. Wallace records his opinion that
“there is far more immodesty in the transparent and flesh-coloured
garments of our stage-dancers, than in the perfect nudity of these
daughters of the forest.”[1169] In his ‘Africa Unveiled’ Mr. Rowley
remarks, “When the sight becomes accustomed to the absence of raiment,
your sense of propriety is far less offended than in England, where
ample clothing is made the vehicle for asserting defiance, if not of
actual law, yet of the wishes and feelings of the more virtuous part
of the community.”[1170] And, speaking of the Fuegians, Captain Snow
says, “More harm, I think, is done by false modesty,—by covering and
_partly_ clothing, than by the truth in nature always appearing as it
is. Intermingling with savages of wild lands who do not clothe, gives
one, I believe, less impure and sensual feelings than the merely mixing
with society of a higher kind.”[1171]

The same view is taken by Dr. Zimmermann,[1172] and by Mr. Reade, who,
with reference to the natives of Central Africa, remarks that there
is nothing voluptuous in the excessive _déshabillé_ of an equatorial
girl, nothing being so moral and so unlikely to excite the passions
as nakedness.[1173] Speaking of the Wa-chaga, Mr. Johnston observes,
“We should be apt to call, from our point of view, their nakedness
and almost unconsciousness of shame indelicate, but it is rather, when
one gets used to it, a pleasing survival of the old innocent days when
prurient thoughts were absent from the mind of man.”[1174] As a careful
observer remarks,[1175] true modesty lies in the entire absence of
thought upon the subject. Among medical students and artists the nude
causes no extraordinary emotion; indeed, Flaxman asserted that the
students in entering the academy seem to hang up their passions along
with their hats.

On the other hand, Forster says of the natives of Mallicollo, that “it
is uncertain whether the scanty dress of their women owes its origin to
a sense of shame, or to an artful endeavour to please;” and of the men
of Tana, that “round their middle they tie a string, and below that
they employ the leaves of a plant like ginger, for the same purpose
and in the same manner as the natives of Mallicollo. Boys, as soon as
they attain the age of six years, are provided with these leaves; which
seems to confirm what I have observed in regard to the Mallicollese,
_viz._, that they do not employ this covering from motives of decency.
Indeed, it had so much the contrary appearance, that in the person
of every native of Tana or Mallicollo, we thought we beheld a living
representation of that terrible divinity who protected the orchard
and gardens of the ancients.”[1176] Speaking of the very simple dress
worn by the male Hottentot, Barrow says, “If the real intent of it
was the promotion of decency, it should seem that he has widely missed
his aim, as it is certainly one of the most immodest objects, in such
a situation as he places it, that could have been contrived.”[1177]
Among the Khyoungtha, there is a native tradition worth mentioning in
this connection. “A certain queen,” Captain Lewin tells us, “noticed
with regret that the men of the nation were losing their love for
the society of the women, and were resorting to vile and abominable
practices, from which the worst possible results might be expected.
She therefore prevailed upon her husband to promulgate a rigorous
order, prescribing the form of petticoat to be worn by all women in
future, and directing that the male should be tattooed, in order that,
by thus disfiguring the males, and adding _piquancy to the beauty of
the women_, the former might once more return to the feet of their
wives.”[1178]

Moreover, we know that some tribes who go perfectly naked are ashamed
to cover themselves, looking upon a garment as something indecent. The
pious father Gumilla was greatly astonished to find that the Indians on
the Orinoco did not blush at their nakedness. “Si les Missionnaires”
he says, “qui ignorent leurs coutumes s’avisent de distribuer des
mouchoirs, surtout aux femmes, pour qu’elles puissent se couvrir,
elles les jettent dans la rivière, où elles vont les cacher, pour
ne point être obligées de s’en servir; et lors qu’on leur dit de se
couvrir, elles répondent: ... ‘Nous ne couvrons point, _parce que cela
nous cause de la honte_.’”[1179] That this is no “traveller’s tale”
merely, appears from the following statement made by v. Humboldt with
reference to the New Andalusian Chaymas, who, like most savage peoples
dwelling in regions excessively hot, have an insuperable aversion to
clothing:—“Under the torrid zone,” he asserts, “ ... the natives are
ashamed, as they say, to be clothed; and flee to the woods when they
are too soon compelled to give up their nakedness.”[1180] Again, in an
Indian hut at Mucúra in Brazil, Mr. Wallace found the women entirely
without covering, and apparently quite unconscious of the fact. One of
them, however, possessed a “saía,” or petticoat, which she sometimes
put on, and seemed then, as Mr. Wallace says, “almost as much ashamed
of herself as civilized people would be if they took theirs off.”[1181]

There are several instances of peoples who, although they generally
go perfectly naked, sometimes use a covering. This they always do
under circumstances which plainly indicate that the covering is worn
simply as a means of attraction. Thus Lohmann tells us that, among
the Saliras, only harlots clothe themselves; and they do so in order
to excite through the unknown.[1182] In many heathen tribes in the
interior of Africa, according to Barth, the married women are entirely
nude, whilst the young marriageable girls cover their nakedness,—a
practice analogous to that of a married woman being deprived of her
ornaments and her hair.[1183] Mr. Mathews states that, in many parts
of Australia, “the females, and more especially young girls, wear a
fringe suspended from a belt round the waist.”[1184] Concerning the
natives of Botany Bay (New South Wales), Barrington remarks that “the
females at an early age wear a little apron, made from the skin of the
opossum or kangaroo, cut into slips, and hanging a few inches from
the waist; this they wear till they grow up and are taken by men, and
then they are left off.”[1185] Collins says the same of the girls at
Port Jackson;[1186] Mr. Palmer of some other Australians;[1187] and
Captain Snow of all those tribes among whom he had been for several
weeks.[1188] Again, on Moreton Island, according to Macgillivray, both
men and women went about altogether unclothed, but the female children
wore a small fringe in front. The same naturalist reports that, in
almost all the tribes of Torris Strait, the women wear a petticoat
of fine shreds of pandanus leaves, the ends worked into a waistband,
upon the construction of which much labour is expended; but it is only
“sometimes put on, especially by the young girls, and when about to
engage in dancing.” Under this, however, another covering is usually
worn.[1189] Among the Tupi tribes of Brazil, as soon as a girl became
marriageable “cotton cords were tied round her waist and round the
fleshy part of both arms; they denoted a state of maidenhood, and, if
any one but a maiden wore them, they were persuaded that the Anhanga
would fetch her away.... It cannot,” Mr. Southey adds, “have been
invented for the purpose of keeping the women chaste till marriage, for
these bands were broken without fear, and incontinence was not regarded
as an offence.”[1190] Among the Narrinyeri of Southern Australia, girls
wear a sort of apron of fringe until they bear their first child, and,
if they have no children, it is taken from them and burned by the
husband while they are asleep.[1191] In the Koombokkaburra tribe also,
the young women wear in front an apron of spun opossum fur, which is
generally given up after the birth of the first or second child.[1192]

There are several cases in which only the married women are clothed,
the unmarried going entirely naked.[1193] But such instances do not
conflict with the hypothesis suggested. Through long-continued use
covering loses its original character and becomes a sign of modesty,
whilst perfect nakedness becomes a stimulus. Usually, where nudity is
considered indecent, the garments of the girls of barbarous peoples
are restricted as much as possible, whilst those of the older women
are comparatively seemly. Thus, among the African Schulis, the married
women wear a narrow fringe of string in front, the unmarried wearing
nothing but bead ornaments.[1194] Among the natives of Tassai, New
Guinea, the former use a larger and thicker kind of petticoat of
pandanus leaf, divided into long grass-like shreds, reaching to the
knee; while that worn by the latter consists merely of single lengths
made fast to a string which ties round the waist.[1195] In Fiji,
the liku—a kind of band made from hibiscus-bark—is before marriage
worn very short, but after the birth of the first child is much
lengthened;[1196] and a similar practice occurs in other islands of the
South Sea.[1197]

The dances and festivals of many savage peoples are notoriously
accompanied by the most hideous licentiousness. Then the young men
and women endeavour to please each other in various ways, painting
themselves with brilliant colours, and decorating themselves with all
sorts of ornaments.[1198] On such occasions many tribes who go naked
in everyday life put on a scanty covering. Mr. Bonwick states that,
among the Tasmanians, a fur string or band of emu feathers was used
by some tribes, but only on great festivities; and the women wore
in the dance a covering of leaves or feathers, which, as among the
Australians on similar occasions, was removed directly afterwards.
Tasmanian dances were performed “with the avowed intention of exciting
the passions of the men, in whose presence one young woman had the
dance to herself.”[1199] Among the Australian Pegulloburras, who
generally go entirely naked, the women on festive occasions wear round
the middle small fringes.[1200] Speaking of the Brazilian Uaupés, Mr.
Wallace asserts that, “while dancing in their festivals, the women
wear a small ‘tanga,’ or apron, made of beads, prettily arranged. It
is only about six inches square, but is never worn at any other time,
and immediately the dance is over, it is taken off.” Besides, their
bodies are painted.[1201] The same was the case with the Tahitian
Areois—a sort of privileged libertines, leading a most licentious
life, and practising lewd dances and pantomimes,—who also sometimes,
on public occasions, put on a girdle of the yellow “ti” leaves,
which, in appearance, resembled the feather girdles of the Peruvians
or other South American tribes.[1202] As to the South African Basutos,
Mr. Casalis states that marriageable girls “frequently indulge in
grotesque dances, and at those times wear, as a sort of petticoat,
long bands composed of a series of rushes artistically strung
together.”[1203]

Very generally in the savage world, where climate does not put
obstacles in the way, both sexes go naked till they reach manhood,
covering being resorted to at the same period of life as other
ornaments.[1204] A South Australian boy, for instance, when fourteen
or sixteen years old, has to undergo the initiatory rites of manhood
as follows:—he is smeared all over with red ochre and grease, the hair
is plucked from his body, and all his friends gather green gum bushes,
which they place under his armpits and over the _os pubis_, after which
the boy is entitled to marry.[1205]

In conformity with other ornaments, what we consider decent covering
is said to be more common with savage men than with women. “If dress
were the result of a feeling of shame,” Professor Waitz observes, “we
should expect it to be more indispensable to woman than to man, which
is not the case.”[1206] In America, according to v. Humboldt—among the
Caribs, for instance—the men are often more decently clothed than the
women.[1207] The same is stated of the Nagas of Upper Assam;[1208] and
Barth, who had a vast experience of African savages, remarks, “I have
observed that many heathen tribes consider a covering, however poor and
scanty it may be, more necessary for man than woman.”[1209] Whether
this is the rule among savage peoples is doubtful. At any rate, the
egoism of the men cannot be blamed for the nakedness of the women. For
a savage Eve may pluck her clothes from the trees.

In support of the psychological presumption which underlies the
hypothesis here adduced, it may be added that some peoples are in the
habit of covering other parts of the body also, in order to “excite
through the unknown.” Thus, among the Tipperahs, the married women
wear nothing but a short petticoat, while the unmarried girls cover
the breast with a gaily-dyed cloth with fringed ends.[1210] Among the
Toungtha, the bosoms of women are left uncovered after the birth of the
first child, but the unmarried girls wear a narrow breast cloth.[1211]
The Chinese consider small feet to be the chief charm of their women,
and the girls have to undergo horrible torture while their feet are
being compressed to the smallest possible size. It might be supposed
that they would at least have the pleasure of fascinating the men by
a beauty so painfully acquired. But Dr. Stricker assures us that, in
China, a woman is considered immodest if she shows her artificially
distorted foot to a man. It is even improper to speak of a woman’s
foot, and in decent pictures this part is always concealed under the
dress.[1212] The women of Agades, according to Barth, generally go
unveiled, and if they sometimes cover their heads, this is done rather
from coquetry than from a feeling of shame.[1213] Mr. Man remarks
that a Hindu woman who attempts to hide her face, while she wears a
gauze which displays her whole form, in her simulated modesty always
appears as if attempting to convey an _arrière pensée_.[1214] Among
the Tacullies, it is customary for the girls to have over their eyes
a kind of veil or fringe, made either of strung beads or of narrow
strips of deer skin garnished with porcupine quills;[1215] and, among
the Chawanons, according to Moore, those young women who have any
pretensions to beauty, as soon as they become marriageable, “muffle
themselves up so that when they go abroad it is impossible to see
anything but their eyes. On these indications of beauty they are
eagerly sought in marriage.”[1216]

Finally, it is worth noting that this covering, or half covering, is
only one of the means by which savage men and women endeavor to direct
attention to that which civilized man conceals from a sense of shame.
Among the Admiralty Islanders, the only covering is a shell, which
shell is often tastefully engraved with the usual zigzag patterns,
whilst its dazzling whiteness forms a very striking contrast with the
blackness of the skin.[1217] On reaching puberty, the Tankhul Nagas
assume, instead of a shell, a horn or ivory ring from an eighth to
a quarter of an inch in breadth; being apparently of opinion that
exposure, if so attended, is not a matter to be ashamed of.[1218] Some
of the Brazilian Tupis, according to Castlenau, “mentulam inserunt in
annulum ligneum, unde appellantur Porrudos, _i.e._ mentulati;”[1219]
and, in several of the South Sea Islands, those parts of the body
which civilized people are most anxious to conceal, are decorated with
tattoos.[1220] De indigenis Tanembaris et Timorlaonis dum loquitur
Reidel, adulescentes et puellas dicit saepe consulto abradere pilos
pubis nulla alia mente, nisi ut illæ partes alteri sexui magis
conspicuæ fiant.[1221]

Above all the practice of circumcision should be noticed in this
connection, since, as I believe, it owes its origin to the same
cause. It is by no means a specifically Jewish custom, but is widely
spread over the earth. It is in use among all the Mohammedan peoples,
among most of the tribes inhabiting the African West Coast, among the
Kafirs, among nearly all the peoples of Eastern Africa, among the
Christian Abyssinians, Bogos, and Copts,[1222] throughout all the
various tribes inhabiting Madagascar,[1223] and, in the heart of the
Black Continent, among the Monbuttu and Akka. Moreover, it is practised
very commonly in Australia, in many islands of Melanesia,[1224] and
in Polynesia universally. It has also been met with in some parts of
America: in Yucatan,[1225] on the Orinoco,[1226] and among certain
tribes in the Rio Branco in Brazil.[1227] The Jews, Mohammedans,[1228]
Abyssinians,[1229] and some other peoples being excepted, it is always
performed when the boy attains manhood—_i.e._, at the same age as
that at which he is tattooed or painted, or begins to dress or adorn
himself. Indeed, through the operation of circumcision, the boy becomes
a man, and, where it is wanting, some other operation or deformation
of the body supplies its place.[1230] Thus, in Australia, some tribes
practise circumcision, others knock out teeth, when the youth becomes
virile.[1231] Where circumcision is in use it is generally considered
an indispensable preliminary to marriage, “uncircumcised” being a
bad word, and the women often refusing all intercourse with such a
man.[1232]

Several different explanations of this custom have been
suggested.[1233] Some authors believe that it is due to hygienic
motives. But circumcised and uncircumcised peoples live under the
same conditions in the same neighbourhood side by side, without any
difference in their physical condition.[1234] Mr. Sturt remarks that,
in Australia, “you would meet with a tribe with which that custom did
not prevail, between two with which it did.”[1235] Moreover, as Mr.
Spencer observes, while the usage does not exist among the most cleanly
races in the world, it is common among the most uncleanly.[1236] Among
the Damaras and Bechuanas, the boys are circumcised, though these
peoples are described as exceedingly filthy in their habits,[1237] and
so also among the people of Madagascar and the Malays, who are far from
being so cleanly as might be desired.[1238]

Again, according to Mr. Spencer, circumcision involves an offering to
the gods. He suggests that in the first instance vanquished enemies
were mutilated in order that a specially valuable trophy after a battle
might be presented to the king Then, “in a highly militant society
governed by a divinely-descended despot, ... we may expect that the
presentation to the king of these trophies taken from enslaved enemies,
will develop into the offering to the god of like trophies taken from
each generation of male citizens in acknowledgment of their slavery
to him.”[1239] This conclusion Mr. Spencer draws from the single fact
that, “among the Abyssinians, the trophy taken by circumcision from
an enemy’s dead body is presented by each warrior to his chief.” But
there is no evidence whatever that this curious custom is of common
occurrence. Circumcision is spread over a very large part of the
earth, and prevails even in societies which are not “governed by a
divinely-descended despot,” who could require all his subjects to bear
this badge of servitude. With regard to the Australian aborigines, many
tribes of whom practise circumcision, Mr. Curr says, “On the subject
of government (by which I mean the habitual exercise of authority, by
one or a few individuals, over a community or a body of persons) I have
made many inquiries and received written replies from the observers
of about a hundred tribes to the effect that none exists. Indeed, no
fact connected with our tribes seems better established.”[1240] Since
there is nothing to indicate that there ever was a different state
of things in Australia, how are we to reconcile these facts with the
interpretation offered by Mr. Spencer?

In the Book of Genesis the practice of circumcision is presented as
a religious rite, deriving its origin from a command of God. But
among most peoples it appears to have little, if any, religious
significance.[1241] Sometimes, indeed, it is performed by a priest
of the community, but, as Herr Andree justly remarks, this has no
necessary relation to the question, the priests generally being the
physicians of savage tribes.[1242] Moreover, as has already been
pointed out, almost every ancestral custom may by degrees take a
religious character. Thus, the ancient Peruvians’ habit of enlarging
the lobe of the ear, so as to enable it to carry ear-tubes of great
size, is supposed to have been connected with sun-worship; for Spanish
historians mention that elaborate religious ceremonies were held at
the Temple of the Sun at Cuzco, on the occasion of the boring of the
ears of young Peruvian nobles.[1243] But we should not be warranted in
inferring that this custom had originally anything to do with religion.
With regard to circumcision among the Jews, I agree with Herr Andree
that its religious character was almost certainly of a comparatively
late date.[1244]

The peoples among whom this practice prevails are themselves unable
to give any adequate account of its origin. With reference to the
circumcision of the Southern Africans, the Rev. H. H. Dugmore says
that they do not know how it began and that they have no traditionary
remembrances about it, except that it has prevailed as a national
custom from generation to generation. “Our forefathers did so, and
therefore we do the same,” is all that the present generation can say
about the matter.[1245]

That the practice of circumcision arose from the same desire as that
which led to other kinds of mutilation, is rendered more probable
by the fact that disfiguration is sometimes effected in quite a
different way. Novae Zealandiae incolas Cook narrat non solum se
non circumcidere, sed contra tam necessarium habere praeputium,
ut anteriorem eius partem redimire soleant ligamento, quo glandem
penis tegant.[1246] The same curious usage is met with in some other
Islands of the South Sea;[1247] and in Brazil, according to Dr. Karl
von den Steinen, among the Trumaí.[1248] Indigenae Portus Lincoln
pueros pubertatem ingressos mirum in modum secant: quarzi fragmento
penem ex ore secundum inferiorem partem usque ad scrotum incidunt
itaque totum longitudinis spatium detegunt.[1249] In defence of this
practice, says Mr. Schürmann, the natives had nothing to suggest
except that “it was observed by their forefathers, and must therefore
be upheld by themselves.”[1250] In Ponapé, boys are always subjected
to semi-castration, as Dr. Finsch remarks, in order to prevent the
possibility of orchitis, and, further, because the girls consider men
thus disfigured handsomer and more attractive than others. According to
Captain Wright, the same custom prevails in Niutabutabu, of the Tonga
Islands.[1251]

Among many peoples of Africa, and in certain tribes of the Malay
Archipelago and South America, the girls also undergo a sort of
circumcision, and this is looked upon as an indispensable preliminary
to marriage.[1252] Sunt autem gentes, quarum contrarius mos est,
ut clitoris et labia minora non exsecentur, verum extendantur, et
saepe longissime extendandur. Atque ista etiam deformatio insigne
pulchritudinis existimatur.[1253] De indigenis Ponapéis haec adnotat
Dr. Finsch; labia interna longius extenta et pendentia puellis et
uxoribus singulare sunt incitamentum, quae res eodem modo se habet apud
alias gentes, ut apud Hottentottas.[1254]

It certainly seems strange that such deformities should have been
originally intended to improve the appearance. But we must remember
the rough taste of savages, and the wish for variety so deeply rooted
in human nature. These practices evidently began at a time when man
went in a state of perfect nudity. The mutilations, as the eyes became
accustomed to them, gradually ceased to be interesting, and continued
to be inflicted merely through the force of habit, or from a religious
motive. A new stimulus was then invented, parts of the body which had
formerly been exposed being hidden by a scanty covering: as the Chinese
women at first had their feet pressed in order to excite admiration,
but afterwards began to conceal them from coquetry, or as the Tassai
beauties, though entirely naked otherwise, wear two or three petticoats
one over another.[1255]

       *       *       *       *       *

How, then, are we to explain the connection which undoubtedly exists
between nakedness and the feeling of shame? The hypothesis here set
forth cannot be regarded as fully established until this question is
answered.

“The ideas of modesty,” Forster truly says, “are different in every
country, and change in different periods of time.”[1256] As v. Humboldt
remarks, “A woman in some parts of Asia is not permitted to show
the ends of her fingers; while an Indian of the Caribbean race is far
from considering herself naked, when she wears a ‘guajuco’ two inches
broad. Even this band is regarded as a less essential part of dress
than the pigment which covers the skin. To go out of the hut without
being painted with arnotta, is to transgress all the rules of Caribbean
decency.”[1257] In Tahiti, a person not properly tattooed would “be
as much reproached and shunned, as if with us he should go about the
streets naked;”[1258] and, in Tonga also, the men would think it very
indecent not to be tattooed.[1259]

M. Letourneau reports that, at Basra on the Euphrates, it was the duty
of a woman, if surprised when taking her bath, to turn her face; no
further concealment was considered necessary.[1260] The same habit
prevailed among the fellah women in Egypt;[1261] while, in Arabia,
according to Ebers, a woman acts even more indecorously in uncovering
the back of the head than in uncovering the face, though this also is
carefully hidden.[1262]

The Tubori women in Central Africa wear only a narrow strap, to which
is attached a twig hanging down behind; but they feel greatly ashamed
if the twig happens to fall off.[1263] A Chinese woman, as previously
stated, is not permitted by the law of modesty to show her feet; and
the Samoans considered it most disgraceful to expose the navel.[1264]
The savage tribes of Sumatra and Celebes have a like feeling about the
exposure of the knee, which is always carefully covered.[1265] Speaking
of the horrible mouth adornment worn by the women of Port des Français
(Alaska), which makes the lower part of the mouth jut out two or three
inches, La Pérouse remarks, “We sometimes prevailed on them to pull
off this ornament, to which they with difficulty agreed; they then
testified the same embarrassment, and made the same gestures, as a
woman in Europe who discovers her bosom.”[1266] Et Polynesios, quamquam
eum tenent morem, nullam ut aliam corporis partem nisi glandem penis
tegant, hanc tamen nudare vehementer pudet. Ita Lisiansky animadvertit
indigenas Nukahivae, qui praeputium peni abductum habent et extremam
eius partem lino constrictam, linum illud magni aestimare manifesto
apparere. “Accidit enim,” inquit, “ut frater regis, ubi navem meam
ascendit, linum amitteret, qua occasione mala quam maxime angebatur.
Qui cum constratum navis ingrederetur, illa re commotus partem non
redimitam manibus velavit.”[1267] Dr. Mosely asserts that the Admiralty
Islanders, who wear nothing but a shell, always cover themselves
hastily on removing the shell for barter, and evidently consider that
they are exposing themselves either indecently or irreligiously, if
they show themselves perfectly nude.[1268] The Kubus of Sumatra have a
tradition that they are descendants of the youngest of three brothers,
the first and second of whom were circumcised in the usual way, while
it was found that no instruments would circumcise the third. This so
_ashamed_ him that he betook himself to the woods.[1269]

Ideas of modesty, therefore, are altogether relative and conventional.
Peoples who are accustomed to tattoo themselves are ashamed to appear
untattooed; peoples whose women are in the habit of covering their
faces consider such a covering indispensable for every respectable
woman; peoples who for one reason or another have come to conceal the
navel, the knee, the bosom, or other parts, blush to reveal what is
hidden. It is not the feeling of shame that has provoked the covering,
but the covering that has provoked the feeling of shame.

This feeling, Dr. Bain remarks, “is resolved by a reference to the
dread of being condemned, or ill-thought of, by others.”[1270] Such
dread is undoubtedly one of the most powerful motives of human
action. Speaking of the Greenlanders, Cranz says that the mainspring
of all that they do is their fear of being blamed or mocked by other
men.[1271] Among savages, custom is a tyrant as potent as law has
ever been in civilized societies, every deviation from a usage which
has taken root among the people being laughed to scorn, or regarded
with disdain. The young ladies of Balonda, wholly unconscious of
their own deficiency, could not maintain their gravity at the sight
of the naked backs of Livingstone’s men. “Much to the annoyance of
my companions,” he says, “the young girls laughed outright whenever
their backs were turned to them, for the Balonda men wear a dress
consisting of skins of small animals, hanging before and behind from
a girdle round the loins.”[1272] By degrees a custom is associated
with religion, and then becomes even more powerful than before. Mr.
Williams tells us of a Fijian priest, who, like all his countrymen,
was satisfied with a “masi,” or scanty hip-cloth, but on hearing a
description of the naked inhabitants of New Caledonia and of their
idols, exclaimed, contemptuously, “Not have a ‘masi,’ and yet pretend
to have gods!”[1273] And, as Peschel remarks, “were a pious Mussulman
of Ferghana to be present at our balls, and see the bare shoulders of
our wives and daughters, and the semi-embraces of our round dances,
he would silently wonder at the long-suffering of Allah, who had
not long ago poured fire and brimstone on this sinful and shameless
generation.”[1274]

Covering the nakedness has, for the reason already pointed out, become
a very common practice among savage peoples; among those of the
tropics, no other sort of clothing is generally in use. Hence, through
the power of custom, the feeling of shame aroused by the exposure of
the nakedness. If this is the true explanation, some may be disposed to
infer that savages who, for the sake of cold, cover almost the entire
body, will feel ashamed to bare even such parts as may elsewhere be
shown without compunction. But this would be to overlook the essential
fact that the heat of their dwellings, where they spend most of the
winter, and the warmth of the summer sun, in many cases make it
necessary for them, as they think, to throw off all their clothes.
When this is done, they seem to be devoid of any sense of shame. Thus,
the Aleuts undress themselves completely in their warm jurts, and
men and women have for ages been accustomed to bathe together in the
sea; “they do not think of there being any immodesty in it, yet, any
immorality is exceedingly rare among them.”[1275] The Tacullies, who
usually take off their clothes in summer, though they are well clad
in winter, manifest, according to Harmon, as little sense of shame
in regard to uncovering “as the very brute creation.”[1276] The
Eskimo of Etah, who in the winter are enveloped to the face in furs,
nevertheless, according to Kane’s description, completely put aside
their garments in their subterranean dwellings;[1277] and the demeanour
of the wife of Hans the Eskimo on board Hayes’s ship, plainly showed
that she had no idea of decency.[1278]

On the other hand, we know that peoples living in warm climates
who cover only the nakedness are utterly ashamed to expose it. The
Andamanese, although they wear as little clothing as possible, exhibit
a delicacy that amounts to prudishness, the women of the tribes of
South Andaman being so modest that they will not remove their small
apron of leaves, or put anything in its place, in the presence of any
person, even of their own sex.[1279] Speaking of the Fijians, Wilkes
asserts that, “though almost naked, these natives have a great idea
of modesty, and consider it extremely indelicate to expose the whole
person. If either a man or woman should be discovered without the
‘maro,’ or ‘liku,’ they would probably be killed.”[1280] The female
natives of Nukahiva have only one small covering, but are so tenacious
of it that the most licentious will not consent to take it off.[1281]
Among those Australian tribes, in which a covering is worn by the
women, they will retire out of sight to bathe.[1282] In Lukunor and
Radack, men and women never appear naked together;[1283] and among
the Pelew Islanders, according to Semper, the women have an unlimited
privilege of striking, fining, or, if it be done on the spot, killing
any man who makes his way in to their bathing-places.[1284]

These facts appear to prove that the feeling of shame, far from being
the original cause of man’s covering his body, is, on the contrary,
a result of this custom; and that the covering, if not used as a
protection from the climate, owes its origin, at least in a great many
cases, to the desire of men and women to make themselves mutually
attractive.[1285] To some readers it may perhaps seem probable that the
covering of the nakedness was originally due to the feeling which makes
intimate relations between the sexes, even among savages, a more or
less secret matter. But, whilst this feeling is universal in mankind,
there are, as we have seen, a great many peoples who attach no idea
of shame to the entire exposure of the body, and these peoples are
otherwise not less modest than those who cover themselves. Their number
is, indeed, so great that we cannot regard the absence of shame as a
reversion or perversion; and it may be asserted with perfect confidence
that the modesty which shows itself in covering is not an instinct in
the same sense as that in which the aversion to incest, for example,
is an instinct,—an aversion to which sexual bashfulness seems to be
very closely related. Travellers have observed that, among various
naked tribes, women exhibit a strong sense of modesty through various
attitudes. But these attitudes may, like concealment by clothing, have
been _originally_ due to coquetry. They imply a vivid consciousness of
certain facts, and the exhibition of this consciousness is far from
being a mark of modesty. It may, further, be supposed that decent
covering was adopted for the protection of parts specially liable to
injury. This may hold good for some cases; but the general prevalence
of circumcision even among naked tribes shows that savages are not
particularly anxious about the safety of their persons.




CHAPTER X

THE LIBERTY OF CHOICE.


It would be easy to adduce numerous instances of savage and barbarous
tribes among whom a girl is far from having the entire disposal of
her own hand. Being regarded as an object of property, she is treated
accordingly.

Among many peoples the female children are usually “engaged”
in their earliest youth. Concerning the Eskimo to the north of
Churchill, Franklin states that, “as soon as a girl is born, the
young lad who wishes to have her for a wife goes to her father’s
tent and proffers himself. If accepted, a promise is given which is
considered binding, and the girl is delivered to her betrothed at
the proper age.”[1286] Early betrothals are among the established
customs of the Chippewyans,[1287] Columbians,[1288] Botocudos,[1289]
Patagonians,[1290] and other American peoples.[1291] Among the African
Marutse, the children “are often affianced at an early age, and the
marriage is consummated as soon as the girl arrives at maturity.”[1292]
The Negroes of the Gold Coast, according to Bosman, often arranged for
the marriage of infants directly after birth;[1293] whilst, among the
Bushmans, Bechuanas, and Ashantees, children are engaged when they are
still in the womb, in the event of their proving to be girls.[1294]

In Australia, too, girls are frequently promised in early youth, and
sometimes before they are born.[1295] The same is the case in New
Guinea,[1296] New Zealand,[1297] Tahiti,[1298] and many other islands
of the South Sea, as also among several of the tribes inhabiting
the Malay Archipelago.[1299] Mariner supposed that, in Tonga, about
one-third of the married women had been thus betrothed.[1300] In
British India infant-marriage has hitherto been a common custom; and
all peoples of the Turkish stock, according to Professor Vámbéry,
are in the habit of betrothing babies.[1301] So also are the
Samoyedes[1302] and Tuski;[1303] and among the Jews of Western Russia,
parents betroth the children whom they hope to have.[1304]

Among some peoples, it is the mother,[1305] brother,[1306] or maternal
uncle,[1307] who has the chief power of giving a girl in marriage. In
Timor-laut, Mr. Forbes says, “nothing can be done of such import as
the disposal of a daughter without the advice, assistance, and witness
of all the villagers, women and youths being admitted as freely to
speak as the elder males;”[1308] and in West Australia, according to
Mr. Oldfield, the consent of the whole tribe is necessary for a girl’s
marriage.[1309] Yet such cases are no doubt rare exceptions, and give
us no right to conclude that there ever was a time when children were
generally considered the property of the tribe, or of their maternal
kinsfolk.

It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that, among the lower
races, women are, as a rule, married without having any voice of their
own in the matter. Their liberty of selection, on the contrary, is
very considerable, and, however down-trodden, they well know how to
make their influence felt. Thus, among the Indians of North America,
numberless instances are given of woman’s liberty to choose her
husband. Schoolcraft asserts that their marriages are brought about
“sometimes with, and sometimes against, the wishes of the graver and
more prudent relatives of the parties,” the marital rite consisting
chiefly in the consent of the parties.[1310] Heckewelder quotes
instances of Indians who committed suicide because they had been
disappointed in love, the girls on whom they had fixed their choice,
and to whom they were engaged, having changed their minds, and married
other lovers.[1311] Among the Kaniagmuts, Thlinkets, and Nutkas, the
suitor has to consult the wishes of the young lady.[1312] Among the
Chippewas, according to Mr. Keating, the mothers generally settle the
preliminaries to marriage without consulting the children: but the
parties are not considered husband and wife till they have given their
consent.[1313] The Atkha Aleuts occasionally betrothed their children
to each other, but the marriage was held to be binding only after the
birth of a child.[1314] Among the Creeks, if a man desires to make a
woman his wife “conformably to the more ancient and serious custom
of the country,” he endeavours to gain her own consent by regular
courtship.[1315] Among the Pueblos,[1316] &c.,[1317] “no girl is
forced to marry against her will, however eligible her parents may
consider the match.”

As to the South American Guanas, Azara states, “Aucune femme ne
consent à se marier, sans avoir fait ses stipulations préliminaires
très-détaillées avec son prétendu, et avec son père et ses parents, à
l’égard de leur genre de vie réciproque.”[1318] In Tierra del Fuego,
according to Lieutenant Bove, the eagerness with which the women seek
for young husbands is surprising, but even more surprising is the
fact that they nearly always attain their ends.[1319] Speaking of the
same people, Mr. Bridges says, “It frequently happens that there is
insuperable aversion on the girl’s part to her husband, and she leaves
him, and if she persists in hating him she is then given to one she
likes.”[1320] It is, indeed, common in America for a girl to run away
from a bridegroom forced upon her by the parents;[1321] whilst, if they
refuse to give their daughter to a suitor whom she loves, the couple
elope.[1322] Thus, among the Dacotahs, as we are told by Mr. Prescott,
“there are many matches made by elopement, much to the chagrin of the
parents.”[1323]

In Australia it is the rule that a father alone can give away his
daughter, and, according to Mr. Curr, the woman herself has no voice
in the selection of her husband.[1324] But, with reference to the
Narrinyeri, Mr. Taplin states that, “although the consent of a female
is not considered a matter of the first importance, as, indeed, is
the case in many uncivilized nations, yet it is always regarded as
desirable.”[1325] Among the Kurnai, according to Mr. Howitt, she
decidedly enjoys the freedom of choice. Should the parents refuse their
consent, she goes away with her lover, and if they can remain away till
the girl is with child she may, it is said, expect to be forgiven.
Otherwise it may become necessary for them to elope two or three
times before they are pardoned, the family at length becoming tired
of objecting.[1326] Mr. Mathew asserts that, with varying details,
marriage by mutual consent will be found among other tribes also,
though it is not completed except by means of a run-away match.[1327]
Elopement undertaken with the consent of the woman is, indeed, and has
been, a recognized institution among at least some of the aboriginal
tribes in Australia. Among the Kurnai it is the rule.[1328]

The Maoris have a proverb, “As a kahawai (a fish which is very
particular in selecting the hook that most resembles its food) selects
the hook which pleases it best out of a great number, so also a woman
chooses one man out of many.”[1329] Mariner supposed that, in Tonga,
perhaps two-thirds of the girls had married with their own free
consent.[1330] Concerning the natives of Arorae, Mr. Turner says,
“In choosing a husband the lady sat in the lower room of the house,
and over her head were let down through the chinks of the floor of the
upper room two or three cocoa-nut leaflets, the ends of which were held
by her lovers. She pulled at one, and asked whose it was. If the reply
was not in the voice of the young man she wished to have, she left it
and pulled at another leaf, and another, until she found him, and then
pulled it right down. The happy man whose leaf she pulled down sat
still, while the others slunk away.”[1331] In the Society Islands, the
women of the middle and lower ranks had the power to choose husbands
according to their own wishes; and that the women of the highest
classes sometimes asserted the same right appears from the addresses a
chief of Eimeo had to pay to the object of his attachment before she
could be induced to accept his offer.[1332] In Radack, “marriages
depend on a free convention,” as seems to be generally the case in
Micronesia.[1333] In the New Britain Group, according to Mr. Romilly,
after the man has worked for years to pay for his wife, and is finally
in a position to take her to his house, she may refuse to go, and he
cannot claim back from the parents the large sums he has paid them in
yams, cocoa-nuts, and sugar-canes.[1334] With reference to the New
Caledonian girl, M. Moncelon remarks, “Elle est consultée quelquefois,
mais souvent est forcée d’obéir. Alors elle fuit à chaque instant pour
rejoindre l’homme qu’elle préfère.”[1335]

In the Indian Archipelago, according to Professor Wilken, most
marriages are contracted by the mutual consent of the parties.[1336]
Among the Dyaks, “the unmarried girls are at perfect liberty to choose
their mates.”[1337] In some parts of Java, much deference is paid to
the bride’s inclinations;[1338] and, among the Minahassers of Celebes,
courtship or love-making “is always strictly an affair of the heart
and not in any way dependent upon the consent or even wish of the
parents.”[1339] Similar statements are made by Riedel with reference
to several of the smaller islands.[1340] Among the Rejangs of Sumatra,
if a young man runs away with a virgin without the consent of her
father, he does not act contrary to the laws of the country; and, if he
is willing to make the usual payments afterwards, the woman cannot be
reclaimed by her father or other kinsfolk.[1341]

In Burma, “the choice of marriageable girls is perfectly free,” and
marriages are occasionally contracted even in direct opposition to
the parents.[1342] Among the Shans, mutual consent is required to
constitute a valid union;[1343] and, regarding the Chittagong Hill
tribes, Captain Lewin says that the women’s “power of selecting
their own husband is to the full as free as that enjoyed by our own
English maidens.”[1344] The same is the case with many, perhaps most,
of the uncivilized tribes of India. The young couple often settle
the affair entirely between themselves, even though marriages are
ostensibly arranged by the parents;[1345] or the parents, before
they give their children in marriage, consult them, and, as a rule,
follow their likings.[1346] In case of parental objection, elopements
frequently take place.[1347] Among the Kukis, a girl who runs away
from a husband she does not like is not thought to act wrongly in doing
so.[1348] Among the aboriginal tribes of China,[1349] the Ainos,[1350]
Khamchadales,[1351] Jakuts,[1352] Ossetes,[1353] &c.,[1354] the
daughter’s inclinations are nearly always consulted. And, in Corea,
mutual choice was the ancient custom of the country.[1355]

Turning to Africa we find that, among the Touaregs, a girl may select
out of her suitors the one whom she herself prefers.[1356] As to
the West African negroes, Mr. Reade informed Mr. Darwin that “the
women, at least among the more intelligent Pagan tribes, have no
difficulty in getting the husbands whom they may desire, although
it is considered unwomanly to ask a man to marry them.”[1357] The
accuracy of this statement is confirmed by several travellers,[1358]
and it seems to hold good for other parts of Africa. Among the Shulis,
according to Dr. Felkin, the women have a voice in the selection of
their husbands.[1359] The Mádi girls, says Emin Pasha, enjoy great
freedom, and are able to choose companions to their liking.[1360]
Among the Marutse, “free women who have not been given away or sold
as slaves are allowed to choose what husbands they please.”[1361] The
young Kafirs endeavour generally at first to gain the consent of the
girls, for it is, as Mr. Leslie remarks, “a mistake to imagine that
a girl is sold by her father in the same manner, and with the same
authority, with which he would dispose of a cow.”[1362] And, among
the Hottentots[1363] and Bushmans,[1364] when a girl has grown up to
womanhood without having previously been betrothed, her lover must gain
her approbation, as well as that of the parents.

In works by ancient writers we find statements of the same kind. Among
the Cathæi, according to Strabo, the girls chose their husbands, and
the young men their wives;[1365] and the same is said by Herodotus
of the women of Lydia.[1366] In Indian and old Scandinavian tales
virgins are represented as having the power to dispose of themselves
freely.[1367] Thus it was agreed that Skade should choose for herself a
husband among the Asas, but she was to make her choice by the feet, the
only part of their persons she was allowed to see.[1368]

In view of such facts it is impossible to agree with M. Letourneau
that, during a very long period, woman was married without her wishes
being at all consulted.[1369] There can be no doubt that, under more
primitive conditions, she was even more free in that respect than
she is now among most of the lower races. At present a daughter is
very commonly an object of trade, and the more exclusively she is
regarded from this point of view, the less, of course, are her own
likings taken into account. Among the Bedouins of Mount Sinai, who
have marriage by purpose, no father thinks it necessary to consult his
daughter before selling her, whereas, among the Arabs of the eastern
plain, the Aenezes, &c., according to Burckhardt, “the father never
receives the price of the girl, and therefore some regard is paid
to her inclinations.”[1370] But it will be shown that marriage by
purchase forms a comparatively late stage in the history of the family
relations of mankind, owing its origin to the fact that daughters
are valuable as labourers, and therefore not given away for nothing.
Speaking of the Gippsland natives, Mr. Fison says, “The assertion
that women ‘eat and do not hunt’ cannot apply to the lower savages.
On the contrary, whether among the ruder agricultural tribes or those
who are dependent on supplies gathered from the ‘forest and the
flood,’ the women are food-providers, who supply to the full as much
as they consume, and render valuable service into the bargain. In
times of peace, as a general rule, they are the hardest workers and
the most useful members of the community.”[1371] Now, the Australians,
although a very rude race, have advanced far beyond the original
state of man. There is no reason to doubt that, among our earliest
human ancestors, the possession of a woman was desired only for the
gratification of the man’s passions. It may be said generally that in a
state of nature every grown-up individual earns his own living. Hence
there is no slavery, as there is, properly speaking, no labour. A man
in the earliest times had no reason, then, to retain his full-grown
daughter; she might go away, and marry at her pleasure. That she was
not necessarily gained by the very first male, we may conclude from
what we know about the lower animals. As Mr. Darwin remarks, the female
generally, or at least often, exerts some choice. She can in most cases
escape, if wooed by a male who does not please her, and when pursued,
as commonly occurs, by several males, she seems often to have the
opportunity, whilst they are fighting with one another, of going away
with, or at least of temporarily paring with, some one male.[1372]

It might be supposed that at a later stage, when family ties grew
stronger, and bride-stealing became a common way of concluding a
marriage, the consent of the woman in the event of capture would be
quite out of the question. Certainly it must generally have been
so when she fell as a booty into the hands of an enemy. But women
thus captured may in many cases have been able to escape from the
husbands forced on them, and to return to their own, or some friendly
neighbouring, tribe. Very frequently, however, bride-stealing seems to
have taken place with the approval of the girl, there being no other
way in which the match could be concluded if her parents were not
willing to agree to it. It is a common mistake, as Mr. Howitt remarks,
to confound marriage by capture and marriage by elopement. They are
essentially different, the one being effected without, the other
with, the woman’s consent.[1373] Thus, among the Australians, many,
perhaps most, cases of so-called bride-stealing come under the head of
elopements.[1374]

Something remains to be said as to the position of sons among
uncivilized peoples. When young they are everywhere as much dependent
on the parents, or at least on the father, as are their sisters. A
boy may be sold, bartered away, or even killed, if his father thinks
proper. That the power of life and death, under certain circumstances,
rests with the tribe is a matter of little importance in this
connection. But as soon as the young man grows up, the father, as a
rule, has no longer any authority over him, whereas a woman is always
more or less in a state of dependence, marriage implying for her a
change of owner only. Among the Australians, says Mr. Curr, “sons
become independent when they have gone through the ceremonies by
which they attain to the _status_ of manhood.”[1375] The full-grown
man is his own master; he is strong enough not to be kept in check by
his father, and, being able to shift for himself, he may marry quite
independently of the old man’s will.

It often happens, indeed, as we have seen, that parents betroth their
children when they are young.[1376] But, if such an engagement is not
always binding even for the woman, it is of course all the less so
for the man. “The choice among the Kalmucks,” Liadov says, “belongs
entirely to the parents. Still, there is no constraint upon this point,
and, if the son declares that the selection of his parents displease
him, there is no further question about the matter.”[1377]

Moreover, marriage contracts are concluded among certain peoples by the
parents of the parties, even when these are full-grown.[1378] Among
the Iroquois, according to Mr. Morgan, the mother, when she considered
her son of a suitable age for marriage, looked about for a maiden whom
she thought likely to accord with him in disposition and temperament,
and remonstrance or objection on the part of the children was never
attempted.[1379] Among the Basutos, the choice of “the great wife” is
generally made by the father.[1380] And, in many of the uncivilized
tribes of India, parents are in the habit of betrothing their
sons.[1381] In certain cases, the parents merely go through a form of
selection, the matter having already been really settled by the parties
concerned;[1382] and usually a man who has been induced to marry a
woman he does not like, may divorce her and choose another according
to his taste. Yet, speaking of the Kisáns, Colonel Dalton says that
“there is no instance on record of a youth or maiden objecting to the
arrangement made for them.”[1383] The paternal authority among these
tribes of India implies, indeed, a family system of higher type than
we are accustomed to find among wild races: it approaches the _patria
potestas_ of the ancient Aryan nations. Thus, among the Kandhs, in
each family the absolute authority rests with the house-father; the
sons have no property during the father’s lifetime, and all the male
children, with their wives and descendants, continue to share the
father’s meal, prepared by the common mother.[1384] The father chooses
a full-grown woman as a wife for his young son. “In the superior
age of the bride,” says Colonel Macpherson, “is seen a proof of the
supremacy of the paternal authority amongst this singular people. The
parents obtain the wives of their sons during their boyhood, as very
valuable domestic servants, and their selections are avowedly made with
a view to utility in this character.”[1385]

       *       *       *       *       *

Among savages the father’s power depends exclusively, or chiefly, upon
his superior strength. At a later stage, in connection with a more
highly developed system of ancestor-worship, it becomes more ideal,
and, at the same time, more extensive and more absolute. Obedience to
the father is regarded as a sacred duty, the transgression of which
will be punished as a crime against the gods. Indeed, so prevalent
has this strengthened authority of the father been among peoples who
have reached a relatively high degree of civilization, that it must be
regarded as marking a stage in all human history.

The family system of the savage Indians differs widely, in this
respect, from that which was established among the ancient inhabitants
of Mexico and Peru. Concerning the Mexicans, Clavigero says that
“their children were bred to stand so much in awe of their parents,
that, even when grown up and married they hardly durst speak before
them.”[1386] The following was an exhortation of a Mexican to his
son:—“Honour all persons, particularly thy parents, to whom thou
owest obedience, respect, and service. Guard against imitating the
example of those wicked sons, who, like brutes that are deprived of
reason, neither reverence their parents, listen to their instruction,
nor submit to their correction; because whoever follows their steps
will have an unhappy end, will die in a desperate or sudden manner, or
will be killed and devoured by wild beasts.”[1387] A youth was seldom
allowed to choose a wife for himself; he was expected to abide by the
selection of his parents. Hence it rarely happened that a marriage
took place without the sanction of parents or other kinsfolk, and he
who presumed to marry without such sanction had to undergo penance,
being looked upon as ungrateful, ill-bred, and apostate.[1388] The
belief was, according to Torquemada, that an act of that kind would
be punished by some misfortune.[1389] In a province of the Mexican
empire, it was even required that a bridegroom should be carried, that
he might be supposed to marry against his inclinations.[1390] Touching
the Guatemalans, Mr. Bancroft says, “It seems incredible that the
young men should have quietly submitted to having their wives picked
out for them without being allowed any voice or choice in the matter.
Yet we are told that so great was their obedience and submission to
their parents that there never was any scandal in these things.”[1391]
In the greater part of Nicaragua, matches were arranged by the parents;
though there were certain independent towns in which the girls chose
their husbands from among the young men, while the latter sat at a
feast.[1392] Again, in Peru, Inca Pachacutec confirmed the law that
sons should obey and serve their fathers until they reached the age
of twenty-five, and that none should marry without the consent of
the parents, and of the parents of the girl, a marriage without this
consent being invalid and the children illegitimate.[1393]

Similar ideas formerly prevailed, and to some extent are still found,
among the civilized nations of the Old World. The Chinese have a maxim
that, as the Emperor should have a father’s love for his people, so a
father should have a sovereign’s power over his family.[1394] From
earliest youth the Chinese lad is imbued with such respect for his
parents that it becomes at last a religious sentiment, and forms, as he
gets older, the basis of his only creed—the worship of ancestors.[1395]
Disobedience to parents is looked upon as a sin to be punished with
death, whether the offender be an infant or a full-grown son or
daughter. And in everything referring to the marriage of the children
parents are omnipotent. “From all antiquity in China,” Navarette
says, “no son ever did, or hereafter will, marry without the consent
of his parents.”[1396] Indeed, according to Mr. Medhurst, it is a
universally acknowledged principle in China that no person, of whatever
age, can act for himself in matrimonial matters during the lifetime
or in the neighbourhood of his parents or near senior kinsfolk. The
power of these guardians is so great that they may contract a marriage
for a junior who is absent from home, and he is bound to abide by
such engagement even though already affianced elsewhere without their
privity or consent.[1397] The consequence of this system is that,
in many cases, the betrothed couple scarcely know each other before
marriage, the wedding being the first occasion on which the man catches
a glimpse of his wife’s face.[1398] In some parts of the Empire
children are affianced in infancy.[1399]

In Japan, according to Professor Rein, a house-father enjoyed the
same extensive rights as the Roman _paterfamilias_—an unlimited power
over the person and property of his children.[1400] Filial piety is
considered the highest duty of man, and not even death or the marriage
relation weakens, to any great extent, the hold of a father on a child.
“With affection on the one hand, and cunning on the other,” says Mr.
Griffis, “an unscrupulous father may do what he will.... The Japanese
maiden, as pure as the purest Christian virgin, will, at the command
of her father, enter the brothel to-morrow, and prostitute herself for
life. Not a murmur escapes her lips as she thus filially obeys.”[1401]
Marriages are almost invariably arranged by the parents or nearest
kinsfolk of the parties, or by the parties themselves with the aid
of an agent or middleman known as the “nakōdo,” it being considered
highly improper for them to arrange it on their own account. Among the
lower classes, such direct unions are not unfrequent; but they are held
in contempt, and are known as “yagō,” _i.e._, “meeting on a moor,”—a
term of disrespect showing the low opinion entertained of them. The
middleman’s duty consists in acquainting each of the parties with the
nature, habits, good and bad qualities, and bodily infirmities of the
other, and in doing his utmost to bring the affair to a successful
conclusion. It seldom happens that the parties immediately interested
communicate directly with the middleman; if they have parents or
guardians, it is done by these, and, if not, by the nearest relation.
The middleman has to arrange for a meeting between the parties, which
meeting is known as the “mi ai,” literally “see meeting” and, if
either party is dissatisfied with the other after this introduction,
the matter proceeds no further. But, formerly, says Mr. Küchler, “this
ante-nuptial meeting was dispensed with in the case of people of very
exalted rank, who consequently never saw each other until the bride
removed her veil on the marriage day.”[1402]

Among the ancient Arabs[1403] and Hebrews, fathers exercised very great
rights over their families. According to the old law of Jahveism, a
father might sell his child to relieve his own distress, or offer it
to a creditor as a pledge.[1404] Death was the penalty for a child who
struck a parent, or even cursed one;[1405] though the father himself
could not inflict this penalty on his children, but had to appeal to
the whole community.[1406] How important were the duties of the child
to the parents, is shown in the primitive typical relation of Isaac
to Abraham, and may, as Ewald remarks, be at once learned from the
placing of the law on the subject among the Ten Commandments, and from
its position there in immediate proximity to the commands relating to
the duties of man towards God.[1407] According to Michaelis, there is
nowhere the slightest trace of its having been the will of Moses that
paternal authority and the subjection of sons should cease after a
certain age.[1408] A Hebrew father not only disposed of his daughter’s
hand, but chose wives for his sons,—the selection, however, being
sometimes made by the mother.[1409]

Judging from the marked severity of filial duties among the Egyptians,
some of which are distinctly alluded to in the inscription of Thebes,
we may conclude that, in Egypt, much more was expected from a son than
in any European nation of the present day.[1410] And in the ‘Precepts
of Ptah-Hotep,’ which have been called “the most ancient book in
the world,” we read that the father ought to command, the son to
obey:—“The son who accepts the word of his father will attain old age
on that account. God wishes us to obey; disobedience is abhorrent to
Him.”[1411]

Among the Romans, the house-father had, in the earlier time, the _jus
vitae necisque_—the power of life and death—over his children. He
could imprison, sell, or kill his children under an express law of
the Twelve Tables;[1412] and Plutarch says Brutus condemned his sons
to death, without judicial forms, not as consul, but as father.[1413]
“All in the household,” Mommsen remarks, “were destitute of legal
rights—the wife and the child no less than the bullock or the
slave.”[1414] Even the full-grown son and his children were subject to
the house-father’s will,[1415] and in marriage without _conventio in
manum_ a daughter remained in the power of her father or tutor after
marriage. The consent of the _paterfamilias_ was indispensable to the
marriage of children, sons and daughters alike;[1416] and so strict
was this rule originally, that down to the reign of Marcus Aurelius
the children of a _mente captus_ could not contract a legal marriage
while in the power of their father, the latter being incapable of
giving his consent.[1417] The religious character of this unlimited
paternal authority has been pointed out by M. Fustel de Coulanges. “In
primitive antiquity,” he says, “the father is not only the strong man,
the protector who has power to command obedience; he is the priest, he
is heir to the hearth, the continuator of the ancestors, the parent
stock of the descendants, the depositary of the mysterious rites of
worship, and of the sacred formulas of prayer. The whole religion
resides in him.”[1418]

It has been suggested by Sir Henry Maine and others that the _patria
potestas_ of the Romans was a survival of the paternal authority
which existed among the primitive Aryans.[1419] But no clear evidence
of the general prevalence of such unlimited authority among other
Indo-European peoples has been adduced. Justinian justly observed,
“The power which we have over our children is peculiar to Roman
citizens; for there are no other men possessing such a power over
their children as we have.”[1420] That the father, among the Greeks,
Germans, and Celts, had the power to expose his children when they
were very young and to sell his marriageable daughters, does not imply
the possession of a sovereignty like that which the Roman house-father
exercised over his descendants at all ages. As, however, the family
institution seems to have had a religious basis among the early
Aryans, the father probably had a higher authority than he has among
any existing uncivilized people.

According to Sir Henry Maine, the fulness of the ancient Hindu
_patria potestas_ may be safely inferred from the veneration
which even a living father must have inspired under a system of
ancestor-worship.[1421] At a later date, the law-book of Manu declares
that three persons—a wife, a son, and a slave—have in general no wealth
exclusively their own; the wealth which they may earn being regularly
acquired for the man to whom they belong.[1422] A more recent, but
still ancient authority, Narada, says that a son is “of age and
independent, in case his parents be dead; during their lifetime he
is dependent, even though he be grown old.”[1423] And, speaking of
the South of India, Mr. Nelson observes, “It is an undoubted fact
that, amongst the so-called Hindus of the Madras Province, the father
is looked upon by all at the present day as the Rajah or absolute
Sovereign of the family that depends upon him. He is entitled to
reverence during his life, as he is to worship after his death. His
word is law, to be obeyed without question or demur. He is emphatically
the ‘Master’ of his family, of his wife, of his sons, of his slaves,
and of his wealth.”[1424] But, on the other hand, it appears from
the ‘Rig-Veda’ that, among the ancient Hindus, the father was the
head of the family only as long as he was able to be its protector
and maintainer,[1425] decrepit parents being even allowed to die of
starvation,—a custom which was prevalent among the ancient Teutons
and Eranians.[1426] Moreover, according to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ a
daughter might choose her husband in accordance with her own wish.
This permission, however, seems to have been an innovation, as Manu
himself disapproves of such a “voluntary union of a maiden and her
lover, ... which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for
its purpose.”[1427] The four marriages—Brâhma, Daiva, Ârsha, and
Prâgâpatya—in which the father gives away his daughter, are blessed
marriages, and from them spring sons radiant with knowledge of the
Veda, honoured by good men, and destined to live a hundred years. But
the remaining four marriages—those effected by purchase, voluntary
union, forcible abduction, or stealth—are blamable marriages, from
which spring sons who are cruel and untruthful, who hate the Veda
and the sacred law.[1428] Among the ancient Persians also, marriage
contracted with the woman’s own consent, but against the will of her
parents, was looked upon as the worst kind of marriage.[1429] In
India,[1430] as well as in Persia,[1431] children were often affianced
in earliest youth by their parents.

According to M. Fustel de Coulanges, the unlimited subjection of the
son to the father existed amongst the ancient Greeks, but disappeared
at an early period at Athens, and somewhat later at Sparta.[1432] It
seems very doubtful, however, whether this subjection ever was so
unlimited as among the Romans. The relations of Ulysses and Laertes
in the Odyssey indicate that, at least under certain circumstances, a
father in the decrepitude of age could be deposed from the headship
of the family. In the mature Greek jurisprudence, as Sir Henry Maine
points out, the direct authority of the parent is restricted, as in
European codes, to the nonage or minority of the children.[1433] At
Athens, a son was in his father’s power till twenty years of age; then
he could marry without paternal sanction.[1434] Women, on the other
hand, were in a state of nonage throughout life. A woman could not be
a party to any act of importance without the consent of her guardians,
whose rights, after her marriage, passed to the husband. As a rule, it
was the lot of a Greek woman to be given in marriage to a man whom
she did not know.[1435] “Les femmes, à Athènes,” says M. Cauvet, “ne
devaient jamais choisir elles-mêmes leur époux, toujours il leur était
par le tuteur que la loi leur donnait.”[1436] At Sparta, as well as
at Athens, the betrothal of the bride by her father or guardian was
requisite as an introduction to marriage.[1437]

Among the Teutons, the father certainly had the power to expose or
sell his children under age, but an adult son could put his infirm and
aged parents to death.[1438] “Quelle que soit la ressemblance des
deux institutions,” says M. Laboulaye, “on ne peut pas confondre la
puissance paternelle (_patria potestas_) des Romains et la puissance
paternelle des barbares, le _mundium_.”[1439] Far from being, as in
Rome, a power throughout life, the _mundium_ over a son ceased as soon
as he was able to shift for himself.[1440] M. Pardessus asserts that,
at any rate in the fifth and sixth centuries, such paternal authority
as a Roman father exerted did not exist among the Franks;[1441] and an
old commentator states that, “by the law of the Langobardi, children
are not under the ‘power’ of the father.” Nevertheless, the _mundium_
among these people was more severe than among any other of the Teutonic
nations.[1442] The extent of the father’s rights in earlier times,
when the Teutons had no written laws, we do not definitely know; but,
according to Tacitus, a house-father had not unlimited power even over
his slaves;[1443] so it is impossible to believe in the prevalence of
a _patria potestas_ of the Roman type among them. In choosing a wife,
however, the men had apparently in early days to take counsel with
their kinsfolk.[1444] “The parents and relations of the parties,”
says Tacitus, “are consulted in cases of marriage, and determine the
nature of the bridal gifts.”[1445] Women always remained in a state of
dependence. Girls, wives, or widows, they were under the guardianship
of the father, husband, or nearest male relative. The father could
freely dispose of his daughter’s hand, and her own inclinations seem to
have been very little taken into consideration.[1446]

According to ancient Russian laws, fathers had great power over the
children;[1447] but Macieiowski thinks it improbable that a son could
be sold as a slave.[1448] Baron von Haxthausen, who wrote before the
Emancipation in 1861, says, “The patriarchal government, feelings, and
organization are in full activity in the life, manners, and customs
of the Great Russians. The same unlimited authority which the father
exercises over all his children is possessed by the mother over her
daughters.... The Russian addresses the same word to his real father,
to the Starosta (a communal authority), to his proprietor, to the
Emperor, and finally to God, _viz._, Father (‘Batushka’).”[1449]
According to Sir Mackenzie Wallace, however, the head of the
household was rather the administrator of a labour association than
a house-father in the proper sense of the term. The house and nearly
everything it contained were the joint-property of the family, and not
even the head of it could sell or buy anything without the express or
tacit consent of all the other grown-up men.[1450] In Poland, according
to Nestor, a father used to select a bride for his son;[1451] and
in Russia, previous to the Emancipation, it was a common custom for
fathers to marry their young sons to full-grown women. According to
Professor Bogišić, the power of the father is not so great among the
South Slavonians as among the Russians.[1452] But Dr. Krauss asserts
that a son is not permitted to make a proposal of marriage to a girl
against the will of his parents; and, among the Croatians and Servians,
it is quite exceptional for the young man himself to look about for his
future wife.[1453] A daughter, of course, enjoys still less freedom of
disposing of her own hand.[1454]

       *       *       *       *       *

The paternal authority of the archaic type here considered formed
only a transitional stage in the history of human institutions. It
declined gradually, according as the religious basis on which it rested
became more unstable. The introduction of a new religion with higher
conceptions of human rights particularly contributed to its fall.
Paying special attention to its influence on the laws of marriage, I
shall endeavour to trace the main features of this highly important
process, which released children from paternal despotism.

Among the Hebrews, a modification of the patriarchal principle
took place as early as the seventh century before the Christian
era;[1455] and, according to the Talmudic law, a marriage, to be
valid, must be contracted with the voluntary consent of both the
parties concerned.[1456] In Arabia, Mohammed limited the paternal
power.[1457] According to all the Mohammedan schools, a son is at
liberty to contract a marriage without his father’s consent, after he
has completed his fifteenth year. The Hanafîs and Shiahs grant the same
privilege to a daughter, whereas, according to other schools, a woman
is emancipated from paternal control only through marriage.[1458] A
Mohammedan father certainly has the right to impose the _status_ of
marriage on his children during their minority, sons and daughters
alike, but the law takes particular care that this right shall never be
exercised to the prejudice of the infant. Any act of the father which
is likely to injure the interest of the minor is considered illegal,
and entitles the judge to interfere in order to prevent the completion
of such act, or, if complete, to annul it.[1459]

In the mature Greek jurisprudence the paternal power was more
restricted than during the Homeric age;[1460] and the Roman _patria
potestas_ gradually became a shadow of what it had been. Under the
Republic the abuses of paternal authority were checked by the censors,
and in later times the Emperors reduced the father’s power within
comparatively narrow limits. Alexander Severus ordained that severe
punishments should be inflicted on members of a family only by the
magistrate. Diocletian and Maximilian took away the power of selling
freeborn children as slaves; and Constantine declared the father who
killed his child guilty of murder.[1461] The father’s privilege of
dictating marriage for his sons declined into a conditional veto;[1462]
and it seems as if daughters also, at length, gained a certain amount
of freedom in the choice of a husband. At any rate, a daughter could
protest, if the father wished to give her in marriage to a man with a
bad reputation.[1463]

“La philosophie stoïcienne et le christianisme,” says M.
Koenigswarter, “qui hâtèrent le développement des principes d’égalité,
furent surtout favorables aux fils de famille et aux femmes.”[1464] The
influence of Christianity shows itself in Teutonic legislation as well
as in Roman. An edict of Clothaire I. in 560 prohibited the forcing
of women to marry against their will;[1465] although a Council held
at Paris three years earlier expressly required the consent of the
parents also.[1466] According to the laws of Cnut, no woman or girl
could be forced to marry a man whom she disliked.[1467] The Swedish
‘Westgöta-lag’ permitted a woman to dissolve a marriage which had
been contracted without her consent;[1468] and similar privileges were
granted to her in the ‘Uplands-lag’[1469] and certain other Teutonic
law-books.[1470] Later on, the ‘Schwabenspiegel’—a faithful echo of
canonical ideas—says, “When a young man has completed his fourteenth
year, he can take a wife without the consent of his father.... At
twelve years, a maiden is marriageable; and the marriage subsists, even
if contracted in spite of her father, or other relatives.”[1471] A
similar privilege, during the Middle Ages, was granted to German women
in general.[1472] But the feelings of the people seemed to have been
opposed to it, and required the consent of the parents. Thus Ulrich von
Lichtenstein says in his ‘Frauenbuch,’ “A girl who has no parents
should follow the advice of her kinsfolk; if she gives herself to a man
of her own accord, she may live with shame.”[1473]

Paternal authority has declined more rapidly in some countries than
in others. The process has been especially slow in France. In the
literature of the eleventh century, says M. Bernard, the paternal
character is “everywhere honoured, and filial piety everywhere
praised and rewarded. In the romances of chivalry fathers are never
ridiculous; nor sons insolent and mocking.... Above the majesty of
the feudal baron, that of the paternal power was held still more
sacred and inviolable. However powerful the son might be, he would
not have dared to outrage his father, whose authority was in his eyes
always confounded with the sovereignty of command.”[1474] This respect
exercised a tyrannical dominion for centuries. Du Vair remarks, “Nous
devons tenir nos pères comme des dieux en terre.”[1475] Bodin wrote,
in the later part of the sixteenth century, that, though the monarch
commands his subjects, the master his disciples, the captain his
soldiers, there is none to whom nature has given any command except the
father, “who is the true image of the great sovereign God, universal
father of all things.”[1476] In the Duke of Sully’s ‘Memoirs’ we read
that, in his days in France, children were not permitted to sit in
the presence of their parents without being commanded to do so.[1477]
According to the edicts of Henry III. (1566), Louis XIII. (1639), and
Louis XIV. (1697), sons could not marry before the age of thirty, nor
daughters before that of twenty-five, without the consent of the father
and mother, on pain of being disinherited.[1478] Speaking of the women
among the nobility and upper classes in France during the eighteenth
century, Messrs. de Goncourt remark, “Généralement le mariage de la
jeune fille se faisait presque immédiatement au sortir du couvent, avec
un mari accepté et agréé par la famille. Car le mariage était avant
tout une affaire de famille, un arrangement au gré des parents, qui
décidaient des considérations de position et d’argent, des convenances
de rang et de fortune. Le choix était fait d’avance pour la jeune
personne, qui n’était pas consultée.”[1479]

Even now French law accords considerable power to parents. A child
cannot quit the paternal residence without the permission of the father
before the age of twenty-one except for enrolment in the army.[1480]
For grave misconduct by his children the father has strong means
of correction.[1481] A son under twenty-five and a daughter under
twenty-one cannot marry without the consent of their parents;[1482]
and, even when a man has attained his twenty-fifth year, and the woman
her twenty-first, both are still bound to ask for it, by a formal
notification.[1483] Parental restraints upon marriage exist to a very
great extent in Germany and Holland also, the marriage of minors being
absolutely void, if effected without the consent of the father, or of
the mother if she be the survivor. According to American, Scotch, and
Irish law, on the other hand, the consent of parents and guardians to
the marriage of minors is not requisite to the validity of the union.
The same was the case in England prior to the statute of 26 Geo. II.
c. 33, which declared all marriages by license, when either of the
parties was under the age of twenty-one years, if celebrated without
publication of banns, or without the consent of the father or unmarried
mother, or guardian to be absolutely null and void.[1484]

There is thus a certain resemblance between the family institution of
savage tribes and that of the most advanced races. Among both, the
grown-up son, and frequently the grown-up daughter, enjoys a liberty
unknown among peoples at an intermediate stage of civilization. There
are, however, these vital differences:—that children in civilized
countries are in no respect the property of their parents; that they
are born with certain rights guaranteed to them by society; that the
birth of children gives parents no rights over them other than those
which conduce to the children’s happiness. These ideas, essential as
they are to true civilization, are not many centuries old. It is a
purely modern conception the French Encyclopedist expresses when he
says, “Le pouvoir paternel est plutôt un devoir qu’un pouvoir.”[1485]




CHAPTER XI

SEXUAL SELECTION AMONG ANIMALS


The expression, “Sexual Selection,” was first used by Mr. Darwin.
Besides natural selection, which depends on the success of both
sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life,
he introduced another principle, sexual selection, which depends on
the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in
relation to the propagation of the species. According to the former
principle, those individuals who are most successful in the struggle
for existence survive the others, and characters useful to the species
are thus inherited; according to the latter, those individuals who have
the greatest success in the struggle for mates have the most numerous
offspring, and the characters which gave them the preference pass on to
the new generation, and are afterwards intensified by the operation of
like causes. The sexual struggle is of two kinds. In both it is carried
on by individuals of the same sex; but in one these individuals,
generally the males, try to drive away or kill their rivals; in
the other, they seek to excite or charm those of the opposite sex,
generally the females, who select the most attractive males for their
partners. Therefore, the characters acquired through sexual selection,
and transmitted chiefly to offspring of the same sex, generally the
males, are, on the one hand, weapons for battle, vigour and courage; on
the other hand, certain colours, forms, ornaments, sounds, or odours,
which are felt to be pleasant. The secondary sexual characters of the
latter sort are thus due to the taste of the females. They have been
acquired because they are beautiful or otherwise agreeable, whereas the
characters resulting from natural selection have been acquired because
they are useful. How are we to explain the origin of this wonderful
æsthetic faculty? “The senses of man and of the lower animals,”
says Mr. Darwin, “seem to be so constituted that brilliant colours
and certain forms, as well as harmonious and rhythmical sounds, give
pleasure and are called beautiful; but why this should be so we know
not.”[1486] According to Mr. Darwin, natural and sexual selection are
two different sources from which animal characters have arisen. There
is some truth in the statement of one of his critics, “Mr. Darwin,
in fact, has so far abandoned his former belief in the efficacy
of ‘natural selection’ as an agent in producing the differences
which separate different species of animals, as to admit that some
supplementary cause must, in some cases at any rate, be looked for; and
this he thinks is to be found in the action, through long periods, of
‘sexual selection.’”[1487]

Far from co-operating with the process of natural selection, sexual
selection, as described by Mr. Darwin, produces effects disadvantageous
to the species. “It is evident,” he says, “that the brilliant
colours, top-knots, fine plumes, &c., of many male birds cannot
have been acquired as a protection; indeed, they sometimes lead to
danger.”[1488] When we consider what an important part is played by
colours, as means of protection, in the whole animal kingdom, it is
certainly surprising that many male animals display brilliant hues,
which cannot fail to make them conspicuous to their enemies. The strong
odours emitted by certain reptiles and mammals, during the pairing
season, and the sounds produced by various species at the same period,
have also the effect of attracting hostile animals that are searching
for food. And the danger arising for the species from these secondary
sexual characters is all the greater because they generally appear
at the time when offspring is about to be produced. Thus, besides
colours, structures, and functions, adapted in the most marvellous way
to the requirements of each species, there are others highly dangerous,
which, according to Mr. Darwin, depend upon an æsthetic sense, the
origin of which we do not know, and which is absolutely useless.

Mr. Darwin, in his many works, has shown how immense is the influence
exercised by natural selection on the organic world. A disciple,
therefore, naturally feels perplexed when he is told of a series of
facts, which, according to the explanation given by the master, are
opposed to natural selection. When the contradiction between the
theories of natural and sexual selection is distinctly realized, the
question arises:—Can we be sure that the secondary sexual characters
are so useless as Mr. Darwin suggests? May not they also be explained
by the principle of the survival of the fittest? The larger size and
greater strength of the males, and the weapons of offence or defence
many of them possess, may easily be so accounted for, as, among the
higher animals, the males generally fight with each other for the
possession of the females. The point is whether the other secondary
sexual characters can be due to the same cause.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is an established fact that the colours of flowers serve a definite
end. Through them the flowers are recognized by insects in search
of honey; and the insects, during their visits, involuntarily carry
the pollen of one flower to the stigma of another, and thus effect
cross-fertilization, which is proved to be of great importance for
the vigour and fertility of the next generation of plants. Now it
is extremely interesting to note that brilliant colours are found
only in species of flowers to which they are useful as means of
attracting insects; they never occur in plants which are fertilized
by the wind.[1489] Mr. Wallace observes that plants rarely need to be
concealed, because they obtain protection by their spines, or their
hardness, or their hairy covering, or their poisonous secretions.
Hence there are very few cases of what seems to be true protective
colouring among them.[1490] In animals, on the contrary, colour is
greatly influenced by their need of protection from, or warning to,
their numerous enemies; colours of other kinds must always, to a
certain extent, be dangerous for the species. Is it probable, then,
that, whilst gay colours occur only in the flowers of those plants to
which they are of real use, conspicuous colours should occur in animals
to which they are of real danger—merely because the females find them
beautiful?

Mr. Wallace, whose well-known criticism of Mr. Darwin’s theory of
sexual selection[1491] seems, in many points, to be conclusive,
suggests that the very frequent superiority of the male bird or insect
in brightness or intensity of colour is due to the greater vigour
and activity and the higher vitality of the male. This intensity of
coloration is therefore most manifest in the male during the breeding
season, when the vitality is at a maximum. It would be further
developed by the combats of the males for the possession of the
females; and the most vigorous and energetic usually leaving the most
numerous and most healthy offspring, natural selection would indirectly
become a preserver and intensifier of colour.[1492] Mr. Wallace has
made it very probable that there is some connection between vigour and
colour, but another question is whether this connection, depending
on some unknown physiological law, is so necessary that it takes
place even when colour is positively disadvantageous to the species.
Nothing of the kind is found in the vegetable kingdom. We know, as Mr.
Wallace himself remarks, that colours which rarely or never appear in
the species in a state of nature, continually occur among cultivated
plants and domesticated animals—a fact which shows that the capacity
to develop colour is ever present.[1493] Among wild plants such colour
variations are never preserved except when they are useful. Is it not
most reasonable to suppose that the like is the case with animals?

The truth seems to be that colour subserves the same purpose in both of
the great kingdoms of the organic world. Just as flowers are coloured
that insects may recognize where honey is to be found, and thus may
be led to promote fertilization, so the sexual colours of animals
have been developed to make it easier for the sexes to find each other
during the pairing time. Protective colours are useful so far as they
conceal the animal from its enemies, but, at the same time, they
conceal it from individuals of its own species. Sexual colours are
therefore useful as well, because they make the animal more visible.
It is quite in accordance with the theory of natural selection that,
where such colours occur, the advantage from them should be greater
than the disadvantage. We can see the reason for the brilliant colours
of humming-birds, as these birds, on account of their great activity
“are practically unmolested,”[1494] and for the bright hues of the
rose chafers, who are saved from attack by a combination of protecting
characters.[1495] But generally there is danger in sexual colours,
so that nature has given them with the utmost cautiousness. Usually
they occur in males only, because of the females’ greater need of
protection.[1496] They are not developed till the age of reproduction,
and they appear, in a great many species, only during the pairing
season. The greatest advantage is won with the least possible peril.

It is a fact of great importance that sexual colours occur exactly
in those species whose habits make these colours most visible. Thus
the nocturnal moths, taken as a body, are much less gaily decorated
than butterflies, all of which are diurnal in their habits, although,
according to Mr. Wallace, the general influence of solar light and heat
is no adequate cause for the variety, intensity, and complexity of the
colours. The females of the ghost moth are yellow with darker markings,
whereas the males are white, that they may be more easily seen by the
females whilst flying about in the dusk; and it is remarkable that,
in the Shetland Islands, the male of this moth, instead of differing
widely from the female, frequently resembles her closely in colour,—as
Mr. Fraser suggests,[1497] because, at the season of the year when
the ghost moth appears in these northern latitudes, the whiteness of
the males is not needed to render them visible to the females in the
twilight night. Both Mr. Darwin[1498] and Mr. Wallace[1499] think that,
in this case, colour may be a means of recognition. Sexual colours
occur chiefly in species which, because of their manner of living, are
to be seen at a distance; they seldom occur in sedentary or slowly
moving terrestrial animals.[1500] The members of the lowly organized
order Thysanura are wingless and dull-coloured. The Hemiptera, which
usually lurk about plants, and prey upon hapless insects, are not,
as a rule, remarkable for conspicuous hues. The Orthoptera are all
terrestrial in their habits, generally feeding upon plants, and,
although some exotic locusts are beautifully ornamented, their bright
tints, according to Mr. Darwin, do not seem to fall under the head of
sexual coloration. On the other hand, the dragon-flies, which live
in the open air, possess splendid green, blue, yellow, and vermilion
metallic tints, and the sexes often differ in their coloration. Every
one has admired the extreme beauty of many butterflies, especially
of the males. Amongst the Fishes, living in a medium through which
bright colours may be observed at a distance, we often find, besides
protective colours, conspicuous hues which are especially intense
and visible during the pairing time. Among the Reptiles, the little
lizards of the genus Draco especially deserve attention; they glide
through the air on their rib-supported parachutes, and the beauty of
their colours baffles description. Mammals, on the other hand, do not
generally present the splendid tints so common among male birds; and
the brighter colours of certain arboreal mammals serve chiefly as means
of concealment.

These phenomena seem to show that sexual colours have been evolved for
the purpose of _being seen_. They can scarcely be due merely to the
fact that coloration is connected with the degree of vitality, since
the Mammals, for instance, are certainly not less vigorous than any
of the other Vertebrate orders. It may perhaps be suggested that,
as flying animals more easily escape their enemies than terrestrial,
they may with less danger be decorated with conspicuous hues. But here
we have to observe the most important fact, that animals which do
not possess sexual colours generally have some other means of making
themselves discoverable.

Flowers which need the help of insects for fertilization attract them,
in some cases, not by bright colours, but by peculiar odours. And as
we do not find conspicuous colours in plants fertilized by the wind,
so flowers have no perfume except where it is of real use. The most
brilliant flowers, as a rule, are those which possess least odour,
whilst many of them have no scent at all. White or very pale flowers
are generally the most odoriferous. M. Mongredien gives a list of about
160 species of hardy trees and shrubs with showy flowers, and another
list of sixty species with fragrant flowers; but only twenty of the
latter are included among the showy species, and these are almost all
white-flowered.[1501] Most of the white flowers are scented only at
night, or their perfumes are most powerfully emitted at that time; the
reason being that white flowers are fertilized chiefly by night-flying
insects. We arrive thus at two conclusions: first, that powerful odours
and conspicuous colours as guides to insect fertilizers are, as a rule,
complementary to each other; secondly, that they occur alternately in
the way most useful to the species.

In the animal kingdom various odours and sounds are closely connected
with the reproduction of the species. During the season of love a
musky odour is emitted by the submaxillary glands of the crocodile,
and pervades its haunts. At the same period the anal scent-glands of
snakes are in active function, and so are the corresponding glands of
the lizards. Many mammals are odoriferous. In some cases the odour
appears to serve as a defence or a protection, but in other species the
glands are confined to the males, and almost always become more active
during the rutting season. Again, a great many insects have the power
of producing stridulous sounds. In two families of the Homoptera and in
three of the Orthoptera, the males alone possess organs of sound in
an efficient state, and these are used incessantly during the pairing
season. Some male fishes have sound-producing instruments, and the
fishermen of Rochelle assert that the males alone make the noise during
the spawning-time. Of frogs and toads the males emit various sounds
at the pairing time, as in the case of the croaking of our common
frog. During the rutting season, and at no other time, the male of
the huge tortoise of the Galapagos Islands utters a hoarse bellowing
noise, which can be heard at a distance of more than a hundred yards.
Professor Aughey states that on two occasions, being himself unseen,
he watched from a little distance a rattle-snake coiled up with head
erect, which continued to rattle at short intervals for half an hour;
at last he saw another snake approach, and when they met they paired.
Among Birds the power of song, or of giving forth strange cries, or
even instrumental music, is exceedingly common, particularly in the
males during the pairing season; and almost all male mammals use their
voices much more during that period than at any other time. Some, as
the giraffe and porcupine, are stated to be completely mute except
during the rutting season.

The colours, odours, and sounds of animals, like the colours and odours
of plants—so far as they may be assumed to be in some way connected
with the reproductive functions—are, as a rule, complementary to each
other. Stridulating insects are generally not conspicuously coloured.
Among the Homoptera, there do not seem to be any well-marked cases
of ornamental differences between the sexes. Among crickets, the
Locustidæ, and grasshoppers, some species are beautifully coloured;
but Mr. Darwin says, “It is not probable that they owe their bright
tints to sexual selection. Conspicuous colours may be of use to these
insects by giving notice that they are unpalatable.” Other species have
directly protective colours. The bright hues of stridulating beetles
seem to be of use chiefly for protective and warning purposes; whereas
species belonging to the orders Neuroptera and Lepidoptera, often
extremely conspicuously coloured, are not remarkable for any stridulous
sounds. Frogs and toads, which have an interesting sexual character
in the musical powers possessed by the males, are evidently coloured
according to the principle of protection, or sometimes tinted with
conspicuous hues in order to be more easily recognized by their enemies
as a nauseous food. Of Reptiles, the Lacertilia excel mainly in bright
tints; the Chelonia, Crocodilia, and Ophidia, in sounds and odours.
Among Birds, in one instance at least, the male is remarkable for his
scent. “During the pairing and breeding season,” says Mr. Gould, with
reference to the Australian musk-duck, “ ... this bird emits a strong
musky odour;” it is not ornamented with any conspicuous hues.[1502]
Sexual colours and the power of song are generally complementary to
each other among Birds. “As a general rule,” Mr. Wood remarks, “it
is found that the most brilliant songsters among the birds are attired
in the plainest garb; and it may safely be predicted of any peculiarly
gorgeous bird, that power, quality and sweetness of voice are in
inverse ratio to its beauty of plumage.”[1503] Thus, of the British
birds, with the exception of the bullfinch and goldfinch, the best
songsters are plain-coloured, and the brilliant birds of the tropics
are hardly ever songsters. The wild camel in the desert of Kum-tagh has
a reddish, sandy hue, and the males, “even during the rutting season,
utter no sound, but find their consorts by scent.”[1504] The musk-deer,
well known for the intolerable perfume which the males emit at the
pairing time, is also entirely silent.[1505]

Moreover, as appears from what has just been said, the sexual colours,
the perceptible scents and sounds of animals are complementary to
each other in the way that is best suited to make the animals easily
discoverable. As bright colours would be of no advantage to flowers
fertilized by night-flying insects, so they would be of comparatively
little advantage to animals living among grass and plants, in woods
and bushes; whereas sounds and scents make the animal recognizable at
a considerable distance. We have also seen that it is among flying and
aquatic animals that sexual colours chiefly occur, whereas terrestrial
animals excel in sound and scents. Thus most of the stridulating
insects are terrestrial. Whilst brightly-coloured lizards, living on
trees or running from stone to stone, must attract attention by the
brilliance of their covering, crocodiles inhabiting rivers and jungles,
and frogs crawling among the grass, allure their mates, the former by
emitting musky odours, the latter by producing loud sounds. The odour
of the Australian musk-duck, which depends for its food and for its
preservation from danger upon its powers of diving rather than upon
those of flying, is, as Mr. Gould observes, often perceptible long
before the animal can be seen.[1506]

Mr. Darwin remarks, as regards birds, “Bright colours and the power of
song seem to replace each other. We can perceive that, if the plumage
did not vary in brightness, or if bright colours were dangerous to
the species, other means would be employed to charm the females; and
melody of voice offers one such means.”[1507] But if we accept Mr.
Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, we are compelled to suppose that
that inexplicable æsthetic sense of the females has been developed in
the way most dangerous to the species. Conspicuous colours are admired
by the females of those animals which, by means of such colours, are
most easily discovered by their enemies, and sounds and odours are
appreciated exactly in those species to which they are most perilous.
If, on the contrary, we accept the explanation that, although sexual
colours, odours, and sounds are in some ways hurtful to the species,
they are upon the whole advantageous, inasmuch as they make it easier
for the sexes to find each other, we have a theory in accordance
with all known facts, as well as with the great principle of natural
selection. It may be objected that it is not the females but the
males that are the seekers, whilst the secondary sexual characters
generally occur in the males only. But we have no reason to think
that the females are entirely passive during the pairing season; and
several of the statements collected by Mr. Darwin directly indicate
that females are attracted by the sounds of their future partners. If
Burdach is correct in saying that the male sex generally possesses
more acute senses than the female,[1508] it is obvious that secondary
sexual characters would be of less use to females than to males, as it
certainly would be of greater danger.

In his work on ‘Darwinism,’ Mr. Wallace expresses the opinion that
the various sounds and odours which are peculiar to the male serve
as a call to the female, or as an indication of his presence; and,
as he says, “the production, intensification, and differentiation
of these sounds and odours are clearly within the power of natural
selection.”[1509] Mr. Wallace has also shown the immense importance of
colour as a means of recognition. The theory here set forth thus, in
fact, very nearly approaches his views. The only difference is that
the sexual colours have been classified under the head of “colour
for recognition,” though the positive cause by which they have been
produced may be a surplus of vital energy.

We have still to consider certain secondary sexual characters which,
according to Mr. Darwin, must be regarded as ornaments. With these he
classes the great horns which rise from the head, thorax, and clypeus
of many male beetles; the appendages with which some male fishes and
reptiles are provided; the combs, plumes, crests, and protuberances
of many male birds; and various crests, tufts, and mantles of hair
which are found in certain mammals. But some of these characters may
be of use to the males in their fights for females, or serve as means
of recognition. Mr. Wallace suggests that crests and other erectile
feathers may have been useful in making the bird more formidable in
appearance, and in thus frightening away enemies; while long tail or
wing feathers might serve to distract the aim of a bird of prey.[1510]
Moreover, characters of which we cannot yet perceive the use may in
the future be brought under the law of utility, as has been the case
in so many other instances. According to Mr. Wallace, the ornamental
appendages of birds and other animals are due to a surplus of vital
energy, leading to abnormal growths in those parts of the integument
where muscular and nervous action are greatest.[1511] And where these
“ornaments” are of no positive disadvantage to the species, certainly
no other explanation is needed.

For other arguments which may be advanced against Mr. Darwin’s
theory of sexual selection, reference may be made to Mr. Wallace’s
criticisms in ‘Tropical Nature’ and ‘Darwinism.’ We have sufficient
evidence that females are pleased or excited by the males’ display of
their sexual colours,[1512] and are charmed by their songs. But Mr.
Darwin’s theory presupposes, amongst many other things, that almost
all the females of a species, over a wide area and for many successive
generations, prefer exactly the same modification of the colour, or
ornament or sounds.[1513] Moreover, if the secondary sexual characters
are due to female choice, how shall we explain the strange fact that
the taste of the females varies so much that there are scarcely two
species in which the standard of perfection is exactly the same? This
difficulty did not escape Mr. Darwin. “It is a curious fact,” he says,
“that in the same class of animals sounds so different as the drumming
of the snipe’s tail, the tapping of the woodpecker’s beak, the harsh
trumpet-like cry of certain waterfowl, the cooing of the turtle-dove,
and the song of the nightingale, should all be pleasing to the females
of the several species.” And further, “What shall we say about the
harsh screams of, for instance, some kinds of macaws; have these birds
as bad taste for musical sounds as they apparently have for colour,
judging by the inharmonious contrast of their bright yellow and blue
plumage?”[1514]

The theory now suggested accounts fully for this difference in taste.
The immense variability of the secondary sexual characters is
precisely what might be expected, if their object is to make it easier
for the sexes to find and recognize each other. And it is natural that
the females should be pleased by colours, odours, or sounds which, by
the association of ideas, are to them the symbols of the most exciting
period of their lives. On the other hand, we know that differently
coloured races of the same species may be disinclined to pair
together.[1515] And here, I think, we may draw an important conclusion.
The great stability of the secondary sexual characters which we find in
wild species, but certainly not in animals under domestication, seems
to be due chiefly to the fact that those males which most typically
represent the peculiarities of their species have the best chance of
finding mates.

       *       *       *       *       *

The reader may have felt some surprise at this strange jump from the
_patria potestas_ to a discussion of merely zoological facts, which
have nothing to do, directly, with the history of human marriage. But
we have now to deal with the sexual selection of man, and, for the
right understanding of this, it was necessary to show that the sexual
selection of the lower animals is entirely subordinate to the great law
of natural selection. Mr. Darwin discussed the origin of the secondary
sexual characters as a preliminary to the statement of his theory
regarding the origin of man, and of the different races of men. At the
end of the next chapter we shall consider whether this theory appears
to be in accordance with facts or not.




CHAPTER XII

THE SEXUAL SELECTION OF MAN: TYPICAL BEAUTY


By the “Sexual Selection of Man” is meant the choice made by men
and women as regards relations with the opposite sex. Mr. Darwin has
shown that such selection takes place among the lower Vertebrata, and,
judging from what we know of domesticated animals, it is much more
common in the case of females than in that of males. The male, indeed,
as a rule, seems to be ready to pair with any female, provided she
belongs to his own species.[1516] As this probably depends upon the
great strength of his sexual impulse, we may infer that in primitive
times, when man had a definite pairing season, he displayed a like
tendency, and that the sexual instinct, in proportion as it has become
less intense, has become more discriminating.

Even now woman is more particular in her choice than man, provided
that the union takes place without reference to interest. A Maori
proverb says, “Let a man be ever so good-looking, he will not be much
sought after; but let a woman be ever so plain, men will still eagerly
seek after her.”[1517] With regard to the Negroes of Sogno, Merolla
da Sorrento states, “Women would have experience of their husbands
before they married them, in like manner as the men were to have of
them; and in this particular I can aver that they are commonly much
more obstinate or fickle than men, for I have known many instances in
which the men were willing to be married, while the women held back,
and either fled away or made excuses.”[1518] Among the Eastern Central
Africans, according to Mr. Macdonald, many cases are known of slave
wives running away from free husbands, but none of slave husbands
running away from free wives.[1519] In the crossings between unequal
human races, the father almost always belongs to the superior race.
“In every case,” says M. de Quatrefages, “and especially in transient
amours, woman refuses to lower herself; man is less delicate.”[1520]
Thus, cases in which negresses form unions with the indigenous men of
America are very rare;[1521] and Dr. Nott, who wrote in the middle of
this century, never personally met any one who was the offspring of
a negro man and a white woman, because of the extreme rarity of such
half-breeds.[1522] In New Zealand it sometimes happens that a European
man marries a Maori woman; but Mr. Kerry Nicholls never came across an
instance where a European woman had married a Maori man.[1523] Even in
civilized society men are less particular in their connections than
women of corresponding education, no doubt, would be, even if the rules
of everyday morality were the same for both sexes.

       *       *       *       *       *

In this and the following four chapters we shall deal with the
instinctive feelings by which the sexes are guided in the act of
selection. We have already observed that the sexual instinct is excited
by artificial means, such as ornaments, mutilations, &c. Now we have
to consider the intrinsic characters of a human being which affect the
passions of a person of the opposite sex.

Mr. Darwin has shown that, among the lower Vertebrata, the female
commonly gives the preference to “the most vigorous, defiant, and
mettlesome male,”—a taste the origin of which is easily accounted for
by the theory of natural selection. A similar instinctive appreciation
of manly strength and courage is found in women, especially in the
women of savage races. In a song, communicated by Mr. Schoolcraft,
an Indian girl gives the following description of her ideal:— “My
love is tall and graceful as the young pine waving on the hill—And as
swift in his course as the noble stately deer—His hair is flowing,
and dark as the blackbird that floats through the air—And his eyes,
like the eagle’s, both piercing and bright—His heart, it is fearless
and great—And his arm, it is strong in the fight.”[1524] A tale from
Madagascar tells of a princess whose beauty fascinated all men.
Many princes fought to obtain possession of her; but she refused
them all, and chose a lover who was young, handsome, courageous,
and strong.[1525] The beautiful Atalanta gave herself to the best
runner;[1526] and the hero suitors of the Finnish myths had to undergo
difficult trials to prove their courage.[1527] “When a Dyak wants to
marry,” says Mr. Bock, “he must show himself a hero before he can
gain favour with his intended.” He has to secure a number of human
heads by killing men of hostile tribes; and the more heads he cuts off,
the greater the pride and admiration with which he is regarded by his
bride.[1528] The demands of the Sàkalàva girls of Madagascar are less
cruel. When a young man wishes to obtain a wife, his qualifications,
according to Mr. Sibree, are tested thus:—“Placed at a certain
distance from a clever caster of the spear, he is bidden to catch
between his arm and side every spear thrown by the man opposite to him.
If he displays fear or fails to catch the spear, he is ignominiously
rejected; but if there be no flinching and the spears are caught, he
is at once proclaimed an accepted ‘lover.’” It is said that a similar
custom prevailed among the Bétsiléo, another Madagascar tribe.[1529]
Among the Dongolowees, as we are informed by Dr. Felkin, if two men are
suitors for a girl, and there is a difficulty in deciding between the
rivals, the following method is adopted. The fair lady has a knife tied
to each forearm, so fixed that the blade of the knife projects below
the elbow. She then takes up a position on a log of wood, the young
men sitting on either side with their legs closely pressed against
hers. Raising her arms, the girl leans forward, and slowly presses the
knives into the thighs of her would-be husbands. The suitor who best
undergoes this trial of endurance wins the bride, whose first duty
after marriage is to dress the wounds she has herself inflicted.[1530]
Speaking of the natives on the River Darling, Major T. L. Mitchell
says that the possession of gins, or wives, appears to be associated
with all their ideas of fighting; “while, on the other hand, the gins
have it in their power on such occasions to evince that universal
characteristic of the fair, a partiality for the brave. Thus it is,
that, after a battle, they do not always follow their fugitive husbands
from the field, but frequently go over as a matter of course, to the
victors.”[1531]

We may infer that women’s instinctive inclination to strong and
courageous men is due to natural selection in two ways. A strong man
is not only father of strong children, but he is also better able than
a weak man to protect his offspring. The female instinct is especially
well marked at the lower stages of civilization, because bodily vigour
is then of most importance in the struggle for existence. The same
principle explains the attraction which health in a woman has for men.
In civilized society, infirmity and sickliness are not always a serious
hindrance to love, but in a savage state, says Alexander v. Humboldt,
“nothing can induce a man to unite himself to a deformed woman, or one
who is very unhealthy.”[1532]

The ancient Greeks conceived Eros as an extremely handsome youth, and
Aphrodite was the goddess of beauty as well as of love. So closely
are these two ideas—love and beauty—connected. This connection is not
peculiar to the civilized mind. In Tahiti, Cook saw several instances
where women preferred personal beauty to interest.[1533] The Negroes of
the West African Coast, according to Mr. Winwood Reade, often discuss
the beauty of their women;[1534] and, among the cannibal savages of
Northern Queensland, described by Herr Lumholtz, the women take much
notice of a man’s face, especially of the part about the eyes.[1535]
But, although in every country, in every race, beauty stimulates
passion, the ideas of what constitutes beauty vary indefinitely. As
Hume says, “Beauty is no quality in things themselves; it exists
merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a
different beauty.”[1536]

A flat, retreating brow seems to white men to spoil what would
otherwise be a pretty face; but “the Chinook ideal of facial beauty,”
says Mr. Bancroft, “is a straight line from the end of the nose to the
crown of the head.”[1537] A little snubnose may embitter the life of a
European girl; but the Australian natives “laugh at the sharp noses
of Europeans, and call them in their language ‘tomahawk noses,’ much
preferring their own style of flat broad noses.”[1538] The Tahitians
frequently said to Mr. Williams, “What a pity it is that English
mothers pull the children’s noses so much, and make them so frightfully
long!”[1539] We admire white teeth and rosy cheeks; but a servant
of the king of Cochin China spoke with contempt of the wife of the
English ambassador, because she had white teeth like a dog and a rosy
colour like that of potato flowers.[1540] In the northern parts of the
Chinese Empire, according to Pallas, those women are preferred who are
of the Manchu type,—that is, who have a broad face, high cheek-bones,
very broad noses, and enormous ears;[1541] and the South American
Uaupés consider a swollen calf one of the chief attractions a young
lady can possess, the result being that girls wear a tight garter below
the knee from infancy.[1542]

Even among the Aryan peoples the standard of beauty varies. “To an
honest Fleming, who has never studied design,” says M. Bombet, “the
forms of Rubens’s women are the most beautiful in the world. Let not
us, who admire slenderness of form above everything else, and to whom
the figures even of Raphael’s women appear rather massive, be too ready
to laugh at him. If we were to consider the matter closely, it would
appear that each individual, and, consequently, each nation, has a
separate idea of beauty.”[1543]

What human characteristics are considered beautiful, and how has
beauty come to influence the sexual selection of man? In trying to
answer these questions, we shall note only such characteristics as
are held to be beautiful by considerable groups of men, apart from
individual differences of taste; and we shall confine ourselves to
physical beauty, as presenting itself in bodily forms and the colour
of the skin. Mr. Spencer maintains that “mental and facial perfection
are fundamentally connected,” and that “the aspects which please
us are the outward correlatives of inward perfections, while the
aspects which displease us are the outward correlatives of inward
imperfections.”[1544] But Mr. Spencer evidently looks upon beauty, or
“facial perfection,” as something real in the sense in which mental
qualities are real,—an opinion with which it is difficult to agree.
The lateral jutting-out of the cheek-bones, which seems to him an index
of imperfection, is admired by many of the lower races.

The full development of those visible properties which are essential
to the human organism is universally recognized as indispensable to
perfect beauty,—natural deformity, the unsymmetrical shape of the
body, apparent traces of disease, &c., being regarded by every race as
unfavourable to personal appearance. We distinguish between masculine
and feminine beauty, and, in spite of racial differences, the ideas
of what constitute these forms of beauty are fundamentally the same
throughout the world. To be really handsome a person must approach
the ideal type of his or her sex. The male organism is remarkable for
the development of the muscular system, the female for that of fatty
elements; and conspicuous muscles are everywhere considered to improve
the appearance of a man, rounded forms that of a woman. According to v.
Humboldt, the natives of Guiana, to express the beauty of a woman, say
that “she is fat and has a narrow forehead.” A traveller found that
a Kirghiz’s estimate of female beauty was regulated by the amount of
fat, “for even when dilating on the beauties of his favourite wife,
he laid the greatest stress on her _embonpoint_.”[1545] The Kafirs
and Hottentots are charmed by their women’s long and pendant breasts,
which, in certain tribes, assume such monstrous dimensions, that the
usual way of giving suck, when the child is carried on the back, is
by throwing the breast over the shoulder.[1546] Mr. Reade tells us
that, among the Mpongwé of Gaboon, even very young girls “strive to
emulate the pendant beauties of their seniors.”[1547] The Makololo
women, according to Dr. Livingstone, make themselves fat and pretty
by drinking a peculiar drink called “boyáloa”;[1548] and, among the
Trarsa, a Moorish tribe in the Western Sahara, the women take immense
quantities of milk and butter to make themselves more attractive.[1549]
Such exaggerations, however repugnant to a more refined taste,
indicate a general tendency in men’s notions of female beauty.

Among Europeans, men are on an average two or three inches taller than
women,[1550] and have a greater breadth of shoulder. A high-built
and broad-shouldered figure is also regarded as an ideal of manly
beauty, whereas women who are very tall or broad are apt to be rather
awkward. A woman’s face is shorter, her mouth less broad, her nose less
prominent, her neck longer, her pelvis wider, her waist narrower than
a man’s; and her fingers are more slender and pointed, her hands and
feet smaller. The halving line of a woman’s body is lower than that of
a man’s, so that her steps are shorter and lighter.[1551] As a matter
of fact, a long face, a broad mouth, and large hands and feet are much
more objectionable in a woman than in a man. Women have a special
liking for low-bodied dresses, which display the full length of the
neck; and by means of a corset they make the waist narrower than it is
by nature.

There is thus an ideal of beauty which, no doubt, may be said to be
common to the whole human race. But this ideal is merely an abstraction
which can never be realized. General similarities in taste are
accompanied by specific differences. Though every one admits that
a face without a nose is ugly, no particular form of the nose is
universally admired; and races which regard a swelling bosom as essen—
tial to feminine beauty differ widely from the Hottentots as to the
charm of pendant breasts.

Every race has, indeed, its own standard of beauty. Alexander von
Humboldt long ago observed, “Nations attach the idea of beauty
to everything which particularly characterizes their own physical
conformation, their natural physiognomy. Thence it results that,
if nature have bestowed very little beard, a narrow forehead, or
a brownish-red skin, every individual thinks himself beautiful in
proportion as his body is destitute of hair, his head flattened,
his skin more covered with ‘annotto,’ or ‘chica,’ or some other
coppery-red colour.”[1552] This view has been adopted by several later
writers,[1553] but, as it has been disputed by others,[1554] it may
be well to bring together some fresh evidence, as an addition to that
collected by Mr. Darwin.

The Sinhalese, says Dr. Davy, who are great connoisseurs of the charms
of the sex, and have books on the subject, and rules to aid the
judgment, would not allow a woman to be perfectly beautiful unless she
had the following characteristics:—“Her hair should be voluminous like
the tail of the peacock, long, reaching to the knees, and terminating
in graceful curls; her nose should be like the bill of the hawk, and
lips bright and red, like coral on the young leaf of the iron-tree.
Her neck should be large and round, her chest capacious, her breasts
firm and conical, like the yellow cocoa-nut, and her waist small—almost
small enough to be clasped by the hand. Her lips should be wide; her
limbs tapering; the soles of her feet without any hollow, and the
surface of her body in general, soft, delicate, smooth, and rounded,
without the asperities of projecting bones and sinews.” Dr. Davy adds,
“The preceding is the most general external character that can be
given of the Sinhalese.”[1555]

The women of the Indo-European race are remarkable for the length of
their hair. “Dans nos contrées,” Isidore Geoffroy observes, “ces
développements ajoutent à la beauté des femmes; dans d’autres pays,
si on les y observait, ils passeraient presque pour de légers vices
de conformation.”[1556] “A small round face,” says Castrén, “full
rosy red cheeks and lips, white forehead, black tresses, and small
dark eyes are marks of a Samoyede beauty. Thus in a Samoyedian song
a girl is praised for her small eyes, her broad face, and its rosy
colour.”[1557] These, as we know, are the typical characteristics of
the Samoyedes.[1558] As to the Tartar women, who generally have far
less prominent noses than we in Europe are accustomed to see, Father
de Rubruquis states, “The less their noses the handsomer they are
esteemed.”[1559] In Fiji, the remarkably broad occiput, peculiar
to its people, is looked upon as a mark of beauty.[1560] Among the
Egyptians Mr. Lane scarcely ever saw corpulent persons, and, unlike
many other African peoples, they do not admire very fat women:—“In
his love-songs, the Egyptian commonly describes the object of his
affections as of slender figure, and small waist.”[1561] “The
negroes,” says v. Humboldt, “give the preference to the thickest and
most prominent lips; the Kalmucks to turned-up noses; and the Greeks,
in the statues of heroes, raised the facial line from 85° to 100°
beyond nature. The Aztecs, who never disfigure the heads of their
children, represent their principal divinities, as their hieroglyphical
manuscripts prove, with a head much more flattened than any I have ever
seen among the Caribs.”[1562]

The fashion, prevalent among many peoples, of transforming parts of
the body, affords a good illustration of their ideas about personal
beauty. The Indians of North America, who have a low and flat forehead,
often exaggerate this natural peculiarity by an artificial flattening
of the forehead.[1563] In Tahiti, Samoa, and other islands of the
Pacific Ocean, it has been customary from time immemorial to flatten
the occiputs and to press the noses of the infants, as Professor
Gerland observes, in order to increase a national characteristic which
is considered beautiful.[1564] The same practice occurs in Sumatra,
and Marsden could learn no other reason for it, but that it was an
improvement of beauty in the estimation of the natives.[1565] Among
the Ovambo of South Africa, the fashion is quite different:—“With
the exception of the crown, which is always left untouched,” says
Andersson, “the men often shave the head, which has the effect of
magnifying the natural prominence of the hinder parts of it.”[1566]
Among the Chinese, small feet are considered a woman’s chief
attraction; hence the feet of girls are pressed from early childhood.
Now we know from the measurements made by Scherzer and Schwarz, that
Chinese women have by nature unusually small feet—a peculiarity which
has always distinguished them from their Tartar neighbours. And, as a
matter of fact, the Manchu Tartars, who at present rule the Chinese
Empire, never press the feet of their daughters.[1567]

Each race considers its own colour preferable to every other. The
North American Indians admire “a tawny hide,” and the Chinese dislike
the white skin of the Europeans.[1568] Some young New Zealanders, who
themselves were lightly copper-coloured, were greatly amused at the
dark tint of an Australian, and laughed at him for being so ugly.[1569]
Barrington tells us on the other hand, of an Australian woman, who,
having had a child by a white man, smoked it and rubbed it with oil to
give it a darker colour.[1570] The Hovas, who are probably, as a rule,
the lightest people in Madagascar, often put a spot of dark colour on
the cheeks, in order to heighten the effect of their fair complexion,
of which they are very proud.[1571] Among the Malays, according to Mr.
Crawfurd, “the standard of perfection in colour is virgin gold, and,
as a European lover compares the bosom of his mistress to the whiteness
of snow, the East Insular lover compares that of his to the yellowness
of the precious metal.”[1572]

The object of the painting of the body, so commonly practised among
savages, seems sometimes to be to exaggerate the natural colour of the
skin. Von Humboldt believes that this is the reason why the American
Indians paint themselves with red ochre and earth.[1573] The natives
of Tana, who have the colour of an old copper coin, usually dye their
bodies a few shades darker;[1574] whilst the Bornabi Islanders, who
have a light copper-coloured complexion, “anoint their bodies with
turmeric, in order to give themselves a whiter appearance.”[1575]
The Javanese, when in full dress, smear themselves with a yellow
cosmetic.[1576] And, speaking of the people of a place in Maabar
(Coromandel Coast), Marco Polo says, “The children that are born here
are black enough, but the blacker they be the more they are thought
of; wherefore from the day of their birth their parents do rub them
every week with oil of sesamé, so that they become as black as devils.
Moreover, they make their gods black and their devils white, and the
images of their saints they do paint black all over.”[1577]

The question,—What characteristics of the human form are deemed
beautiful? may now be answered. Men find beauty in the full development
of the visible characteristics belonging to the human organism in
general; of those peculiar to the sex; of those peculiar to the race.
We have next to consider the connection of love and beauty.

That this connection does not depend upon the æsthetic pleasure excited
by beauty is obvious from the fact that the intrinsic character of
an æsthetic feeling is disinterestedness, whereas the intrinsic
character of love is the very reverse. So far as beauty implies the
full development of characteristics essential to the human organism,
or to either of the sexes, the preference given to it follows from the
instinctive inclination to healthiness, already mentioned, and needs
no further discussion. The question is to explain the stimulating
influence of racial perfection.

“In barbarous nations,” says v. Humboldt, “there is a physiognomy
peculiar to the tribe or horde rather than to any individual. When we
compare our domestic animals with those which inhabit our forests, we
make the same observation.”[1578] The accuracy of this statement has
been confirmed by later writers;[1579] and we may say with M. Godron,
“C’est —aujourd’hui un fait parfaitement acquis à la science, que plus
un peuple se rapproche de l’état de nature, plus les hommes qui le
composent se ressemblent entre eux.”[1580] This likeness does not refer
to the physiognomy only, but to the body as a whole. The variations of
stature, for instance, are known to be least considerable among the
peoples least advanced in civilization.[1581]

It cannot be doubted that this greater similarity is due partly to
the greater uniformity of the conditions of life to which uncivilized
peoples are subject. According to Villermé and Quetelet, an inequality
of stature is observed not only between the inhabitants of towns on
the one hand and those of the country on the other, but also, in the
interior of towns, between individuals of different professions.[1582]
There is, however, another factor, which is, I think, of still greater
importance.

The deviations from the national type, which occur sporadically, have
been considered the result of disease, and can, as Professor Waitz
observes, “but rarely become permanent, as the national type is
always that which harmonizes with the soil and the climate, and the
external relations in which the respective peoples live.”[1583] We must
assume that a certain kind of constitution is best suited for certain
conditions of life, and that every considerable deviation from this
must perish in the struggle for existence in a state in which natural
selection is constantly at work and physical qualities are of the
first importance. We know from Isidore Geoffroy’s investigations that
persons who deviate much, with regard to the length of body, from the
common standard—they may be dwarfs or giants—are, as a rule, abnormal
in other respects also, being deficient in intelligence as well as in
the power of reproduction, and being especially liable to premature
death.[1584] Sir W. Lawrence, too, remarks that the strength of men
who have considerably exceeded the ordinary standard has by no means
corresponded to their size, and that “there are very few instances of
what we can deem healthy, well-made men, with all the proper attributes
of the race, much below the general standard.”[1585] If, among
civilized peoples, such deviations indicate some disturbance of the
vital functions, and, as a consequence, are unfavourable to existence,
this must be even more the case with savage tribes, all the members
of which are subject to nearly the same conditions of life. Abnormal
characteristics may sometimes flourish in a highly civilized society,
but they are doomed to perish in communities among whom the struggle
for existence is far more severe.

It may at first sight seem strange that all the characteristics,
however slight, in which the various races of men differ from each
other, should harmonize with particular conditions of life to the
exclusion of others. But it must be remembered that, if we had fuller
knowledge, characteristics which seem to us useless, or even hurtful,
might be seen to be useful. We know the utility of _some_ special
characteristics, and that of others may, at least provisionally,
be assumed. It is certain that the physiological functions of most
persons who quit their native land and settle in a wholly different
region, must undergo a considerable change if the new conditions are
not to have injurious effects. Moreover, many bodily structures are so
intimately related, that when one part varies others vary also, though,
in most instances, we are quite unable to assign any reason why this
should be the case.

Savage men are generally distinguished for relatively large jaws,
which, no doubt, are of use in a state of nature, where food is often
hard and tough, where the jaws have to perform the functions of knife
and fork, and where the teeth occasionally serve as implements. This
racial peculiarity, being in fact only a mark of low civilization, is
thus easily accounted for by the law of natural selection. The less
man, with advancing civilization, was in want of large and strong jaws,
the greater was the chance for individuals born with smaller jaws to
survive; hence a race with comparatively small jaws gradually arose.
Indeed, Professor Virchow has shown that the prognathous type of face
is inconsistent with the full development of the brain.[1586]

Another peculiarity which characterizes the lower races of men is the
lateral jutting-out of the cheek-bones. But, as Mr. Spencer observes,
this excessive size of the cheek-bones is only an accompaniment of
large jaws. Other peculiarities of feature—depression of the bridge of
the nose, forward opening of the nostrils, wide-spread _alæ_, and a
long and large mouth—constantly coexist with large and protuberant jaws
and great cheek-bones, alike in uncivilized races and in the young of
civilized races;[1587] hence we cannot believe that the connection is
merely accidental.

Professor Schaaffhausen has noticed that many peculiarities of the
skull are coincident with arrested cerebral development and correlated
to each other:—“The characters observed in the skulls of the lower
races, namely, a narrow and low frontal bone, a short sagittal
suture, a low temporal squama, a short occipital squama, the upper
margin of which forms a flat arch, are therefore to be considered
as approximations to the animal form, and they stand to each other
in organic connection.”[1588] It seems as if stature and muscular
force were in some way connected with the dolichocephalic and the
brachycephalic forms of the skull, for Welcker found that short men and
short races incline more to the latter, tall men and tall races to the
former. Again, according to Fick, the muscles exercise a remarkable
influence on the form of the bones in general, and particularly upon
some cranial bones.[1589]

The process of acclimatization affords opportunities for the study of
the connection between organic structures and functions on the one
hand, and surrounding nature on the other. At present, however, our
knowledge of the subject is exceedingly scanty. It has been asserted
that the curly hair of the European becomes straight in America,—like
the hair of an Indian; that in North America, as in New South Wales,
children of European parents are apt to become tall and lean, whilst
there is a tendency among European colonists at the Cape to grow
fat,—which reminds us of the steatopygy of the native women.[1590]
Almost all that we know with certainty is that, in the process of
acclimatization, man has to undergo a change, and that this change is
often too great to be endurable. As Dr. Felkin observes, Europeans are
almost incapable of forming colonies in the tropics;[1591] and, with
few exceptions, they have been unable to rear a sound progeny there
in marriage with white women.[1592] Colonel Hadden, who has spent
sixteen years in India, informs me that it is a prevalent opinion
among British officers in that country that an English regiment of a
thousand men would, within thirteen years, from climate, disease, or
other casualties, almost wholly die out. This statement well agrees
with Professor Sprenger’s, that a regiment consisting of eight hundred
men loses within ten years more than seven hundred.[1593] It is
also, according to Colonel Hadden, a common report that, of a third
generation of pure Europeans in India, children only are, occasionally,
met with, and that they never reach the age of puberty.[1594] English
parents, as a rule, send their children to Europe when five or six
years old, as otherwise they would succumb.[1595] According to
Mr. Squier, it is the concurrent testimony of all intelligent and
observing men in Central America that the pure whites are there not
only relatively but absolutely decreasing in numbers, whilst the
pure Indians are rapidly increasing, and the Ladinos more and more
approximating to the aboriginal type.[1596]

The colour of the skin is justly considered one of the chief
characteristics of race. Now it is quite impossible to assign any
definite reason why one race is white, another black, brown, or
yellow. Nobody has yet been able to prove that the colour of the skin
is of any direct use to man, and it certainly is not the immediate
result of long exposure to a certain climate. But we know that there
exists an intimate connection between the colour of the skin and
bodily constitution. “Les colorations diverses,” says M. Godron,
“qui distinguent les différentes variétés de l’espèce humaine,
tiennent beaucoup moins aux agents physiques, qu’aux phénomènes les
plus intimes de l’organisation qui dans l’état actuel de la science,
nous échappent et resteront peut-être toujours couverts d’un voile
impénétrable.”[1597] Thus the alteration in the customary physiological
functions called acclimatization, seems often to be connected with
some change of colour not directly depending upon the influence of the
sun. Dr. Mayer observed that a European at the tropics loses his rosy
complexion, the difference in colour between arterial and venous blood
being strikingly diminished on account of the smaller absorption of
oxygen, which results from the feebler process of combustion.[1598]
According to Dr. Tylor, it is asserted that the pure negro in the
United States has undergone a change which has left him a shade lighter
in complexion;[1599] whilst a long medical experience at New Orleans
showed Dr. Visinié that the blood of the American negro has lost the
excess of plasticity which it possessed in Africa.[1600] A negro boy
brought to Germany by Gerhard Rohlfs, changed his colour after a
residence of two years, from deep black to light brown.[1601] Klinkosch
mentions the case of a negro who lost his blackness and became yellow;
and Caldani declares that a negro, who was a shoemaker at Venice,
was black when brought, during infancy, to that city, but became
gradually lighter, and had the hue of a person suffering from a slight
jaundice.[1602] In the ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ there is even a
record of a negro who became as white as a European.[1603] On the other
hand, we are told of an English gentleman Macnaughten by name, who
long lived the life of a native in the jungle of Southern India, and
acquired, even on the clothed portions of his body, a skin as brown as
that of a Brahman.[1604] These statements, if true, certainly refer to
exceedingly exceptional cases, but their accuracy cannot be _à priori_
denied. We know that certain organisms are much better able than others
to undergo the change which constitutes acclimatization, and we have
no positive reason to doubt that this power may, in abnormal cases, be
extraordinarily great. At any rate, it is beyond doubt that a close
connection exists between the colour of the skin and the physiological
functions of the body, on the one hand, and between these and the
conditions of life on the other. Disease is commonly accompanied by a
change of colour. Mr. Wallace observes that, in many islands of the
Malay Archipelago, species of widely different genera of butterflies
differ in precisely the same way as to colour or form from allied
species in other islands.[1605] The same thing occurs to a less degree
in other parts of the world also. And Agassiz has pointed out that,
in Asia and Africa, the large apes and the human races have the same
colour of the skin.[1606]

We may thus take for granted that racial peculiarities stand in some
connection with the external circumstances in which the various races
live. It may perhaps be objected that we meet with native tribes of
various types on the same degree of latitude, and under the same
climatic conditions.[1607] But we must remember that it is often
impossible to decide whether the conditions of life are exactly the
same; that intermixture of blood has caused a great confusion of racial
types; and that all peoples have arrived at their present localities
after more or less extensive migrations. We may be sure that some
characters have been preserved from earlier times when the race lived
in other circumstances, and that the higher its degree of civilization
the less likely it would be to lose the stamp impressed upon it.[1608]

It is, however, exceedingly doubtful whether racial differences are so
directly the result of external influences as anthropologists generally
believe,—that is, whether they are the inherited effects of conditions
of life to which previous generations have been subject. Professor
Weismann, as is well known, thinks that acquired characters are not
transmitted from parent to offspring. “It has never been proved,” he
says, “that acquired characters are transmitted, and it has never been
demonstrated that, without the aid of such transmission, the evolution
of the organic world becomes unintelligible.”[1609] Man has from time
immemorial mutilated his body in various ways, and there is not a
single well-founded case of these mutilations having been inherited
by the offspring.[1610] The children of accomplished pianists do not
inherit the art of playing the piano. Facts show that children of
highly civilized nations have no trace of a language, when they have
grown up in a wild condition and in complete isolation.[1611] Change in
colour influenced by sun and air is obviously temporary. The children
of the husbandman, or of the sailor, are just as fair as those of the
most delicate and pale inhabitant of a city; and, although the Moors,
who have lived in Africa since the seventh century, are generally in
mature life very sunburnt, their children are as white as those born in
Europe, and “restent blancs toute leur vie, quand leurs travaux ne les
exposent pas aux ardeurs du soleil.”[1612]

Such facts are certainly not in favour of the prevalent theory that the
differences of race are due to direct adaptation. Whether Professor
Weismann’s theory proves to be well founded or not, we manifestly
cannot assume that the heredity of acquired characters suffices to
explain the origin of the human races. It seems most probable that, at
the very earliest stages of human evolution, mankind was restricted to
a comparatively small area, and was then homogeneous, as every animal
and vegetable species is under similar conditions. In the struggle
for existence the intellectual faculties of man were developed, and
before the breaking away of isolated groups he may have invented the
art of making fire, and of fabricating the simplest implements and
weapons. This mental superiority made it possible for man to disperse,
enabling him to exist even under conditions somewhat different from
those to which he was originally adapted. His organism had to undergo
certain changes, but we are not aware that these modifications were
transmitted to descendants. All that we know is, that the children born
were not exactly like each other, and that those who happened to vary
most in accordance with the new conditions of life as a rule survived,
and became the ancestors of following generations. The congenital
characters which enabled them to survive were of course transmitted
to their offspring, and thus, through natural selection,[1613] races
would gradually arise, the members of each of which would have as
hereditary dispositions the same peculiarities as those which, to a
certain extent, may be acquired through acclimatization, but then
only for the individual himself, not for his descendants. We can thus
understand how the children of a negro are black[1614]—even if they are
born in Europe[1615]—as the black colour is the correlative of certain
physiological processes favourable to existence in the country of their
race. They survive, whilst the children of Europeans who have emigrated
to the tropics are carried off in great numbers, even though their
parents have succeeded in undergoing the functional modifications which
accompanied the change of abode.

This explanation of racial differences seems the more acceptable, when
we take into consideration the immense period which has elapsed since
man began to spread over the earth, and the slow and gradual change
of abodes. He was not at once moved from the tropics to the polar
zones, or from the polar zones to the tropics, but had to undergo an
indefinitely long chain of adaptive processes. Thus were gradually
established such radical differences as those which distinguish a
European from a negro, an Australian from a Red-skin.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have now found an answer to our question, why man, in the choice of
mate, gives the preference to the best representatives of his race. The
full development of racial characters indicates health, a deviation
from them indicates disease. Physical beauty is thus in every respect
the outward manifestation of physical perfection, or healthiness, and
the development of the instinct which prefers beauty to ugliness is
evidently within the power of natural selection.

This explanation of the connection between love and beauty, as also
of the origin of the races of men, is very different from that given
by Mr. Darwin. “The men of each race,” he says, “prefer what they
are accustomed to; they cannot endure any great change; but they
like variety, and admire each characteristic carried to a moderate
extreme.... As the great anatomist Bichat long ago said, if every one
were cast in the same mould, there would be no such thing as beauty.
If all our women were to become as beautiful as the Venus de’ Medici,
we should for a time be charmed; but we should soon wish for variety,
and as soon as we had obtained variety, we should wish to see certain
characters a little exaggerated beyond the then existing common
standard.”[1616]

In the fashions of our own dress, says Mr. Darwin, we see exactly
the same principle and the same desire to carry every point to an
extreme.[1617] Man prefers, to a certain extent, what he is accustomed
to see. Thus the Maoris, who are in the habit of dyeing their lips
blue, consider it “a reproach to a woman to have red lips;”[1618]
and we ourselves dislike, on the whole, any great deviation from the
leading fashions. But, on the other hand, man wants variety. Now in
one, now in another way, he changes his dress in order to attract
attention, or to charm. The fashions of savages are certainly more
permanent than ours;[1619] but the extreme diversity of ornaments with
which many uncivilized peoples bedeck themselves, shows their emulation
to make themselves attractive by means of new enticements. “Each
of the Outanatas (New Guinea),” says Mr. Earl, “seemed desirous of
ornamenting himself in some way different from his neighbour;”[1620]
and, with regard to the Pacific Islanders, Mr. John Williams remarks
that “the inhabitants of almost every group ... have their peculiar
ideas as to what constitutes an addition to beauty.”[1621] But it is
impossible to believe that the different races’ ideal of personal
beauty are in any way connected with this capriciousness of taste.
Were this the case, as Mr. Darwin suggests, the men of each race would
admire variations and piquant peculiarities in the appearance of their
women, and not only each _characteristic_ point “carried to a moderate
extreme.”

According to Mr. Darwin, racial differences are due to the different
standards of beauty, whereas, according to the theory here indicated,
the different standards of beauty are due to racial differences. “Let
us suppose,” says Mr. Darwin, “the members of a tribe, practising
some form of marriage, to spread over an unoccupied continent, they
would soon split up into distinct hordes, separated from each other
by various barriers, and still more effectually by the incessant wars
between all barbarous nations. The hordes would thus be exposed to
slightly different conditions and habits of life, and would sooner or
later come to differ in some small degree. As soon as this occurred,
each isolated tribe would form for itself a slightly different standard
of beauty; and then unconscious selection would come into action
through the more powerful and leading men preferring certain women to
others. Thus the differences between the tribes, at first very slight,
would gradually and inevitably be more or less increased.”[1622] This
theory—that racial differences are due to sexual selection—obviously
presupposes either that the human organism is alike well fitted to any
climate and natural conditions; or that no correlation exists between
the visible parts of the body and its functions. Otherwise, of course,
little effect could be produced through the preference given to certain
individuals; for in a savage state, where celibacy is an exception,
those men and women whose constitution was best suited to the
conditions of life would, in any case, in the end, determine the racial
type. It is also difficult to see how those slight variations from the
original human type, which, according to Mr. Darwin, characterized
the distinct hordes or tribes into which mankind was split up, could
have developed into such enormous differences as we find in the colour
of the skin of, for example, a negro and a European—only through the
selection of the best representatives of these tribal peculiarities,
these slight variations. Finally, it seems doubtful whether Mr. Darwin
would have ascribed racial differences in colour to the influence
of sexual selection, had he considered the important fact, already
mentioned, that the larger apes have the same colour of the skin as the
human races living in the same country.

Mr. Darwin also thinks that the differences in external appearance
between man and the lower animals are, to a certain extent, due to
sexual selection. The chief character of the human race which he
proposes to account for in this way is the general hairlessness of the
body. “No one supposes,” he says, “that the nakedness of the skin
is any direct advantage to man; his body therefore cannot have been
divested of hair through natural selection.”[1623] It is curious that
the hairlessness of man has puzzled so many anthropologists,[1624] as
it may very easily be explained by the law of variation. When man had
invented the art of making fire, and the idea of covering himself to
secure protection from cold had occurred to his mind, hairlessness
was no serious disadvantage in the struggle for existence. Hence
natural selection ceased to operate in the matter, and a hairless race
gradually arose. We find the same principle at work in various other
ways. Civilized man does not need such keen vision as savages;[1625]
consequently many of us are short-sighted and few Europeans could
match a Red Indian in his power of detecting the symptoms of a trail.
For the same reason we are generally inferior to savages in the
capacity for discriminating odours, and our teeth are apt to be very
much less sound and vigorous than theirs.

That sexual selection has had _some_ influence on the physical aspect
of mankind is probable. Accurate observers in different parts of the
world have remarked that personal deformities are very rare in savage
races unaffected by European influence.[1626] This chiefly depends upon
the fact that deformed individuals seldom survive the hardships of
early life, but, as Sir W. Lawrence says, if they do survive, they are
prevented by the kind of aversion they inspire from propagating their
deformities.[1627] It is not unlikely that the selection of the best
representatives of the race contributes to keep the racial type pure.
Sexual selection, too, may be the cause why, among savages, the men are
so often handsomer than the women—that is, better specimens of their
sex and their race;[1628] whilst, in civilized society, the reverse is
true. We have seen that savage women have great liberty of disposing
of their own hand, and that, at lower stages of civilization, celibacy
occurs almost exclusively among the men. Among us, on the contrary,
the unmarried women outnumber the unmarried men, and, whilst a man’s
ability to marry depends only to a small extent upon his personal
appearance, the like may certainly not be said of women.




CHAPTER XIII

THE LAW OF SIMILARITY


A powerful instinct keeps animals from pairing with individuals
belonging to another species than their own. “L’animal,” says
M. Duvernoy, “a l’instinct de se rapprocher de son espèce et de
s’éloigner des autres, comme il a celui de choisir ses aliments et
d’éviter les poisons.”[1629] Among Birds, there are found a small
number of wild hybrids, nearly all of which are in the order of
Gallinae, and most of which belong to the genus Tetrao.[1630] But among
Insects, Fishes, and Mammals, living in a state of nature, hybridism
is unknown or almost so.[1631] And, even among domesticated mammals,
some tricks are often required to deceive the male, and so to conquer
its aversion to a female of a different species. The stallion, for
instance, who is to cover a she-ass, is frequently first excited by the
presence of a mare, for which, at the proper moment, the she-ass is
substituted.[1632]

We may be sure that, were it not for this instinctive feeling, many
more animal hybrids would be naturally produced than is the case. In
the vegetable kingdom, where the play of instincts is altogether out
of the question, bastards occur much more frequently;[1633] and in
captivity a considerable number of animal hybrid forms are produced
that are never met with in a state of nature.[1634] Yet, according to
Mr. Darwin, there are good grounds for the doctrine of Pallas, that
the conditions to which domesticated animals and cultivated plants
have been subjected, generally eliminate the tendency towards mutual
sterility, so that the domesticated descendants of species which
in their natural state would have been in some degree sterile when
crossed, become perfectly fertile.[1635]

The origin of this instinct, which helps to keep even closely allied
species in a state of nature distinct, seems to be sufficiently clear.
The number of species which have proved fertile together are very
limited, and the fertility of the hybrid offspring is almost constantly
diminished, often even to a very great extent. Of course, no one
now talks of the sterility of hybrids as a moral necessity—hybrids
being _animalia adulterina_,—or as the result of a special divine
decree, that new species should not be multiplied indefinitely.[1636]
M. Isidore Geoffroy has shown not only that hybrids may be fertile,
but that “infertile” hybrids are, properly speaking, merely the
hybrids which are most rarely fertile, their sterility never being
absolute.[1637] Moreover, as has been pointed out by Mr. Wallace, in
almost all the experiments that have hitherto been made in crossing
distinct species, no care has been taken to avoid close interbreeding;
hence these experiments cannot be held to prove that hybrids are
in all cases infertile _inter se_.[1638] But looking to all the
ascertained facts on the intercrossing of plants and animals, we may
with Mr. Darwin conclude that some degree of sterility in hybrids is an
extremely general result.[1639] This being the case with the hybrids of
our domesticated animals, it must be so all the more with animals in a
state of nature, which generally live under conditions less favourable
to mutual fertility. It is easy to understand, then, that instincts
leading to intercrossing of different species, even if appearing
occasionally, never could be long-lived, as only those animals which
preferred pairing with individuals of their own species, gave birth
to an offspring endowed with a normal power of reproduction, and thus
became the founders of numerous generations that inherited their
instincts.

The relative or absolute sterility characterizing first crosses and
hybrids depends upon a biological law which might be called the “Law
of Similarity.” The degree of sterility, in either case,[1640] runs,
at least to a certain extent, parallel with the general affinity of
the forms that are united. Thus, most animal hybrids are produced by
individuals belonging to the same genus, whilst species belonging to
distinct genera can rarely, and those belonging to distinct families
perhaps never, be crossed.[1641] The parallelism, however, is not
complete, for a multitude of closely allied species will not unite,
or unite only with great difficulty, though other species, widely
different from each other, can be crossed with facility. Hence Mr.
Darwin infers that the difficulty or facility in crossing “apparently
depends exclusively on the sexual constitution of the species which
are crossed, or on their sexual elective affinity, _i.e._, the
‘Wahlverwandtschaft’ of Gärtner.” But as species rarely, or never,
become modified in one character, without being at the same time
modified in many, and as systematic affinity includes all visible
resemblances and dissimilarities, any difference in sexual constitution
between two species would naturally stand in more or less close
relation with their systematic position.[1642]

With regard to the instinct in question, man follows the general rule
in the animal kingdom. Our notions of morality are closely connected
with the instinctive feelings engraved in our nature; and bestiality
is commonly looked upon as one of the most heinous crimes of which man
can make himself guilty. Several passages both in ancient[1643] and
modern writers[1644] prove the occasional occurrence of this crime, but
always under circumstances analogous to those under which single birds
sometimes form connections against nature,[1645] _i.e._, either because
of isolation, or on account of vitiated instincts.[1646]

       *       *       *       *       *

Supporters of the hypothesis that the several races of man are distinct
species of the genus Homo, assert that an instinctive aversion similar
to that which keeps different animal species from intermingling, exists
also between the various human races.[1647] It may be noted by the
way that, even if this were true, the idea that mankind consists of
various species might be controverted; for certain races of domestic
or semi-domesticated animals seem to prefer breeding with their own
kind and refuse to mingle with others. Thus Mr. Bennett states that
the dark and pale coloured herds of fallow deer, which have long been
kept together in the Forest of Dean and two other places, have never
been known to mingle. On one of the Faroe Islands, the half-wild native
black sheep are said not to have readily mixed with the imported white
sheep. And in Circassia, where six sub-races of the horse are known and
have received distinct names, horses of three of these races, whilst
living a free life, almost always refuse to mingle and cross, and will
even attack each other.[1648] As for man, there are many races who
dislike marrying persons of another race, but the motives are various.
The different ideas of beauty no doubt play an important part. Mr.
Winwoode Reade does not think it probable that negroes would prefer
even the most beautiful European woman, on the mere grounds of physical
admiration, to a good-looking negress.[1649] A civilized race does not
readily intermingle with one less advanced in civilization, from the
same motives as those which prevent a lord from marrying a peasant
girl. And more than anything else, I think, the enmity, or at least,
want of sympathy, due to difference of interests, ideas, and habits,
which so often exist between distinct peoples or tribes, helps to keep
races separate. But such reasons as these have nothing in common with
the instinctive feeling which deters animals of distinct species from
pairing with each other. Hence, when two races come into very close
mutual contact, especially if they are at about the same stage of
civilization, their dislike to intermarriage commonly disappears.

Mongrels form, indeed, a large proportion of the inhabitants of the
world. It is doubtful whether there are any pure races in Europe; not
even the Basques can pretend to purity of blood.[1650] M. Broca found,
when investigating the subject of stature, that nineteen-twentieths
of the whole population of France presented, in various degrees, the
characters of mixed races.[1651] In North America, different races
intermingle more and more every day. In Greenland, according to Dr.
Nansen, in the course of a century and a half there has been such
an intermixture of races that it would now be extremely difficult,
if not impossible, to find a true Eskimo throughout the whole of
the west coast; and the Europeans, far from being disliked by the
native women have succeeded in inspiring them with so much respect
that the “simplest European sailor is preferred to the best Eskimo
seal catcher.”[1652] In Mexico, the Spanish mixed breeds constitute
two-thirds or three-fourths of the whole population;[1653] and South
America, to quote a French writer, is “le grand laboratoire des
nations hybrides ou métisses modernes.”[1654] Of twelve millions of
mongrels, which is the estimated number of mongrels on the face of
the globe, no fewer than eleven millions are found there.[1655] Even
in remote Tierra del Fuego, according to Mr. Bridges, some mongrels of
European fathers and indigenous mothers have appeared during the last
few years.

In Asia there are numberless instances of intermixture of breed between
the Tartars, Mongols, and Tunguses, and the Russians and Chinese,
&c.[1656] In India there are many Eurasians; in the Indian Archipelago
Chinese and Malays intermarry;[1657] and, in the Islands of the South
Sea, the mongrels of European fathers amount to a considerable number.
In Africa, the eastern Soudan is a great centre of mixed breeds between
races much removed from one another. And, in Southern Africa, the
Griquas—the offspring of Dutch colonists and Hottentot women—form a
very distinct race.

As far as we know, there are no human races who, when intermingled,
are entirely sterile. But as regards the degree of fertility of first
crosses and of mongrels, the opinions of different anthropologists
vary considerably. Those who do not believe in the unity of the human
race have been especially solicitous to prove that crosses are almost
inevitably followed by bad results in that respect. Thus Dr. Knox
thinks that the half-breeds, if they were abandoned to themselves
and no longer had access to pure races, would rapidly disappear, the
“hybrid” being rejected by nature as a degradation of humanity.[1658]
Dr. Nott asserts that, when two proximate species of mankind, two
races bearing a general resemblance to each other in type, are bred
together, they produce offspring perfectly prolific; but that, when
species the most widely separated, such as the Anglo-Saxon and the
negro, are crossed, the mulatto offspring are but partially prolific,
and acquire an inherent tendency to run out, and become eventually
extinct, when kept apart from the parent stocks.[1659] The same opinion
is entertained by M. Broca, and by M. Pouchet, who thinks that the
crossed race will exist only if it continues to be supported by the
two creating types remaining in the midst of it.[1660]

On the other hand, Dr. Prichard believes it may be asserted, without
the least chance of valid contradiction, that mankind, of all races and
varieties, are equally capable of having offspring by intermarriage,
and that such connections are equally prolific whether contracted
between individuals of the same variety or of the most dissimilar
varieties. “If there is any difference,” he says, “it is probably
in favour of the latter.”[1661] According to M. Godron, the mongrels
have generally shown a higher degree of fertility than their parent
races;[1662] and M. Quatrefages asserts that mulattoes are as fruitful
as pure breeds.[1663]

It is to be regretted that so little attention has for some time been
paid to this most important question. The result is that the effects
of the intermixture of races are not much better known now, than they
were twenty or thirty years ago. The only thing which may be considered
certain is, that the hypothesis of the depressing influence of crossing
upon fertility, as the theory has generally been propounded, involves
a great deal of exaggeration. It is chiefly owing to M. Broca’s
celebrated essay, ‘Sur l’hybridité,’ that this doctrine has been so
widely accepted. He asserts that the connections of Europeans with
Australian women have proved very slightly prolific, and that the
mongrels resulting from them are almost sterile. “No statistical
writer,” he says, “nor any historian, enumerates cross-breeds among
the Australian population.”[1664] Yet, this land has for a considerable
time been inhabited by European colonists, many of whom have not had
opportunities of marrying wives of their own race. It has also been
shown that the cohabitation of whites and native women is very common
in Australia. But the number of mongrels there is, nevertheless,
exceedingly small, so small that in the native dialects there does not
exist a single word to designate them.[1665]

Supposing that these remarkable statements referred chiefly to the
eastern and southern parts of the Australian continent, I asked Bishop
R. Salvado and the Rev. Joseph Johnston, living in West Australia, to
inform me whether, in that country, any mixed race exists, and, if so,
whether it is fruitful or not. From the former, who has lived among the
West Australian aborigines for more than forty years, and through an
excellent work on their life and customs has gained the reputation of
a first-rate authority, I had the pleasure of receiving the following
answer, dated New Norcia, October 17, 1888:—“With regard to the
sterility of the half-caste natives, of which I had no experience when
I wrote my book, I am able now to deny it altogether, except in cases
similar to those among the Europeans. I know several cases of husband
and wife, half-caste natives, having at present six and seven and even
eight children, and they may in time have more; and I know a good many
Europeans who, having married native women, have several children. In
fact, in the case of one of those marriages there were six children,
and in another seven, and I could give the name of each of them.”
The Rev. J. Johnston writes, “There is a school for half-caste boys
and girls at Perth, and they seem bright and intelligent children,
not unlike Polynesian children. As they grow up, they go out to
service, and some of the youths are employed as post and telegraph
messengers.... At the New Norcia mission, there are several half-caste
families, as well as blacks, and they all have children.” The following
statement of Mr. Taplin referring to the aborigines of the Lower
Murray, goes in the same direction:—“The pure blacks,” he says,
“are not so healthy as the half-castes. Always the children of two
half-castes will be healthier and stronger than either the children of
blacks or the children of a black and a half-caste. When a half-caste
man and woman marry, they generally have a large and vigorous family. I
could point to half a dozen such.”[1666]

These statements of highly competent persons are, I think, quite
sufficient to disprove M. Broca’s hypothesis. They show that, if
a mixed race is almost wanting in certain parts of Australia, this
does not depend upon physiological conditions of the kind suggested.
It should be remembered that the sexual intercourse of Europeans
with savage women is most commonly transitory and accidental, and
frequently takes place with prostitutes or licentious women, who are
generally known to be sterile. And, even when the white settler takes
a native’s daughter to live with him under his own roof as a wife or
a concubine, and accustoms her to a half-civilized manner of living,
her unfruitfulness[1667] may be owing to quite another cause than the
mixture of blood. Mr. Darwin has shown that changed conditions of
life have an especial power of acting injuriously on the reproductive
system. Thus animals, as also plants, when removed from their natural
conditions, are often rendered in some degree infertile or completely
barren, even when the conditions have not been greatly changed. And
this failure of animals to breed under confinement cannot, at least
to any considerable extent, depend upon a failure in their sexual
instincts. “Numerous cases,” says Mr. Darwin, “have been given of
various animals which couple freely under confinement, but never
conceive; or, if they conceive and produce young, these are fewer in
number than is natural to the species.”[1668] It is reasonable to
suppose that savage man, when he moves into more civilized conditions,
is subject to the same law. Indeed, statements have been reported to
me, which tend to show that the indigenous women at the Polynesian
missionary stations have become less fruitful than they were in their
native state. As to the alleged sterility of crosses between the
European and Australian races, it should be observed that the rarity
of mongrels in certain parts of Australia is more or less owing to
the natives themselves habitually destroying the half-castes.[1669]
The Rev. A. Meyer states that, in the Encounter Bay tribe, “nearly
all the children of European fathers used to be put to death;”[1670]
whilst, among the Narrinyeri, about one-half of the half-caste infants
fell victims to the jealousy of their mothers’ husbands.[1671] But
with regard to the West Australian aborigines in the neighbourhood of
Fremantle, the Rev. J. Johnston writes that he does not think it has
been the custom there to destroy the half-caste illegitimate offspring
of black women, as he never heard of such a thing,—a fact which may
account for the comparatively large number of mongrels in that part of
the continent.

Other statements also, adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of
M. Broca, have proved more or less untrustworthy. Thus the alleged
sterility of the mulattoes of Jamaica[1672] has been disputed by other
writers.[1673] So also v. Görtz’s statement that the children of the
Dutch and Malay women in Java (Lipplapps) are only productive to the
third generation,[1674] has been called in question.[1675]

Yet, although we may consider it certain that the diversities even
between the races which least resemble each other are not so great
but that, under favourable conditions, a mixed race may easily be
produced, I do not deny the possibility of crossing being, to a certain
extent, unfavourable to fertility. The statements as to the rapid
increase of some mixed races do not prove the reverse. For the bad
result of crossing would not necessarily appear at once; and a drop
of pure blood would be sufficient to increase fertility, just as,
when a hybrid is crossed with either pure parent species, sterility
is usually much lessened.[1676] It is a remarkable fact that mixed
marriages between Jews and persons of other races are comparatively
infertile. In Prussia, these marriages have been separately registered
since 1875, and between that year and 1881 there was an average of
1·63 to a marriage, whereas, during the same period, pure Jewish
marriages resulted in an average of 4·41 children or very nearly three
times as many. In Bavaria, between 1876 and 1880, the numbers were
only 1·1 per marriage against 4·7 children to purely Jewish marriages.
And this conspicuous infertility implies greater sterility. Among
fifty-six such marriages, with regard to which Mr. Jacobs ascertained
the results, no fewer than nine were sterile, _i.e._, 18 per cent.,—a
striking contrast to the number of sterile marriages which he found in
seventy-one marriages between Jewish cousins, where the percentage of
sterility was only 5·4 per cent.[1677] Mr. Jacobs, however, informs
me that it has been suggested that this infertility may be due rather
to the higher age at which such marriages are likely to take place.
There is still a strong feeling against them among Jews, which is
only likely to be overcome after independence of thought and position
has been reached. At the same time Mr. Jacobs does not consider this
sufficient to account for the very great discrepancy. But we must not,
of course, take for granted that the crossing of any two races has the
same effects as the crossing of Jewish and non-Jewish Europeans seems
to have.

Even if it could be proved, however, that mixture of races produces
lessened fertility of first crosses and of mongrels, this would not
make it necessary for us to reject the doctrine of the unity of
mankind. It is true that the domesticated varieties both of animals and
of plants, when crossed, are as a general rule prolific, in some cases
even more so than the purely bred parent varieties; whereas species,
when crossed, and their hybrid offspring, are almost invariably in some
degree sterile. But this rule is not altogether without exceptions.
Even Agassiz condemned the employment of fertility of union as a
limiting principle. He considered this a fallacy, “or at least a
_petitio principii_, not admissible in a philosophical discussion of
what truly constitutes the characteristics of species.”[1678] Thus the
red and yellow varieties of maize are in some degree infertile when
crossed, and the blue-and the red-flowered forms of the pimpernel,
considered by most botanists to be the same species, as they present no
differences of form or structure, are, according to Gärtner, mutually
sterile. Moreover, Mr. Darwin’s investigations on dimorphic and
trimorphic plants have shown that the physiological test of lessened
fertility, both in first crosses and in hybrids, is no safe criterion
of specific distinction.[1679] As for animals, Professor Vogt asserts
that, in the opinion of experienced breeders, certain races can with
difficulty be made to pair, and the fertility of the mongrels soon
diminishes, whilst other races pair readily and are prolific.[1680]
Sir J. Sebright says, “Although I believe the occasional intermixture
of different families to be necessary, I do not, by any means, approve
of mixing two distinct breeds, with the view of uniting the valuable
properties of both: this experiment has been frequently tried by others
as well as by myself, but has, I believe, never succeeded. The first
cross frequently produces a tolerable animal, but it is a breed that
cannot be continued.”[1681]




CHAPTER XIV

PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED


The horror of incest is an almost universal characteristic of mankind,
the cases which seem to indicate a perfect absence of this feeling
being so exceedingly rare that they must be regarded merely as
anomalous aberrations from a general rule.

Yet the degrees of kinship within which intercourse is forbidden, are
by no means everywhere the same. It is most, and almost universally,
abominated between parents and children, especially mother and
son. As an exception to this rule, v. Langsdorf states that, among
the Kaniagmuts, not only do brothers and sisters cohabit with each
other, but even parents and children.[1682] The Eastern Tinneh, or
Chippewyans, occasionally marry their mothers, sisters, or daughters,
but such alliances are not considered correct by general opinion.[1683]
In the Indian Archipelago, according to Schwaner, Wilken, and Riedel,
marriages between brothers and sisters, and parents and children,
are permitted among certain tribes;[1684] and similar unions, it is
said, took place among the ancient Persians.[1685] Again, in Nukahiva,
as we are told by Lisiansky, although near kinsfolk are forbidden to
intermarry, it sometimes happens that a father lives with his daughter,
and a brother with his sister; but on one occasion it was looked
upon as a horrible crime when a mother cohabited with her son.[1686]
Among the Kukis, as described by Rennel, marriages were generally
contracted without regard to blood-relationship; only a mother might
not wed her child.[1687] Among the Karens of Tenasserim, “matrimonial
alliances between brother and sister, or father and daughter, are not
uncommon.”[1688] Speaking of the King of the Warua, Mr. Cameron states
that in his harem are to be found his stepmothers, aunts, sisters,
nieces, cousins, as also his own daughters.[1689] Among the Wanyoro,
brothers may marry their sisters, and even fathers their daughters; but
a son does not marry his own mother, although the other widows of his
father become his property.[1690]

Unions between brothers and sisters, who are children of the same
mother as well as the same father, are likewise held in general
abhorrence. The primitive feeling against such connections is strongly
expressed in the Finnish Kullervo Myth. The unfortunate Kullervo, after
discovering that he had committed incest with his sister, wails—

    “Woe is me, my life hard-fated!
    I have slain my virgin-sister,
    Shamed the daughter of my mother;
    Woe to thee my ancient father!
    Woe to thee, my gray-haired mother!
    Wherefore was I born and nurtured,
    Why this hapless child’s existence?”[1691]

The dishonoured sister threw herself into the river, and Kullervo fell
by his own sword.

The Californian Nishinam believe that, for the prevention of incest,
at the beginning of the world, not one but two pairs were created from
whom sprang all the Nishinam.[1692] When the missionary Jellinghaus
once asked some Munda Kols whether animals knew what is right and
wrong, the answer was, “No, because they do not know mother, sister,
and daughter.”[1693] Yet, as we have seen, there are exceptions to the
rule; and certain peoples who consider intercourse between parents and
children incestuous, allow unions between brothers and sisters. Among
the Kamchadales, says Krasheninnikoff, “marriage is forbidden only
between father and daughter, mother and son.”[1694] Not long ago, the
wild Veddahs of Ceylon regarded the marriage of a man with his younger
sister as not only proper and natural, but, in fact, as _the_ proper
marriage, though marriage with an elder sister or aunt would have been
as incestuous and revolting to them as to us.[1695] Among the Annamese,
according to a missionary who has lived among them for forty years,
no girl who is twelve years old and has a brother is a virgin.[1696]
Liebich tells us that the Gypsies allow a brother to marry his sister,
though such marriages are generally avoided by them.[1697] Among the
Wa-taïta, says Mr. Thomson, “very few of the young men are able to
marry for want of the proper number of cows—a state of affairs which
not unfrequently leads to marriage with sisters, though this practice
is highly reprobated.”[1698] Among the aborigines of Brazil, union with
a sister, or a brother’s daughter, is almost universally held to be
infamous. Such practices are not uncommon in small isolated hordes;
“but the ancient Tupinambases (ancestors of the Tupis) allowed
nothing of the kind openly.”[1699] In a song of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ Yamí
appears in support of the marriage of brother and sister, while the
opposition is personified in Yama.[1700] Buddhist legends mention
various cases of such unions;[1701] and it is stated in the ‘Ynglinga
Saga’ that “while Niord was with the Vans he had taken his own sister
in marriage, for that he was allowed by their law.”[1702] But we have
no evidence whatever that such unions were commonly allowed by the
ancient Scandinavians. “Among the Asas,” the ‘Ynglinga Saga’ adds,
“it was forbidden for such near relatives to come together.”[1703] In
Scandinavia, according to Nordström, as also among the ancient Germans,
according to Grimm, marriages between parents and children, brothers
and sisters, were prohibited.[1704]

Unions with sisters, or probably, in most cases, half-sisters, occur
in the royal families of Baghirmi,[1705] Siam,[1706] Burma,[1707]
Ceylon,[1708] and Polynesia.[1709] In the Sandwich Islands, brothers
and sisters of the reigning family intermarried, but this incestuous
intercourse was in other cases contrary to the customs, habits, and
feelings of the people.[1710] And, in Iboína of Madagascar, where the
kings were occasionally united with their sisters, such marriages
were preceded by a ceremony in which the woman was sprinkled with
consecrated water, and prayers were recited asking for her happiness
and fecundity, as if there was a fear that the union might call down
divine anger upon the parties.[1711] Cambyses and other Persian kings
married their sisters,[1712] and so did the Ptolemies of Egypt.[1713]
According to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, it is not only noticed by Diodorus,
but is fully authenticated by the inscriptions both of Upper and Lower
Egypt, that the same custom was in force among the Egyptians, from the
earliest times;[1714] but, except in the case of the Ptolemies, I have
seen no clear evidence that marriage took place between brothers and
sisters who had both the same father and the same mother. Garcilasso de
la Vega states that the Incas of Peru, from the first, established it
as a very stringent law that the heir to the kingdom should marry his
eldest sister, legitimate both on the side of the father and on that of
the mother;[1715] whereas, according to Acosta and Ondegardo, it had
always been held unlawful by the Peruvians to contract marriage in the
first degree, until Tupac Inca Yupanqui, at the close of the fifteenth
century, married his sister on the fathers side, and decreed “that
the Incas might marry with their sisters by the father’s side, and no
other.”[1716]

It has been asserted that, where the system of exogamy prevails, a
man is allowed to marry his sister either on the father’s or on the
mother’s side, according as descent is reckoned in the female or in
the male line.[1717] But it will be shown directly that, besides the
rules relating to exogamy, there are commonly others prohibiting
intermarriage of near relations belonging to different tribes or clans.
Yet the marriage of half-brother and half-sister is not rare. Among the
Ostyaks, for instance, union with a half-sister bearing another family
name is in great repute;[1718] and the South Slavonian Mohammedans
allow marriages between half-brothers and half-sisters who have
different mothers, though seducing a sister is regarded in their songs
as a crime punishable with death, or rather as something which cannot
occur.[1719] From the Book of Genesis we know that Abraham married
his half-sister, and looked upon the union as lawful, because she had
not the same mother.[1720] Among the Phœnicians at Tyre, down to the
time of Achilles Tatius, a man might marry his father’s daughter: and
the same thing appears at Mecca.[1721] Marriage with half-sisters on
the father’s side, not on the mother’s, was also allowed among the
Assyrians[1722] and the Athenians.[1723] In Guatemala and Yucatan,
on the other hand, no relationship on the mother’s side was a bar to
marriage: hence a man could marry his sister, provided she was by
another father.[1724]

Among certain peoples the relationships of uncle and niece, and of
aunt and nephew, are the remotest degrees of consanguinity which are a
hindrance to intermarriage. This is the case, for instance, with some
of the Dyak tribes;[1725] and among the Copper Indians, according to
Franklin, there is no prohibition of the intermarriage of cousins,
but a man is forbidden to marry his niece.[1726] On the whole, we may
say that marriage within these degrees of relationship is even more
commonly prohibited than intermarriage of cousins, and that, probably
in most cases, the prohibitions refer to persons so related either on
the father’s or mother’s side.[1727] Yet there are many instances to
the contrary.[1728] The Ossetes consider a marriage with a mother’s
sister quite a proper thing, though a marriage with a father’s sister
would be punished as highly incestuous.[1729] Among the Reddies of the
South of India, a man marries his sister’s daughter, but a nephew must
not marry his aunt;[1730] and, among the Brazilian Tupis, an uncle had
even a right to his niece’s hand.[1731] By the Prussian law, marriage
between uncle and niece is permitted; whilst, in France, such marriages
may be sanctioned by the Government, in Italy by the King.[1732]

In Europe, first cousins are not restricted from intermarriage,
except in Spain, where the old canonical prohibitions are still in
force; and in Russia, where third cousins are allowed to marry, but
no parties more nearly related.[1733] Among the Mohammedans[1734] and
several uncivilized peoples, marriages between cousins, both on the
paternal and maternal side, are permitted. So, apparently, among the
Aleuts,[1735] Eskimo at Igloolik,[1736] Apalachites,[1737] Maoris,
Bushmans[1738] and Ainos,[1739]—besides the people just referred to.
More commonly, however, the permission is one-sided, referring either
to the kinsfolk on the father’s, or to those on the mother’s side.
Among the Arabs, a man has even a right to the hand of his paternal
cousin, who cannot without his consent, become the wife of any other
person.[1740] Concerning the Moors of Ceylon, Mr. Ahamadu Bawa states
that in all cases where eligible sons of mothers’ brothers or fathers’
sisters were available for the girls, preference was accorded to them,
“almost as a matter of right.”[1741] Among the savage Miao of China,
the girls are obliged to marry the mother’s brothers’ sons.[1742] The
Gonds consider it correct for the brother’s daughter to marry the
sister’s son, whilst not so much stress is laid on the marriage of the
cousins, if the sister’s child happens to be a girl and the brother’s
a boy.[1743] Among the Yerkalas of Southern India, “the first two
daughters of a family may be claimed by the maternal uncle as wives for
his sons.”[1744]

As a rule, among peoples unaffected by modern civilization the
prohibited degrees are more numerous than in advanced communities, the
prohibitions in a great many cases referring even to all the members of
the tribe or clan.

The Greenlanders, according to Egede, refrained from marrying their
nearest kin, even in the third degree, considering such matches to be
“unwarrantable and quite unnatural;”[1745] whilst Dr. Rink asserts
that “the Eskimo disapproves of marriages between cousins.”[1746]
The same is the case with the Ingaliks,[1747] the Chippewas,[1748]
and, as a rule, the Indians of Oregon.[1749] The Californian Gualala
account it “poison,” as they say, for a person to marry a cousin or
an avuncular relation, and strictly observe in marriage the Mosaic
table of prohibited affinities.[1750] “By the old custom of the Aht
tribes,” Mr. Sproat remarks, “no marriage was permitted within the
degree of second cousin;”[1751] and among the Mahlemuts, “cousins,
however remote, do not marry.”[1752] Commonly a man and woman belonging
to the same clan are prohibited from intermarrying. The Algonquins tell
of cases where men, for breaking this rule, have been put to death by
their nearest kinsfolk;[1753] and, among the Loucheux Indians, if a man
marries within the clan, he is said to have married his sister, though
there be not the slightest connection by blood between the two.[1754]
In some tribes, as Mr. Frazer points out, the marriage prohibition only
extends to a man’s own clan: he may marry a woman of any clan but his
own. But oftener the prohibition includes several clans, in none of
which is a man allowed to marry.[1755] Thus, for instance, the Seneca
tribe of the Iroquois was divided into two “phratries,” or divisions
intermediate between the tribe and the clan, each including four clans;
the Bear, Wolf, Beaver, and Turtle clans forming one phratry, and
the Deer, Snipe, Heron, and Hawk clans forming the other. Originally
marriage was prohibited within the phratry, but was permitted with any
of the clans of the other phratry; but the prohibition was long since
removed, and a Seneca may marry a woman of any clan but his own.[1756]
A like exogamous division existed among the other four tribes of the
Iroquois,[1757] as also among the Creeks, Moquis, Choctaws, Chickasaws,
Thlinkets, &c.[1758]

Among the Pipiles of Salvador, an ancestral tree, with seven main
branches, denoting degrees of kindred, was painted upon cloth, and
within these seven branches or degrees, no one was allowed to marry,
except as a recompense for some great public or warlike service
rendered. But within four degrees of consanguinity none, under any
pretext, might marry.[1759] In Yucatan, there was a strong prejudice
against a man wedding a woman who bore the same name as his own, and
so far was this fancy carried, that he who broke the rule was looked
upon as a renegade and an outcast. Nor could a man marry his mother’s
sister.[1760] Among the Azteks, too, marriages between blood-relations
or those descended from a common ancestor were not allowed.[1761]

Among the tribes of Guiana, according to Mr. Im Thurn, marriage is now
almost always, as formerly it was always, contracted between members
of different families, and, descent being traced through females, no
intermarriage with relations on the mother’s side is permitted.[1762]
The Mundrucûs are divided into clans, the members of which are strictly
prohibited from forming alliances with others of the same clan. “A
Mundrucû Indian,” says Professor Agassiz, “treats a woman of the same
order (clan) with himself as a sister, any nearer relation between them
is impossible.”[1763] The Indians of Peru are restricted from marriage
within the first four degrees.[1764] The Guaranies and Abipones abhor
alliances with even the remotest relations.[1765] And as to the Yahgans
of Tierra del Fuego, Mr. Bridges writes to me that “no marriage, no
intercourse ever takes place among blood-relations even to second
cousins.” Such intercourse is held in utter abomination and is never
heard of. Also between half-brothers and half-sisters marriages do not
occur.

Nowhere is marriage bound by more severe laws than among the Australian
aborigines. Their tribes are, as a rule—and probably as a rule without
exceptions[1766]—grouped in exogamous subdivisions, the number of which
varies considerably. There are tribes in which members of any clan
are free to marry members of any clan but their own; but such tribes
are exceptional.[1767] “Often,” says Mr. Frazer, “an Australian
tribe is divided into two (exogamous) phratries, each of which
includes under it a number of totem clans; and oftener still there
are sub-phratries interposed between the phratry and the clans, each
phratry including two sub-phratries, and the sub-phratries including
totem clans.”[1768] Most of Mr. Curr’s very numerous correspondents
who have touched on this question have, however, given the number of
subdivisions in their neighbourhood as four only.[1769] Before the
occupation of the country by the whites, which quickly breaks down
aboriginal customs, any departure from the marriage system founded on
this division was looked on with absolute horror, and even spoken of
with reluctance. Indeed, when marriage or sexual intercourse with a
person of a forbidden clan did occur, the regular penalty inflicted
on the parties implicated was death.[1770] And it is a noteworthy
fact, generally overlooked by anthropologists, that besides these
prohibitions arising from the clan-system and, naturally, applying only
to the father’s or, more generally, only to the mother’s relations,
there is, as it seems everywhere, a law which forbids the marriage of
persons near of kin.[1771] “A man,” says Mr. Curr, “may not marry
his mother, sister, half-sister, daughter, granddaughter, aunt, niece,
first or second cousin.”[1772] Among the Kurnai of Gippsland, according
to Mr. Bulmer, even third cousins are within the prohibited degrees
of relationship.[1773] Moreover, certain tribes, besides having the
clan-system, are entirely exogamous;[1774] and, among the tribes of
Western Victoria described by Mr. Dawson, the laws also forbid a man to
marry into his mother’s tribe, or his grandmother’s tribe or into an
adjoining tribe, or one that speaks his own dialect.[1775]

In Tasmania, a man was not permitted to marry a woman of his own tribe
(clan?);[1776] and in Polynesia, marriages with blood-relations were
everywhere avoided except in royal families.[1777] Thus in Samoa,
according to Mr. Turner, so much care was taken to prevent incest
that a list of what they deemed improper marriages would almost
compare with the ‘Table of Kindred and Affinity.’ They say that,
of old, custom and the gods frowned upon the union of those in whom
consanguinity could be closely traced.[1778]

Speaking of the aborigines of the Melanesian islands, Dr. Codrington
observes, “In the native view of mankind, almost everywhere in
the islands which are here under consideration, nothing seems more
fundamental than the division of the people into two or more classes,
which are exogamous, and in which descent is counted through the
mother.” Yet “the blood connection with the father and the father’s
near relations is never out of sight. Consequently the marriage of
those who are near in blood, though they are not ‘sogoi’ (_i.e._,
kindred), and may lawfully marry, is discountenanced.”[1779] In
New Britain, if a man were accused of adultery or fornication with
a woman, he would at once be acquitted by the public voice if he
could say, “She is one of us,” _i.e._, she belongs to my totem,
which in itself precludes the possibility of any sexual intercourse
between us.[1780] In Efate, of the New Hebrides, it would be a crime
punishable with death for a man or woman to marry a person belonging
to his or her mother’s clan, “though they may have no recent relation
of consanguinity to each other, and though neither they nor their
parents may have even seen each other before.”[1781] In Lifu, as I am
informed by Mr. Radfield, who is a resident of this island, marriages
are forbidden between first, but not second cousins, both on the
mother’s and father’s side, as well as between uncles and nieces,
aunts and nephews. Matrimonial alliances between first cousins are
also prohibited in the Caroline Islands;[1782] whilst, in the Pelew
Group, intermarriage between any relations on the mother’s side is
unlawful.[1783]

Among the Sea Dyaks, it is contrary to custom for a man to wed a first
cousin, who is looked upon as a sister, and no marriage is allowed with
aunt or niece. The Land Dyaks permit marriage between second cousins
only after the payment of a fine of two jars, one being given by the
woman to the relations of her lover, the other by the lover to her
relation.[1784] In other tribes of the Malay Archipelago, according
to Mr. Crawfurd, the union of near relatives is prohibited by the
native laws, and, when such a marriage does take place, the parties are
fined if within the third degree of consanguinity collaterally. In the
ascending and descending line marriage is strictly forbidden.[1785]
Among the Minahassers of Celebes, marriage was not permitted between
ascendants and descendants, brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces,
aunts and nephews, and cousins, or between kinsfolk connected by
combinations of these relationships.[1786] The Malays of the uplands
of Padang are forbidden to marry within the mother’s tribe; the Bataks
of Sumatra, Alfura of Ceram and Buru, Niasians, and Timorese, within
the father’s.[1787] Among the Italones of the Philippines, marriage
between blood-relations is not allowed.[1788] The Bugis[1789] and
Watubela Islanders[1790] prohibit the intermarriage of cousins,
paternal and maternal; whilst, among the Orang-Banûwa of Malacca,[1791]
the Macassars,[1792] and the natives of Aru, near New Guinea,[1793]
children of brothers cannot intermarry, though children of sisters,
or of brothers and sisters, can. Again, among the Lettis of the
Serwatty Islands, marriage may take place between brothers’ children,
and between brothers’ and sisters’ children, but not between children
of two sisters;[1794] and, among the Bataks, Rejangs, and natives of
Amboina, a sister’s son is allowed to marry a brother’s daughter,
whereas a brother’s son must not marry a sister’s daughter.[1795]
The penalty inflicted on incest is generally very severe in the
Archipelago. Submersion is a common punishment;[1796] and, among the
Bataka, the parties were killed and eaten.[1797]

With reference to the Karens of Burma, Dr. Bunker informs me that,
though they never marry outside their own tribe, they avoid marrying
with near relations, their prohibited degrees being nearly the same
as those of the ancient Hebrews. Among the Kukis, according to
Lieutenant Stewart, “the most strict rules exist forbidding too close
intermarriage in families; cousins cannot be so allied.”[1798] The
Nagas never permit marriage within the same family;[1799] and, among
the Chukmas, if near relatives, within certain prohibited degrees, fall
in love with each other, it is usual for both of them to pay a fine of
fifty rupees, corporal punishment being also administered.[1800] Among
the Kandhs, “intermarriage between persons of the same tribe, however
large or scattered, is considered incestuous and punishable with
death.”[1801] The Santals make it a rule not to intermarry into the
same tribe;[1802] and, among the Sakais, a man goes to a considerable
distance for a wife, generally to a tribe speaking quite a different
dialect.[1803] The Juángs, Hos, Mundas, and other peoples in India are
divided into clans, and a man is not allowed to marry a girl of his own
clan.[1804] Among the Garos, no one may take to wife a woman of the
same “mahári,” or motherhood.[1805]

According to Lieutenant-Colonel Tod, no Rajput can marry in his own
clan.[1806] “In all pure Hindu society,” Sir Alfred Lyall states,
“the law which regulates the degrees within which marriage is
interdicted, proceeds upon the theory that between agnatic relatives
_connubium_ is impossible.”[1807] Hence it is unlawful for a Brahman
to wed a woman whose clan-name is the same as his own, a prohibition
which bars marriage among relatives in the male line indefinitely.
But besides this, connections on the female side are also forbidden
to take place within certain wide limits.[1808] In the ‘Laws of
Manu’ we read that a damsel “who is neither a Sapindâ[1809] on the
mother’s side, nor belongs to the same family on the father’s side, is
recommended to twice-born men for wedlock and conjugal union.”[1810]
Yet in the older literature marriage with the daughters of the mother’s
brother, and sons of the father’s sister, is permitted.[1811] This
still holds good among the Reddies of Southern India, and, as it seems,
among other tribes belonging to the Hindu stock; whereas children
of fathers’ brothers and mothers’ sisters are considered equal to
brothers and sisters, and marriage with them is looked upon as highly
incestuous.[1812]

Speaking of the Andamanese, Mr. Man says that “their customs do not
permit of the union of any who are known to be even distantly related;
the fact of our allowing first cousins to marry seems to them highly
objectionable and immoral.”[1813] The Sinhalese consider a marriage
between the father’s sister’s son and the mother’s brother’s daughter
the most proper that they can contract; but they would regard a
marriage with the father’s brother’s daughter as incestuous, first
cousins so related being considered sisters.[1814]

As regards the prohibited degrees of the Chinese Penal Code, a very
minute account is given by Mr. Medhurst in his interesting paper on
‘Marriage, Affinity, and Inheritance in China.’[1815] Large bodies
of persons in that country bear the same surname; among the entire
Chinese population of the Empire, indeed, there are hardly more
than 530 surnames. A penalty of sixty blows is inflicted on any one
who marries a person with the same surname.[1816] The punishment
attached to the intermarriage of nearer relations on the father’s
side is much more severe. Thus, marriage or incestuous intercourse
with a grand-uncle, a father’s first cousin, a brother, or a nephew,
is punishable by death.[1817] Besides these prohibitions there are
others applying within a narrower range to relatives on the female
side. A man who marries his mother’s sister or his sister’s daughter
is strangled. Less severe punishment is inflicted on a person who
marries a uterine half-sister, and still less severe—eighty blows—on
any one who marries his father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s brother’s
daughter, or mother’s sister’s daughter. An after-clause abrogates this
prohibition, and permits intermarriage between children of brothers and
sisters, or of sisters, but intermarriage between those of brothers
is of course inadmissible.[1818] The Chinese Code also interdicts
occasional intercourse with any of those relatives with whom marriage
is prohibited, the punishment in both cases being the same.[1819]

Among the Kalmucks, no man can marry a relation on the father’s side;
and so deeply rooted is this custom among them, that a Kalmuck proverb
says, “The great folk and dogs know no relationship,”—alluding to the
fact that only a prince may marry a relative.[1820] The Yakuts,[1821]
Samoyedes,[1822] Cheremises,[1823] &c., also avoid marriage within
the paternal clan, and the ancient Finns did not marry kinsfolk.[1824]
Among the Ostyaks[1825] and Ossetes,[1826] marriage with a person
of one’s own family name, however distant the relationship, is
entirely prohibited. And in Circassia, according to Bell, not only
are cousins, or the members of the same fraternity restricted from
intermarrying, but even their serfs must wed with the serfs of another
fraternity.[1827]

Among the Bogos of Eastern Africa, persons related within the seventh
degree may not intermarry, whether the relationship be on the paternal
or maternal side.[1828] Some of the clans of the Somals, as we are
informed by Sir R. F. Burton, refuse maidens of the same or even a
consanguineous family.[1829] In Western Equatorial Africa and Uganda,
marriages cannot take place within the clans, however remote the
relationship may be.[1830] Among the Mpongwé, “every care is taken to
avoid marriages of consanguinity.”[1831] With the Bateke, as Dr. Sims
writes from Stanley Pool, marriages are prohibited between brothers and
sisters of the same mother or father; between first cousins; between
uncle and niece, or aunt and nephew. The Bakongo also, according to Mr.
Ingham, hold all unions between near relatives, either on the father’s
or mother’s side, in utter abomination.

Mr. Cousins, to whom I am indebted for a valuable paper on the
Cis-Natalian Kafirs, writes that, among them, marriages often take
place within the tribe and village. But this is avoided, if possible;
like their chiefs they generally endeavour to marry out of their own
tribe. Among this people, however, there is some kind of class (clan?)
division, which Mr. Cousins is not fully acquainted with, and members
of the same class (clan?) do not seem to intermarry. At any rate, near
relations, paternal and maternal, avoid marriage with each other. No
penalty is attached to such a marriage, but custom is so strong on
the point that the general rule is seldom broken.[1832] According to
Mr. Shooter[1833] and Mr. Dugmore,[1834] a marriage is considered
incestuous if the man and woman are of any known or remembered degree
of relationship by common descent; and, if a man were to take a wife
within the degrees prohibited by custom, he would be denounced as an
“evildoer.”[1835] According to Mr. Brownlee, intercourse in such cases
is punished, whether it be by marriage or without marriage.[1836]
Again, with regard to the Zulus, Mr. Eyles states that there is no
intermarriage between the inhabitants of the village, the members of
which are, as a rule, related. All intermarrying with relations is
prohibited by custom, and such a thing is neither heard of nor thought
of. Even if the relationship is only traditional, the custom holds good.

A somewhat different account of the Bantu race is given by Mr.
McCall Theal. “A native of the coast region,” he says, “will not
marry a girl whose relationship by blood to himself can be traced,
no matter how distantly connected they may be. So scrupulous is he
in this respect that he will not marry even a girl who belongs to
another tribe, if she has the same family name as himself, though the
relationship cannot be traced. He regards himself as the protector of
those females whom he would term his cousins and second cousins, but
for whom he has only the same name as for the daughters of his own
parents, the endearing name of sister. In his opinion, union with one
of them would be incestuous, something horrible, something unutterably
disgraceful. The native of the mountains, almost as a rule, marries the
daughter of his father’s brother.”[1837]

Mr. Conder states that, among the Bechuanas, marrying out of their own
tribe seems to be the common practice;[1838] whereas, according to Mr.
Casalis, the Basutos frequently marry cousins. Yet, among them also,
there are some tribes who consider such marriages incestuous.[1839]
The Hottentots are said by Kolben to punish alliances between first
and second cousins with death.[1840] In Madagascar, though marriage
between brothers’ children is looked upon as the most proper kind
of connection, and brothers’ and sisters’ children can marry on the
performance of a slight but prescribed ceremony, supposed to remove
any impediment or disqualification arising out of consanguinity, the
descendants of sisters are not allowed to intermarry down to the fifth
or seventh generation, and a marriage of sisters’ children, when the
sisters have the same mother, is regarded with horror.[1841]

Among the Romans, alliances between persons under the same _patria
potestas_—_i.e._, _cognati_ related within the sixth degree—were
_nefariæ et incestuæ nuptiæ_; but these prohibitions were gradually
relaxed. From the time of the Second Punic War, according to Livy,
even first cousins were allowed to intermarry; and in 49 A.D. the
Emperor Claudius, wishing to marry his niece Agrippina, obtained from
the Senate a decree that marriage with a brother’s daughter should be
legal, though marriage with a sister’s daughter remained illegal.[1842]
In the fourth century, however, Constantius again forbade such unions,
on pain of death.[1843] Afterwards, under the influence of the ascetic
ideas prevalent in the Church, the prohibited degrees were gradually
extended. Theodosius the Great forbade under the severest penalties the
union of first cousins, paternal and maternal; and at the end of the
sixth century the prohibition was extended even to the seventh degree.
This prohibition continued in force until in the Western Church it was
once more reduced to the fourth degree by the Lateran Council under
Innocent III. in the year 1215; that is, marriage was permitted beyond
the degree of third cousins.[1844] Such is the nominal law at the
present time wherever the canon law prevails.[1845]

Besides the prohibitions relating to actual kinship, there are, among
several peoples, others applying to marriage between relatives by
alliance. Among the Andamanese, a man or woman may not marry into
the family of a brother-in-law or sister-in-law.[1846] The Eastern
Greenlanders and the Eskimo of the north-east coast of America forbid
or disapprove of marriage with two sisters;[1847] and, according to
Dr. Daniell, the same rule prevails among the natives of Accra at
the Gold Coast, who even prohibit a man from marrying two cousins of
the same parentage.[1848] Again, several tribes in Western Victoria
do not permit marriage with a deceased wife’s daughter by a former
husband.[1849] But prohibitions of this sort do not seem to be very
common among savage and barbarous races. In many of the Indian tribes
of North America, all the daughters of a family are, as a rule, married
to the same man. A brother very frequently marries his deceased
brother’s widow; and, in Africa, a son often weds all his father’s
widows except his own mother.

Among civilized peoples, on the other hand, relations by affinity
are frequently regarded in the same light as relations by blood. In
Yucatan, a man was not allowed to marry his sister-in-law.[1850]
According to the Chinese Code, marriage with a deceased brother’s
widow is punished with strangulation, whilst marriage with a deceased
wife’s sister is exceedingly common, and has always been regarded
as particularly honourable.[1851] In Japan, intercourse with a
father’s or a grandfather’s concubine, or a son’s or grandson’s wife,
involves the same punishment as intercourse with a paternal aunt or
a sister.[1852] The ‘Institutes of Vishnu’ declare that “sexual
connection with one’s mother, or daughter, or daughter-in-law, are
crimes in the highest degree,” there being no other way to atone for
these crimes than to proceed into the flames.[1853] According to the
laws of Moses[1854] and Mohammed[1855] and the Roman Law[1856] marriage
was prohibited with mother-in-law, step-mother, daughter-in-law,
and step-daughter—according to Mohammed, however, so far as the
step-daughter was concerned, only if she were under the guardianship of
her mother’s husband. Moses also forbade marriage with the sister of
a wife who was still living,[1857] and with a brother’s wife, if she
were widowed and had children by the brother; and Mohammed prohibited
marriage with two sisters at the same time.

       *       *       *       *       *

From very early times thinkers have tried to account for the
prohibition of marriage between near kin. Some, says Mr. Huth, ascribe
them to a fear lest relationship may become too involved; others to a
fear lest affection may become concentrated within too narrow a circle;
because marriage would take place too early; because people would be
induced to marry each other in order that property might be kept in the
family; because such marriages are prohibited by “God’s law”; because
they outrage “natural modesty”; and, only in modern times, because
they are supposed to prove injurious to the offspring.[1858]

Comparative ethnography has changed the aspect of the question. The
horror of incest has been found to prevail among peoples who neither
know anything of “God’s law,” nor possess property to keep in the
family. New hypotheses have therefore been suggested more worthy of
consideration, as being founded on a much firmer basis of facts.

The late Mr. McLennan was the first to call attention to the general
prevalence of the rule which forbids the members of a tribe (or clan)
to intermarry with members of their own tribe (or clan). This rule
he called “exogamy,” in contradistinction to “endogamy,” or the
rule which forbids the members of a tribe to intermarry with members
of other tribes. In his celebrated essay on ‘Primitive Marriage’
he made an attempt to show that exogamy had arisen from female
infanticide, “common among savages everywhere.” He assumes that to
tribes surrounded by enemies, and unaided by art, contending with the
difficulties of subsistence, sons were a source of strength, both for
defence and in the quest for food, whilst daughters were a source of
weakness. Hence the cruel custom which left the primitive human hordes
with very few young women, thus seriously disturbing the balance of
the sexes within the hordes, and forcing them to prey upon one another
for wives. Usage, induced by necessity, would then in time establish
a prejudice among the tribes observing it—a prejudice strong as a
principle of religion, as every prejudice relating to marriage is apt
to be—against marrying women of their own tribe.[1859]

Mr. Herbert Spencer has subjected this hypothesis to a searching
criticism,[1860] and from an article in the ‘Fortnightly Review’ it
appears as if Mr. McLennan himself had in the end some doubts as to its
correctness.[1861] To Mr. Spencer’s objections others might be added.

A minute investigation of the extent to which female infanticide is
practised has convinced me that Mr. McLennan has much exaggerated the
importance of this custom. It certainly prevails in many parts of the
world; and it is true that, as a rule, female children are killed
rather than male. But there is nothing to indicate that infanticide
has ever been so nearly universal, or has anywhere been practised on
so large a scale as Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis presupposes. Among a
great many existing savage peoples it is almost unheard of—as, for
instance, among the Tuski,[1862] Ahts,[1863] Western Eskimo,[1864]
Botocudos,[1865] and in certain tribes of California.[1866] Among some
of these peoples new-born children are killed now and then—in case
of the birth of twins, if the children are weak and deformed, or for
some other reason—but always, it is said, without distinction of sex.
Among the Dacotahs and Crees, female infanticide is only occasionally
committed.[1867] The Blackfeet, according to Richardson, believe that
women who have been guilty of this crime will never reach the happy
mountain after death, but are compelled to hover round the seats
of their crimes, with branches of trees tied to their legs;[1868]
and the Aleuts think that a child-murder brings misfortune on the
whole village.[1869] Among the Abipones, the women often practised
infanticide, but it was the boy who was generally thus sacrificed, for
when a son grew up it was necessary to buy a wife for him, while a
grown-up daughter would always command her price.[1870]

In Africa I do not know of a single district where the people are in
the habit of destroying new-born children. Herr Valdau tells us of a
Bakundu woman who, accused of such a deed, was condemned to death.[1871]

Until the introduction of Christianity, the South Sea Islanders
practised infanticide probably to a greater extent than any other
people with whose history we are acquainted. But as the motive was
often want of food for the infant, or interference with the personal
charms of the wife, or the disagreeableness of baby life, boys as
well as girls were killed. Moreover, in Samoa, in the Mitchell’s and
Hervey Groups, and in part of New Guinea, infanticide was quite unheard
of;[1872] whilst, in most of the islands belonging to the Solomon
Group, it occurs only in extreme cases, such as that of the child being
a bastard.[1873] In the Caroline Islands, according to Chamisso, “the
prince would have the unnatural mother punished with death.”[1874]
And even in Australia, where, according to Mr. Curr’s belief, the
women reared as a rule, only two boys and one girl, the rest being
destroyed,[1875] there seem to be tribes in which the killing of
children rarely happens.[1876]

There are other reasons, besides those just given, for doubting whether
infanticide can ever have been so common as Mr. McLennan suggests. It
may be assumed, as Mr. Darwin remarks, that during the earliest period
of human development man did not partially lose one of the strongest of
instincts, common to all the lower animals, namely the love of their
young, and consequently did not practise infanticide.[1877] Later
on, the women, far from being useless to the savage tribe, rendered
valuable services as food-providers. Mr. Fison, who has lived among
uncivilized races for many years, thinks it will be found that female
infanticide is far less common among the lower savages than it is
among the more advanced tribes.[1878] And, speaking of one of the
very rudest, the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, Mr. Bridges states that
it occurred only occasionally among them, and then was almost always
the deed of the mother, who acted from “jealousy, or hatred of her
husband, or because of desertion and wretchedness.”[1879] Moreover, it
is very generally asserted that certain Californians never committed
infanticide before the arrival of the whites;[1880] whilst Ellis thinks
that there is every reason to suppose that this custom was practised
less extensively by the Polynesians during the early periods of their
history than it was afterwards.[1881]

But even if Mr. McLennan were right in his assumption that savages
everywhere used to kill female infants, this would not explain the
origin of exogamy. “In time,” he says, “it came to be considered
improper, because it was unusual, for a man to marry a woman of his
own group.”[1882] But why should such a marriage ever have become
unusual? Why should the men have refrained from marrying those women
of their own tribe who were not killed? Why should they have made
these beings whom they considered so useless, even more useless than
they naturally were, by preventing them from becoming mothers of sons
who would have increased the strength of the tribe? That the men may
have endeavoured to make up the deficiency of women by capturing wives
from foreign tribes is conceivable enough; but it is hard to see why
intercourse with women of their own tribe should on this account have
been prohibited, sometimes even on pain of death.

That the horror of incest is innate in the human race seems as
improbable to Mr. Herbert Spencer as to Mr. McLennan. According to Mr.
Spencer, this feeling is a result of evolution gradually acquired.
Primitive groups of men, he says, are habitually hostile. In all
times and places victory is followed by pillage; whatever portable
things of worth the conquerors find they take. And of course they take
women as they take other booty, because women are prized as wives, as
concubines, or as drudges. A captured woman, besides her intrinsic
value, has an extrinsic value: “like a native wife she serves as a
slave, but unlike a native wife, she serves also as a trophy.” Hence
members of the tribe thus married to foreign women are held to be
more honourably married than those married to native women. If the
tribe, becoming successful in war, robs adjacent tribes of their
women more frequently, there will then grow up the idea that the now
considerable class having foreign wives form the honourable class, and
non-possession of a foreign wife will come to be regarded as a proof of
cowardice. “An increasing ambition to get foreign wives will therefore
arise; and as the number of those who are without them decreases, the
brand of disgrace attaching to them will grow more decided; until in
the most warlike tribes, it becomes an imperative requirement that a
wife shall be obtained from another tribe—if not in open war, then by
private abduction.”[1883]

This interpretation is open to an objection similar to that which
may be brought against Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis. Even if it became
customary for a tribe to rob foreign tribes of their women, we have
no reason to believe that it therefore became customary not to marry
native women. Plurality of wives is for savage man a source of wealth
and reputation; even the wretched Fuegian endeavours to procure as
many as possible in order to obtain rowers for his canoe. Hence it
could scarcely be considered disgraceful to have some native wives
besides those of foreign birth. If Mr. Spencer’s explanation is the
correct one, what a deplorable lot it must have been for a woman to
belong to a tribe always successful in war! She had of course to live
unmarried till she was fortunate enough to fall into the hands of some
hostile suitor. But this would seldom happen, if the adjacent weaker
tribes were habitually worsted in war. In such tribes, according to
Mr. Spencer, “marrying within the tribe will not only be habitual,
but there will arise a prejudice, and eventually a law, against taking
wives from other tribes.”[1884]

Least of all can Mr. Spencer’s hypothesis explain the origin of
prohibitions of marriage between the nearest kin. It presupposes that
the tribe has been frequently successful in war during so long a period
that usage has had time to grow into law. But since such prohibitions
are practically common to all mankind, they cannot have originated
in the way suggested, because when there is a vanquisher there must
also be a vanquished. Moreover, it is impossible to suppose that that
powerful feeling which restrains parents from marrying their children,
brothers from marrying their sisters, can have been due to man’s vain
desire to have a trophy in his wife.[1885]

Sir John Lubbock explains the origin of exogamy in a quite different
way. Believing that in man’s primitive state all the men of a tribe
were married to all the women, and that no one could appropriate one of
them to himself without infringing on the general rights of the tribe,
he suggests that women taken in war from a foreign tribe were in a
different position. The tribe, as a tribe, had no right to these women,
and they would become wives in our sense of the term.[1886]

It is unnecessary to say much about this hypothesis, as it stands or
falls with Sir J. Lubbock’s theory of “communal marriage.” Why should
women taken in war have been the men’s personal property, if the women
of the tribe were not so? As Mr. McLennan justly remarks, war-captives
are usually obtained by group-acts, or quasi group-acts; hence capture
would be recognized as a regular mode of adding women to the group,
subject to the customary rights of its male members; and every man in
the group would claim the communal right to women taken by others.[1887]

Again, Professor Kohler has expressed his belief in the explanation
that exogamy was an early method of political self-preservation.[1888]
That intermarriage is valuable from a political point of view, and has
often taken place in order to increase intertribal or international
friendship, is beyond doubt.[1889] But it is another question whether
the strictly prohibitive exogamous rules, the infringement of which
is considered a most heinous crime, can be accounted for in this way.
It is worth noticing that not only marriage, but also less regular
connections between members of the same exogamous group are held in
horror. The Australians, for instance, consider cohabitation between
individuals belonging to clans that cannot intermarry not less
criminal than marriage, often punishing such unions with death.[1890]
Among the Melanesians, says Dr. Codrington, “intercourse within the
limit which restrains from marriage, where two members of the same
division are concerned, is a crime, is incest.”[1891] Holm makes
a similar observation on the prohibited degrees among the Eastern
Greenlanders.[1892] Speaking of the Samoans, Mr. Prichard remarks,
“Of all their customs, the most strictly observed, perhaps, was that
which forbade the remotest reference to anything, even by way of a
joke, that conveyed the slightest indelicacy in thought or word or
gesture, when brothers and sisters were together. In presence of his
sister, the wildest rake was always modest and moral. In presence
of her brother, the most accommodating _coquette_ was always chaste
and reserved. This custom remains intact to the present day.”[1893]
Dr. Tylor remarks that anthropologists have long had before them the
problem of determining how far clan-exogamy may have been the origin
of the prohibited degrees in matrimony.[1894] But we have seen that it
is practically impossible to trace any distinct limit between these
two sets of rules; hence they seem to be fundamentally identical—a
conclusion in which most anthropologists agree. And the prohibitions
of close intermarriage certainly cannot be explained as a “method of
political self-preservation.”

Other writers—and among them Mr. Morgan—have suggested that
prohibitions of the marriage of near kin have arisen from observation
of the injurious results of such unions.[1895] But most investigators
who have considered the subject believe that this knowledge could be
gained only by lengthened observation, and, to quote Dr. Peschel, is
“unattainable by unsettled and childishly heedless races,” among whom,
nevertheless, a horror of incest is developed most strongly.[1896] Sir
Henry Maine, on the other hand, thinks that the men who discovered
the use of fire and selected the wild forms of certain animals for
domestication and of vegetables for cultivation, might also have been
able to find out that children of unsound constitution were born
of nearly related parents.[1897] In the next chapter, I shall have
occasion to mention some instances which possibly may point in this
direction, but in no case does such knowledge appear to be generally
diffused among backward races. Mr. Curr has been unable to discover on
what ground consanguineous marriages are held to be objectionable by
the Australians, their replies to questions on this head invariably
being, “Our tribe always did as we do in this matter.” Yet they are
well aware, he says, that the aim of the exogamous restrictions is
to prevent the union of nearly related individuals.[1898] Dr. Sims
writes that no other reason for the avoidance of marriage between near
relations has been stated to him by the indigenous Bateke than that of
“shame.” Mr. Bridges informs me that the Yahgans point simply to the
fact of relationship as the reason; and, when Azara asked the Charruas
why a brother and sister never intermarried, they replied that they
did not know why.[1899] It is conceivable that the experience of the
injurious results of such marriages, once acquired, might afterwards
have fallen into oblivion, although the prohibition continued to exist.
But Azara expressly states that the Charruas have no law forbidding
incestuous alliances, yet he has never seen nor heard of any among them.

Whatever observations may have been made, the prohibition of incest is
in no case founded on experience. Had the savage man discerned that
children born of marriage between closely related persons are not so
sound and vigorous as others, he would scarcely have allowed this
knowledge to check his passions. Considering how seldom a civilised
man who has any disease, or tendency to disease, which is likely to be
transmitted to his descendants, hesitates to marry an equally unhealthy
woman, it would surely be unreasonable to suppose that savages have
greater forethought and self-command.[1900] But even if we admit
that man originally avoided marriage with near kin from sagacious
calculation, and that he did this during so long a period that usage
grew into law, we do not advance a step further. All the writers whose
hypotheses have been considered in this chapter, assume that men avoid
incestuous marriages only because they are _taught_ to do so. “It
is probable,” says Mr. Huth, “that, if brothers and sisters were
allowed to marry, they would do so while yet too young.”[1901] But
though law and custom may prevent passion from passing into action,
they cannot wholly destroy its inward power. Law may forbid a son to
marry his mother, a brother his sister, but it could not prevent him
from desiring such a union if the desire were natural. Where does
that appetite exist? The home is kept pure from incestuous defilement
neither by laws, nor by customs, nor by education, but by an _instinct_
which under normal circumstances makes sexual love between the nearest
kin a psychical impossibility. An unwritten law, says Plato, defends
“as sufficiently as possible,” parents from incestuous intercourse
with their children, brothers from intercourse with their sisters:
“ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐπιθυμία ταύτης τῆς συνουσίας τὸ παρ ‘παν εἰσέρχεται τοὺς
πολλοὺς”—“nor does even the desire for this intercourse come at all
upon the masses.”[1902]




CHAPTER XV

PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED

(_Concluded_)


It has been asserted that, if there be really an innate horror of
incest, it ought to show itself intuitively when persons are ignorant
of any relationship. But ancient writers state that, in Rome,
incestuous unions often resulted from the exposure of infants who were
reared by slave-dealers. Not long ago Selim Pasha unwittingly married
his sister, who, like himself, had been a Circassian slave. The story
told in the ‘Heptameron’ of a double incest was probably true, and
became widely spread; and so on. Man has thus no horror of marriage
with even the nearest kindred if he is unaware of their consanguinity;
consequently, Mr. Huth concludes, there is no innate feeling against
incest.[1903]

Of course I agree with Mr. Huth in thinking that there is no innate
aversion to marriage with _near relations_. What I maintain is, that
there is an innate aversion to sexual intercourse between persons
living very closely together from early youth, and that, as such
persons are in most cases related, this feeling displays itself chiefly
as a horror of intercourse between near kin.

The existence of an innate aversion of this kind has been taken
by various writers as a psychological fact proved by common
experience;[1904] and it seems impossible otherwise to explain the
feeling which makes the relationships between parents and children,
and brothers and sisters, so free from all sexual excitement. But the
chief evidence is afforded by an abundance of ethnographical facts
which prove that it is not, in the first place, by the degrees of
consanguinity, but by the close living together that prohibitory laws
against intermarriage are determined.

Egede asserts that, among the Greenlanders, it would be reckoned
uncouth and blamable, if a lad and a girl who had served and been
educated in one family, desired to be married to one another;[1905]
and, according to Dr. Nansen, it is preferred that the contracting
parties should belong to different settlements.[1906] Colonel
Macpherson states that, among the Kandhs, marriage cannot take place
even with strangers who have been long adopted into, or domesticated
with, a tribe.[1907] And Mr. Cousins writes to me that the Cis-Natalian
Kafirs dislike marriage between persons who live very closely together,
whether related or not. In the Northern New Hebrides, a girl betrothed
in childhood is sometimes taken to her future father-in-law’s house and
brought up there. Dr. Codrington says that “the boy often thinks she
is his sister, and is much ashamed when he comes to know the relation
in which he stands.”[1908]

Many peoples have a rule of exogamy that does not depend on kinship
at all. Piedrahita relates of the Panches of Bogota that the men and
women of one town did not intermarry, as they held themselves to be
brothers and sisters, and the impediment of kinship was sacred to them;
but such was their ignorance that, if a sister were born in a different
town from her brother, he was not prevented from marrying her.[1909]
The Yaméos, on the river Amazons, will not suffer an intermarriage
between members of the same community, “as being friends in blood,
though no real affinity between them can be proved.”[1910] The Uaupés,
according to Mr. Wallace, “do not often marry with relations, or
even neighbours, preferring those from a distance, or even from
other tribes.”[1911] The Australian tribe, as Mr. Howitt points out,
is organized in two ways. On the one hand, it is divided socially
into phratries and clans; and, on the other hand, it is divided
geographically into hordes. The two organizations are co-existent, but
the divisions of the one do not correspond with those of the other.
For while all the people who belong to any given local group are found
in one locality alone, those who belong to any given social group are
to be found distributed among many, if not among all, of the local
groups. Now, in many tribes, local proximity by birth is quite an
insuperable obstacle to marriage, a man being absolutely forbidden to
marry, or have sexual intercourse with, a woman of the same horde or
sub-horde. “However eligible she may be in other respects,” says Mr.
Howitt, “the fact that both parties belong to the same locality is
held by certain tribes, the Kurnai, for example, to make them ‘too near
each other.’” It is chiefly in tribes where the clan-system has been
weakened, or has become almost extinct, that the local organization
has assumed such overwhelming preponderance, but even in some of
the tribes which have a vigorous clan-system, local restraints upon
marriage are strictly enforced.[1912] In Sumatra, according to Mr.
Forbes, the country was originally divided into native districts
called “margas,” each marga, as a rule, having its several villages.
Each of these village communities is a collection of families, either
related or not to each other by the ties of blood;[1913] and we
know that, at least among certain tribes, marriage between members
of the same village or village cluster, and in some districts even
between those of the same marga, is prohibited.[1914] The Kotars of
the Neilgherries,[1915] Galela,[1916] Fijians,[1917] Zulus,[1918]
Wakamba,[1919] and Kamchadales[1920] avoid, as a rule, marriage with
members of the same village. So also do the Nogai, who consider it most
honest for a man to marry a woman whom he has never seen before.[1921]
In various of the smaller islands belonging to the Indian Archipelago,
according to Riedel, women prefer marriage with strangers.[1922] The
Assamese have a national festival named the “Baisakh Bihu,” which is
as gay as a carnival, the women, and especially the maidens, enjoying
unusual liberty as long as it lasts. “For many days before the actual
festival,” says Colonel Dalton, “the young people in the villages may
be seen moving about in groups gaily dressed or forming circles, in the
midst of which the prettiest girls dance with their long hair loose on
their shoulders.” But on these occasions the girls “do not like to
dance before the men of their own village.”[1923] Professor Kovalevsky
observes that, in some parts of Russia, the bride is always taken from
another village than the bridegroom’s; and, even in provinces in which
no similar custom is known to exist, “the bridegroom is constantly
spoken of as a foreigner (‘choujoy,’ ‘choujaninin’), and his friends
and attendants are represented as coming with him from a distant
country, in order to take away the future spouse.”[1924] Sir Richard
Burton says, “As a general rule Somali women prefer _amourettes_
with strangers, following the well-known Arab proverb, ‘The new comer
filleth the eye.’”[1925]

We have seen how variously defined the prohibited degrees are in the
laws of nations. Facts show that the extent to which relatives are
not allowed to intermarry is nearly connected with their close living
together. Generally speaking, the prohibited degrees are extended much
farther among savage and barbarous peoples than in civilized societies.
As a rule, the former, if they have not remained in the most primitive
social condition of man, live, not in separate families, but in large
households or communities, all the members of which dwell in very close
contact with each other.

The communism in the family life of the exogamous Indians of North
America has been exhaustively illustrated by Mr. Morgan in his work on
‘Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines.’ “The household of
the Mandans,” he says, “consisting of from twenty to forty persons,
the households of the Columbian tribes of about the same number, the
Soshonee household of seven families, the households of the Sauks, of
the Iroquois, and of the Creeks, each composed of several families,
are fair types of the households of the Northern Indians at the epoch
of their discovery. The fact is also established that these tribes
constructed, as a rule, large joint tenement houses, each of which was
occupied by a large household composed of several families, among whom
provisions were in common, and who practised communism in living in the
household.”[1926] Among the Iroquois, each household was made up on
the principle of kinship through females, so that the married women,
usually sisters, own or collateral, being of the same gens or clan,
together with their children made a family circle, within which, as we
have seen, intermarriage was entirely prohibited.[1927] The Senel in
California live sometimes from twenty to thirty together in the same
immense dome-shaped or oblong lodge of willow-poles, including all
who are blood relations.[1928] According to Egede, the Greenlanders,
who prohibit marriage between cousins, continue after marriage to
live in their parents’ house together with other kindred; and what
they get they all enjoy in common.[1929] The Chippewas, who consider
cousins german in the same light as brothers and sisters, but do not
recognize relationship beyond this degree, are divided into small bands
consisting of but few families each.[1930] Among the exogamous Uaupés,
the houses are the abode of numerous families, and sometimes of a whole
horde.[1931] Among the Yahgans, who regard marriage between first and
second cousins as incestuous, “occasionally as many as five families
are to be found living in a wigwam, but generally two families.”[1932]

The Australian aborigines live mostly in small hordes, often consisting
of from thirty to fifty men, women, and children. Such a horde,
according to Mr. Brough Smyth, “is in fact but an enlargement of
a family circle, and none within it can intermarry.”[1933] Among
the Efatese, in whose clan-system the prohibition of incest is a
fundamental law, each clan is regarded as one family. “A child of
_a_,” says Mr. Macdonald, “calls her own mother mother, and all
her mother’s tribe (clan) sisters mother; and calls by the name of
father not only her own father but all his tribe (clan) brothers; and
they all call the child their child.”[1934] The Malays, according
to Professor Wilken, live, as a rule, in large houses containing a
great number of differently related persons.[1935] “In Nanusa,”
Dr. Hickson remarks, “I understood that marriage was not permitted
between members of the same household. The enormous households of the
Nanusa archipelago are probably the remnants of a much more complete
system of intra-tribal clanships, which has become almost obliterated
in the more highly developed races of Sangir and Siauw.”[1936] Among
the Nairs, a household, the members of which are strictly prohibited
from sexual relation with each other, includes, as a rule, many allied
men, women, and children, who not only live together in large common
houses, but possess everything in common.[1937] Among the Kafirs, the
dimensions of a kraal are determined by the number of a man’s family
and dependants, the family consisting of the father together with his
children, including married sons.[1938]

The South Slavonians live in house-communities, each consisting
of a body of from fifteen to sixty members or even more, who are
blood-relations to the second or third degree, of course only on
the male side.[1939] These related families associate in a common
dwelling or group of dwellings, governed by a common chief. “At the
present moment,” Sir Henry Maine remarks, “the common residence of
so many persons of both sexes in the same household may be said to
be only possible through their belief that any union of kinsmen and
kinswomen would be incestuous. The South Slavonian table of prohibited
degrees is extremely wide.”[1940] Again, Professor Kohler points out
the connection between the extensive prohibitions of the Hindus and
their large households.[1941] In Wales there existed, as a national
institution, a joint-family called “trev,” consisting of four
generations. Marriage, says Mr. Lewis, was to be “outside the trev, or
kindred who lived together within one enclosure.”[1942]

Montesquieu, indeed, observed long ago that marriage between cousins
was prohibited by peoples among whom brothers and their children used
to live in the same house. “Chez ces peuples,” he says, “le mariage
entre cousins germains doit être regardé comme contraire à la nature;
chez les autres, non.” According to him, this prohibition has the
same origin as the aversion to sexual relations between brothers and
sisters, _i.e._, “les pères et les mères ayent voulu conserver les
mœurs de leurs enfans et leurs maisons pures.”[1943] Holding a similar
opinion, Dr. Bertillon maintains that, properly speaking, it was not
consanguinity, but the purity of home, that the ancient legislators
were thinking of when they forbade close intermarriage.[1944] It
is scarcely necessary to say how far I am from thinking that these
prohibitions are, in the first place, due to the providence of parents
or legislators.

On the other hand, where the families live more separately such
extensive prohibitions to close intermarrying do not generally
exist. Among the Isánna Indians of Brazil, who prefer marriage with
relations, cousins with cousins, uncles with nieces, and nephews
with aunts, each family has a separate house.[1945] The endogamous
Maoris, who frequently marry near relations, have their villages
generally scattered over a large plot of ground, the personal rights
of possession being held most sacred.[1946] “There is no national
bond of union amongst them,” says Mr. Yate; “each one is jealous of
the authority and power of his neighbour; the hand of each individual
is against every man, and every man’s hand against him.”[1947] Among
the Todas, who live in strict endogamy, families reside in permanent
villages having each a certain tract of grazing ground around it,
and containing from two to three huts. Most of these huts consist of
only one room or cabin, and each room holds one entire subdivision of
a family.[1948] The Bushmans, among whom no degree of consanguinity
prevents a matrimonial connection, except between brothers and sisters,
parents and children,[1949] live a solitary life in small family huts,
not high enough to admit even of a Bushman standing upright within
it.[1950] As regards the Wanyoro, whose table of prohibited degrees is
unusually small, Emin Pasha states, “Brother, sister, brother-in-law,
and son-in-law, are the recognized grades of relationship. I have never
noticed any intimate connection between more distant relations.”[1951]

The Sinhalese, who frequently marry their cousins on the paternal
side, have from time immemorial lived either in very small villages,
consisting of a few houses, or in detached habitations, separated from
each other. Each dwelling is a little establishment in itself, and each
little village, so far as its wants are concerned, may be considered
independent. “They seldom visit each other, except it be to beg or
borrow something. Even near relations manifest no affection to each
other in their visits, but sit with the gravity of strangers.”[1952]

It is easy to explain, says Ewald, why, among the Hebrews, marriage
between brothers and sisters in the widest sense was forbidden, while
that between cousins was permitted:—“The latter did not form one
united household, and the more each house stood strictly by itself
in the ancient fashion, the wider seemed the separation between
cousins.”[1953] Tacitus states that the ancient Germans, whose
prohibitions against incest seem to have included only the nearest
relations, lived in scattered families at some distance from each
other.[1954] And a comparison between the forbidden degrees of the
Greeks and Romans clearly shows where we have to seek the real cause
of the prohibitions. Among the former, even very close relationship
was no hindrance to intermarriage, whereas, among the latter, it was
not allowed between rather distantly related persons. This difference,
as Rossbach justly points out, was due to the fact that the family
feeling of the Greeks was much weaker than that of the Romans, among
whom, in early times, a son used to remain in his father’s house even
after marriage, so that cousins on the father’s side were brought up
as brothers and sisters. Later on, the several families separated from
the common household, and the prohibited degrees were considerably
retrenched.[1955]

The reader may perhaps be disposed to reproach me for selecting only
such instances as are in favour of my theory; but statistical data
will show that such an imputation would be groundless. In speaking of
the “classificatory system of relationship,” I pointed out that this
system springs, to a great extent, from the close living together
of considerable numbers of kinsfolk. Now it is most interesting to
note that Dr. Tylor, by his method of adhesions, has found the two
institutions, exogamy and classificatory relationship, to be in fact
two sides of one institution. “In reckoning,” he says, “from the
present schedules the number of peoples who use relationship names more
or less corresponding to the classificatory systems here considered,
they are found to be fifty-three, and the estimated number of these
which might coincide accidentally with exogamy, were there no close
connection between them, would be about twelve. But in fact the number
of peoples who have both exogamy and classification is thirty-three,
this strong coincidence being the measure of the close casual
connection subsisting between the two institutions. The adherence is
even stronger as to cross-cousin marriage (_i.e._, that the children
of two brothers may not marry, nor the children of two sisters, though
the child of the brother may marry the child of the sister), of which
twenty-one cases appear in the schedules, no less than fifteen of the
peoples practising it being also known as exogamous.”[1956] Among
the Reddies, a father’s elder brother and a mother’s elder sister
are called, respectively, “great-father” and “great mother,” and a
father’s younger brother and a mother’s younger sister, respectively,
“lesser-father” and “lesser mother”; whereas the father’s sisters and
the mother’s brothers are denoted by quite different terms. Mr. Kearns
remarks that they consider the difference as well as the distance of
relationship between these two groups of relations to be so great
that they think it unlawful and incestuous to marry the daughter of a
father’s brother or of a mother’s sister, she being equal to a sister,
whilst it is perfectly legal to marry the daughter of a father’s sister
or of a mother’s brother.[1957]

We have seen that the prohibitions against incest are very often more
or less one-sided, applying more extensively either to the relations
on the father’s side or to those on the mother’s, according as descent
is reckoned through men or women. We have also seen that the line
of descent is intimately connected with local relationships; and
we may now fairly infer that the same local relationships exercise
a considerable influence on the table of prohibited degrees. Among
the Rejangs of Sumatra, says Marsden, a marriage must not take place
between relations within the third degree; “but there are exceptions
for the descendants of females who, passing into other families, become
as strangers.”[1958] A Chinese woman, on marriage, alienates herself
from her own family to be incorporated into that of her husband;
hence, as Mr. Medhurst observes, children of brothers and sisters may
marry at pleasure, while those of brothers cannot be united on pain of
death.[1959]

In a large number of cases, prohibitions of intermarriage are only
indirectly influenced by the close living together. Aversion to the
intermarriage of persons who live in intimate connection with each
other has provoked prohibitions of the intermarriage of relations; and,
as kinship is traced by means of a system of names, the name comes to
be considered identical with relationship. This system, as Dr. Tylor
remarks,[1960] is necessarily one-sided. Though it will keep up the
record of descent either on the male or female side, it cannot do both
at once. The other line, not having been kept up by such means of
record, even where it is recognized as a line of relationship, is more
or less neglected, and is soon forgotten; hence the prohibited degrees
often extend very far on the one side, but not on the other. We have
seen many instances of a common surname being a bar to intermarriage.
This is especially the case with peoples among whom the clannish
feeling is highly developed. Thus even the commonest Chinese are often
able to trace their descent through lines of ancestry more remote than
any that England’s most ancient families can claim.[1961] And, among
the Ossetes, a man is bound to take blood-revenge for a cousin a
hundred times removed who bears his name, whereas relationship on the
mother’s side is not recognized.[1962]

Generally speaking, the feeling that two persons are intimately
connected in some way or other may, through an association of ideas,
give rise to the notion that marriage or intercourse between them is
incestuous. Hence the prohibitions of marriage between relations by
alliance and by adoption. Hence, too, the prohibitions on the ground of
what is called “spiritual relationship.” The Emperor Justinian passed
a law forbidding any man to marry a woman for whom he had stood as
godfather in baptism, the tie of the godfather and godchild being so
analogous to that of the father and child as to make such a marriage
appear improper.[1963] In the Roman Church sponsorship creates a bar to
the marriage even of co-sponsors, and the restriction can be removed
only by a dispensation.[1964] In Eastern Europe, the groomsman at a
wedding comes under a set of rules which forbids intermarriage with the
family of the bride to exactly the same extent as if he were naturally
the brother of the bridegroom.[1965] A similar _cognatio spiritualis_,
according to the old law-books of India, occurs between a pupil and his
“guru,” that is, the teacher who instructs him in the Veda. The pupil
lived in his guru’s house for several years, and regarded him almost
as a father.[1966] Hence adultery with a guru’s wife was considered a
mortal sin.[1967]

But how, then, are we to explain the exceptions, apparent or real,
to the rule that close living together inspires an aversion to
intermarriage? How are we to explain the fact that, besides tribes that
are exogamous, there are others that are endogamous, and that, besides
peoples with very extensive laws against intermarriage, there are
others among whom unions take place between very near relations, such
as brothers and sisters, and even parents and children.

In the next chapter we shall examine the psychological principle which
underlies the endogamous marriage. For the present it is sufficient to
say that endogamy never, except in cases of extreme isolation, seems
to occur among peoples living in very small communities with close
connections between their members. Concerning the Australians, Mr.
Curr expressly states that those tribes which are endogamous are, as
a rule, stronger in numbers than those in which exogamous marriage
obtains.[1968]

The marriage of brother and sister means, as we have seen, in most
cases, marriage between a half-brother and a half-sister, having the
same father but different mothers. Such marriages are not necessarily
contrary to the principle here laid down. Polygyny breaks up the one
family into as many sub-families as there are wives who have children,
and it is not possible for the father of these sub-families to be a
member of each of them in the same sense as the father is a member of
the monogamous family. Nor are the children of the different mothers
brought into such close contact as the children of one mother, every
wife with her own family forming a little separate group, and generally
living in a separate hut.[1969] On the contrary, hatred and rivalry are
of no rare occurrence among the members of the various sub-families.
In the Pelew Islands, according to Herr Kubary, it very seldom happens
that the several wives of the same man even see each other.[1970] After
speaking of the marriage of half-brother and half-sister allowed among
the ancient Arabs, Professor Robertson Smith remarks, “Whatever is the
origin of bars to marriage, they certainly are early associated with
the feeling that it is indecent for housemates to intermarry.”[1971]

Most of the recorded instances of intermarriage of brother and sister
refer to royal families, to the exclusion of others; and there is no
difficulty in accounting for incestuous unions of this sort. Among
lower races, as well as in Europe, it is considered improper for royal
persons to contract marriage with persons of less exalted birth.
But whilst European princes may go to some friendly Court for their
consorts, a similar course is not open to African or Asiatic potentates.

Incestuous unions may also take place on account of necessity, as
among the Wa-taïta, or on account of extreme isolation, as among
the Karens of the Tenasserim Provinces,[1972] several of the small
tribes of Brazil, and especially the Veddahs of Ceylon. Among the wild
Veddahs, the different families are separated from each other by great
distances, and it is only accidentally or occasionally that any others
besides the members of one family are brought together.[1973] The
reason for the practice of marrying a sister, says Professor Virchow,
“was probably the same everywhere, in the royal families as with the
naked Veddahs, the lack of suitable women or of women altogether.”[1974]

Certain instances of incestuous connection are evidently the results of
vitiated instincts, the origin of which we are not able to trace. It
is a remarkable fact that several of the peoples among whom incestuous
intercourse is said to be practised are, at the same time, expressly
stated to indulge in bestiality or other unnatural vices.[1975] This
shows that their sexual feelings are altogether in a perverted state.

Much stress has been laid by anthropologists on the few instances
of peoples who habitually or occasionally contract unions which we
should consider criminal. They have been taken for surviving types
of the primitive condition of man, proving that “sentiments such as
those which among ourselves restrain the sexual instincts are not
innate.”[1976] But it is obvious that they prove nothing of the
kind. Students of early history have often paid too much regard to
exceptions, and too little to rules, overlooking the fact that there is
no rule which has no exceptions.

It may be objected that no feeling of incest exists among the lower
animals.[1977] According to Mr. Huth, incest “is constantly practised
by animals, and habitually by those which are polygamous.”[1978] But,
as we have previously seen, among species that live in families, the
young, without exception, leave the family as soon as they are able
to shift for themselves; and Mr. Huth has adduced not the slightest
evidence for his statement that “polygamy among animals means the
closest incest.”[1979]

The hypothesis here advocated can, I think, account for all the facts
given in the last chapter. It explains how the horror of incest may be
independent of experience as well as of education; why the horror of
incest refers not only to relations by blood, but very frequently to
persons not at all so related; why the prohibitions of consanguineous
marriages vary so considerably with regard to the prohibited degrees,
applying, however, almost universally to persons who live in the
closest contact with each other; and why these prohibitions are so
commonly extended much farther on the one side, the paternal or the
maternal, than on the other. The question now arises:—How has this
instinctive aversion to marriage between persons living closely
together originated?

       *       *       *       *       *

We have seen that a certain degree of similarity as regards the
reproductive system of two individuals is required to make their union
fertile and the progeny resulting from this union fully capable of
propagation. It might, then, be supposed that the highest degree of
similarity must be the most beneficial; but in all probability this
is not the case. It seems to be necessary not only that the sexual
elements which unite shall be somewhat like, but that they shall be in
some way different. The similarity must not be _too_ great.

Mr. Darwin, by his careful studies on the effects of cross- and
self-fertilization in the vegetable kingdom, contributed more largely
than any one else to the discovery of this law. He watched, from
germination to maturity, more than a thousand individual plants,
produced by crossing and self-fertilization, belonging to fifty-seven
species, fifty-two genera, and thirty large families, and including
natives of the most various countries.[1980] The result established by
this research was, that cross-fertilization is generally beneficial,
and self-fertilization injurious; which is shown by the difference in
height, weight, constitutional vigour, and fertility of the offspring
from crossed and self-fertilized flowers, and in the number of seeds
produced by the parent-plants.[1981] Hence, whenever plants which are
the offspring of self-fertilization are opposed in the struggle for
existence to the offspring of cross-fertilization, the latter have the
advantage. And this follows, according to Mr. Darwin, from individuals
of two distinct kinds having been subjected during previous generations
to different conditions, or to their having varied from some unknown
cause in a manner commonly called spontaneous, because of that innate
tendency to vary and to advance in organization which exists in all
beings; so that in either case their sexual elements have been in some
degree differentiated.[1982]

As for the animal kingdom, Mr. Darwin remarks that almost all who
have bred many kinds of animals, and have written on the subject,
have expressed the strongest conviction on the evil effects of close
interbreeding.[1983] “Indeed,” says Sir J. Sebright, “I have no
doubt but that, by this practice being continued, animals would, in
course of time, degenerate to such a degree as to become incapable of
breeding at all.... I have tried many experiments by breeding in-and-in
upon dogs, fowls, and pigeons; the dogs became, from strong spaniels,
weak and diminutive lap-dogs, the fowls became long in the legs, small
in the body, and bad breeders.”[1984] Mr. Huth, on the other hand,
denies that breeding in-and-in, however close, has proved to be in
itself hurtful, and quotes the evidence of numerous breeders whose
choicest stocks have always been so bred. But in these cases, as Mr.
Wallace remarks, “there has been rigid selection by which the weak or
the infertile have been eliminated, and with such selection there is
no doubt that the ill effects of close interbreeding can be prevented
for a long time; but this by no means proves that no ill effects
are produced.”[1985] The consensus of opinion on this point among
eminent breeders is indeed overwhelming, and cannot be reasoned away.
According to Crampe’s experiment with the brown rat (_Mus decumanus_),
thirty-nine animals out of 153 born by related parents, _i.e._, 25·5
per cent., died soon after birth, whereas of 299 animals of parents
not related this was the case with twenty-eight only, _i.e._, 8·4 per
cent. The animals of incestuous broods were much smaller and lighter
than others, and their fecundity was diminished.[1986] Mr. Huth himself
observed, when breeding rabbits in-and-in, that “after the fourth
generation there was a diminution of fecundity analogous to the disgust
that the stomach would feel at the same diet long continued,” though he
found no evil effect in any other way. On the contrary, the in-and-in
bred offspring were somewhat heavier than the non-related parent
animals.[1987] Professor Preyer has made a similar observation with
regard to guinea-pigs: breeding in-and-in produced a considerable loss
of fertility, but was accompanied with an increase of weight.[1988]
This seems to indicate that the effects of close interbreeding are not
always the same.

There are certainly breeders who prefer connecting together the animals
nearest allied in blood to one another. But, as Dr. Mitchell observes,
“when breeding in-and-in has been practised with so-called good
results, the issue is nothing but the development of a saleable defect,
which, from the animal’s point of view, must be regarded as wholly
unnatural and artificial, and not calculated to promote its well-being
or natural usefulness.”[1989]

Many writers suppose that all the evils from close interbreeding depend
upon the combination and consequent increase of morbid tendencies
common to both parents, the state of whose health decides whether union
would be favourable or not to the offspring. “If the parents are
perfectly healthy,” says M. Pouchet, “and exempt from all commencing
degeneracy, they can only give birth to children _at least_ as healthy
as themselves.... But if the same degeneracy has already tainted both
the parents, the offspring will show it in a greater degree, and will
tend towards entire disappearance.”[1990] The same opinion is held by
Sir John Sebright. But being, as an experienced breeder, well aware of
the injurious results which almost always follow from interbreeding
animals too closely, he adds that, according to his belief, there never
did exist an animal without some defect, in constitution, in form, or
in some other essential quality, or that at least a tendency to the
same imperfection generally prevails in the same family.[1991]

Mr. Darwin, however, has shown it to be highly probable that, though
the injury has often partly resulted from the combination of morbid
tendencies, the general cause is different. Considering the number of
self-fertilized plants that were tried, he thinks it is nothing less
than absurd to suppose that in all these cases the mother-plants,
though not appearing in any way diseased, were weak or unhealthy in so
peculiar a manner that their self-fertilized seedlings, many hundreds
in number, were rendered inferior in height, weight, constitutional
vigour, and fertility to their crossed offspring.[1992] Moreover,
self-fertilization and close interbreeding induce sterility, and this
indicates something quite different from the augmentation of morbid
tendencies common to both parents.[1993] Hence it seems to be almost
beyond doubt that, just as the sterility of distinct species when
first crossed, and of their hybrid offspring, depends on their sexual
elements having been differentiated in too great a degree, the evils of
close interbreeding, or self-fertilization in plants, result chiefly
from their sexual elements not having been sufficiently differentiated.
But we do not know why a certain amount of differentiation is necessary
or favourable for the fertilization or union of two organisms, any more
than for the chemical affinity or union of two substances.[1994] It
must, however, be observed that no case of complete sterility is met
with in self-fertilized seedlings, as is so common with hybrids,[1995]
and that interbreeding even of the nearest relations may sometimes,
under very favourable circumstances, be continued through several
generations without any evil results making their appearance.

It is impossible to believe that a law which holds good for the rest of
the animal kingdom, as well as for plants, does not apply to man also.
But it is difficult to adduce direct evidence for the evil effects of
consanguineous marriages. We cannot expect very conspicuous results
from other alliances than those between the nearest relations—between
brothers and sisters, parents and children. And the injurious results
even of such unions would not necessarily appear at once. Sir J.
Sebright remarks that there may be families of domestic animals which
go through several generations without sustaining much injury from
having been bred in-and-in,[1996] and the offspring of self-fertilized
plants do not always show any loss of vigour in the first generations.
Man cannot, in this respect, be subjected to experiments like those
tried in the case of other animals, and habitual intermarriage of the
very nearest relations is, as we have seen, exceedingly rare. Mr. Adam
argues that there is no proof of the physical deterioration of those
divisions of mankind amongst whom incestuous unions are known more or
less to have prevailed—as the Egyptians and Persians.[1997] But among
these nations marriage certainly did not always take place between
closely related persons; and breeders of domestic animals inform us
that the mixing-in even of a drop of unrelated blood is sufficient
almost to neutralize the injurious effects of long continued close
interbreeding. Again, Mr. Huth asserts that, though the Ptolemies
habitually married their sisters, nieces, and cousins, they were
neither sterile nor particularly short-lived.[1998] Mr. Galton, on the
contrary, sees in Ptolemaic experience a proof that close intermarriage
is followed by sterility.[1999] In ten marriages between brothers and
sisters, uncles and nieces, or between first-cousins, the average
number of children was not quite two, and three of the unions were
entirely sterile.[2000]

The Veddahs of Ceylon are probably the most in-and-in bred people that
ever existed. Among them, the practice of a man marrying his younger
sister did not occur only occasionally; according to Mr. Bailey, it
was _the_ proper marriage. Among the Bintenne Veddahs, it may be said
to have been, for perhaps two generations or so, extinct, whilst among
those of Nilgala, it is at most only disappearing. Mr. Bailey believes
that this practice is quite sufficient to account for the short stature
as well as the weak and vacant expression of this people. He did not
find many traces of insanity, idiocy, and epilepsy—maladies which
such marriages, according to a common belief, might be supposed to
produce. “But in other respects,” he says, “the injurious effects of
this custom would seem to be plainly discernible. The race is rapidly
becoming extinct; large families are all but unknown, and longevity
is very rare. I have been at some pains to obtain reliable data to
elucidate these points. Out of seventy-two Veddahs in Nilgala, fifty
were adults, and twenty-two children. In one small sept, or family,
there were nine adults and one child; in another, one child and eight
adults; and so on. In Bintenne, out of three hundred and eight Veddahs,
a hundred and seventy-five were adults and a hundred and thirty-three
children. Here the disproportion is not so marked; but in one of the
smaller tribes, more isolated than the rest, there were twenty adults,
and but four children. The paucity of children, I think, must be
ascribed to the degeneracy produced by such close intermarriages, for
I have never heard a suspicion of infanticide existing among them.
Out of fifty adults in Nilgala, only one appeared to have numbered
seventy years, and but eight to have exceeded fifty. In Bintenne, of a
hundred and seventy-five adults, two only seemed to have reached their
seventieth, and but fourteen to have exceeded their fiftieth year. Such
statistics seem to show the practical results of such connections.
The Nilgala Veddahs, who still maintain an almost total isolation
from other people, are rapidly disappearing. The Veddahs of Bintenne,
who have abandoned the pernicious custom which I have described, and
still intermarry among themselves, are becoming extinct, though more
gradually.”[2001]

With the exception of this case, the closest kind of intermarriage
which we have opportunities of studying is that between first cousins.
Unfortunately, the observations hitherto made on the subject are
far from decisive. Several writers, as M. Périer, Dr. Voisin, and
Mr. Huth, believe that there are no injurious results at all from
those marriages, unless the parents are afflicted with the same
hereditary morbid tendencies,[2002] whilst others, as M. Devay and
M. Boudin, express the most alarming opinions as to the bad effects
of consanguineous marriages. Such alliances are supposed to bring
evils of many different kinds upon a population, as sterility,
idiocy, epilepsy, insanity, deaf-muteism, congenital malformations
in the offspring, cretinism, albinoism,[2003] &c. But how little the
statements of the various writers agree with each other appears,
for instance, from the fact that M. Boudin found the proportion
of deaf-mutes born in consanguineous marriages, in the Imperial
Institution of Deaf-Mutes at Paris, to be 28·35 per cent., whereas,
according to Dr. Mitchell, it amounts to 5·17 per cent. in Scotch and
English institutions.[2004]

As it is impossible to dwell here upon the investigations of the
several writers, of which Mr. Huth has given so complete an account,
I shall confine myself to a statement of the general results attained
by those investigators who have founded their inquiries on a more
trustworthy statistical basis.

Adopting a method different from that of his predecessors, Professor
G. H. Darwin has endeavoured first to discover the proportion of
consanguineous marriages in the whole population, and then to find out
whether the offspring of those marriages exhibit a greater percentage
of individuals, defective in one way or another, than the offspring
of non-consanguineous marriages. His investigations tend decidedly to
invalidate the exaggerated conclusions of many previous writers, but
he thinks that “there are nevertheless grounds for asserting that
various maladies take an easy hold of the offspring of consanguineous
marriages.”[2005] He did not find evidence that the marriage of
first cousins had any effect in the production of infertility,
deaf-muteism, insanity, or idiocy, but he observed a slightly lowered
vitality amongst the offspring of first cousins, and a somewhat
higher death-rate than amongst the families of non-consanguineous
marriages.[2006] Moreover, the numbers of boating men belonging to the
twenty boats at Oxford and thirty at Cambridge, in the first and second
division, and those of selected athletes from some schools in England,
justified, to some extent, the belief “that offspring of first cousins
are deficient physically, whilst at the same time they negative the
views of alarmist writers on the subject.”[2007] It is curious that, in
spite of such unambiguous statements, Mr. Darwin’s paper has generally
been quoted as an evidence of the perfect harmlessness of first cousin
marriages.

M. Stieda has found that, in the departments of France, the number
of bodily or mentally infirm people increases almost constantly in
proportion to the number of consanguineous marriages, as will be seen
from the following table:—

                                  Number of
                Number of       consanguineous          Number of
    Group.     departments.      marriages in        infirm people in
                                each thousand         each thousand
                                  marriages.           inhabitants.

      I.           10                 5·4                 2·3
     II.           10                 8·3                 2·8
    III.           14                 9·95                3
     IV.           10                11·2                 2·4
      V.           13                12·5                 2·8
     VI.            8                13·8                 3
    VII.           14                15·8                 3·5
   VIII.           10                19·2                 3·25
  —————————————————————————————————-———————————-———————————-—————-—
  I.—IV.          44                 9·2                 2·65
  V.—VIII.        45                14·8                 3·1[2008]

The Danish physician, Dr. Mygge, published in 1879 a book on ‘Marriage
between Blood-Relations,’ which unfortunately has received much less
attention than it deserves.[2009] Thanks to the trustworthiness of the
method, the number of cases considered, and the author’s impartiality,
it is probably the most important statistical contribution hitherto
issued on this subject. Dr. Mygge found, from the information he
received from various parts of Denmark, that in that country, or at
least in the parishes of it which came under his observation, there
occur, among the children of related persons, comparatively more
idiots, lunatics, epileptics, and deaf-mutes than among others. He
considers it probable, too, though not proved, that such children die
in a higher ratio and are more liable to certain diseases. But, on the
other hand, he did not notice any perceptible difference in fertility
between consanguineous and crossed marriages.[2010]

In these inquiries, Dr. Mygge followed the method applied by the
Norwegian physician Ludvig Dahl twenty years earlier. Through careful
investigation of 246 marriages, eighty-five of which were between
first cousins and four between still nearer relations, this inquirer
was led to the conclusions that consanguineous marriages are somewhat
less fertile than crossed marriages; that they produce comparatively
many more still-born and sickly children; and that insanity, idiocy,
deaf-dumbness, and epilepsy occur about eleven times as often among the
offspring of relations, as among the offspring of unrelated parents.
But he admitted that the numbers compared were too small to make his
conclusions decisive.[2011]

These results are of course to a great extent conjectural. But it is
noteworthy that, of all the writers who have discussed the subject,
the majority, and certainly not the least able of them, have expressed
their belief in marriages between first cousins being more or less
unfavourable to the offspring.[2012] And no evidence which can stand
the test of scientific investigation has hitherto been adduced against
this view.

Some writers have, indeed, cited instances of communities where
consanguineous marriages have occurred constantly without any evil
effects having appeared. Thus the Pitcairn Island, uninhabited till the
year 1790, was at that time peopled by nine white men, and six men and
twelve women of Tahiti. In 1800 the population consisted of one man,
five women, and nineteen children; and the descendants of these persons
are stated by later travellers to be strong and healthy without any
traces of degeneration. Omitting whatever else may be said against
this case as evidence for the harmlessness of consanguineous marriages,
I need only call attention to the facts that, since the colonization
of this island, a few strangers have joined the little colony; that it
was once removed to Norfolk Island, and that, of those who returned,
one was a Norfolk Islander who had married a Pitcairn girl; that the
island has frequently been visited by ships with their crews;[2013] and
that, as Beechey expressly states, the same restrictions with regard to
intermarriage of relations exist here as in England.[2014]

There are several isolated communities—in Java, Peru, Great Britain,
France, Scandinavia, &c.—which intermarry solely among themselves
without any evil effects being discernible. An often-quoted case is
the community of Batz (3,300 persons), situated near Croisic on a
peninsula. The inhabitants of this community have been in the habit
of closely intermarrying among themselves from time immemorial.
Nevertheless, they are almost all very well in health without any
hereditary affection. But Dr. Voisin observes, “Les conditions
climatériques de la commune de Batz, son voisinage de la mer, l’hygiène
et les habitudes de ses habitants, semblent s’accorder pour empêcher
la dégénérescence de l’espèce et paraissent expliquer l’innocuité
des mariages entre consanguins qui s’y pratiquent depuis plusieurs
siècles.”[2015] In other isolated communities the population is not so
numerous, and the sanitary conditions are not perhaps so favourable:
but in any case we may say that this local endogamy is generally
something quite different from marriage with near relations. Dr.
Mitchell found that, in almost all the isolated communities along
the coasts of Scotland, which had been given as instances of close
interbreeding, such marriages were comparatively rare. According to
Dr. Mygge, the like is true of the population of Lyø and Strynø in
Denmark.[2016] And Dr. Andrew Wood states, of the fisher-folk of
Newhaven, that, though they keep themselves much segregated, they are
very careful regarding intermarriage, and look upon the union of
relatives as an infringement of the laws of morality.[2017]

Moreover, even if it could be proved that, in particular cases, close
intermarrying, though continued for a long time, has been followed by
no bad consequences, this would be no evidence that consanguineous
marriages are as a rule innocuous. In some parishes of Denmark Dr.
Mygge found no evil effects of such marriages, whilst in others they
were very conspicuous.[2018] And from the investigations of Mr. Darwin
it appears that, notwithstanding the injury which most plants suffer
from self-fertilization, a few have almost certainly been propagated
in a state of nature for thousands of generations without having been
once intercrossed. It is impossible to understand, he says, why some
individuals even of the _same species_ are sterile, whilst others are
quite fertile, with their own pollen.[2019]

There is evidence that the bad consequences of self-fertilization
and close interbreeding may almost fail to appear under favourable
conditions of life. In-and-in bred plants, when allowed enough space
and good soil, frequently show little or no deterioration: whereas,
when placed in competition with another plant, they often perish or
are much stunted.[2020] Crampe’s experiments with brown rats proved
that the breeding in-and-in was much less injurious, if the offspring
of the related parents were well fed and taken care of, than if it was
otherwise.[2021] And this is in striking accordance with Dr. Mitchell’s
observations as to consanguineous marriages in Scotland. The results
there appear to be least grave, and are frequently almost _nil_, if
the parents and children live in tolerable comfort, without anxiety or
much thought for the morrow, and easily earning enough to procure good
food and clothing—in short, when they work, but do not struggle for
existence. On the other hand, when they are “poor, pinched for food,
scrimp of clothing, badly housed, and exposed to misery; when they have
to toil and struggle for the bare necessaries of life—never having
enough for to-day and being always fearful of to-morrow,”—the evil may
become very marked.[2022]

If this is the case, we must expect to find that consanguineous
marriages are much more injurious in savage regions, where the struggle
for existence is often very severe, than they have proved to be in
civilized society, especially as it is among the well-off classes that
such marriages occur most frequently.[2023] In England, according to
Mr. G. H. Darwin, cousin-marriages among the aristocracy are probably
4½ per cent.; among the middle and upper middle class, or among the
landed gentry, 3½ per cent.; but in London, comprising all classes,
they are probably only 1½ per cent.[2024] He thinks that the slightness
of the evils which he found to result from first-cousin marriages
perhaps depends upon the fact that a large majority of Englishmen live
under what are on the whole very favourable circumstances.[2025] We
must also, however, remember that there has been a great mixture of
races in Europe, and that this necessarily makes marriage of kinsfolk
less injurious, so far as the evil results of such unions depend upon
too great a likeness between the sexual elements.

The conclusion that closely related marriages produce more destructive
effects among savage than civilized peoples, derives perhaps, some
additional probability from certain ethnological facts. These facts
may, at least, serve to show that such marriages, and the experience
of isolated communities, are not everywhere in favour of Mr. Huth’s
conclusions. Several statements on the subject have, indeed, scarcely
any value as direct evidence for the harmfulness of consanguineous
marriages, but to two or three considerable weight must be attached.

According to v. Martius, who is a great authority on Brazilian
ethnography, it is a well-established fact, observed everywhere, that
the smaller and more isolated of the Indian communities, scarcely any
members of which marry members of other communities, are much more
liable to every kind of deterioration than the larger groups.[2026]
“It is probable,” Mr. Bates, another most capable judge, remarks with
reference to the savage tribes on the Upper Amazons, “that the strange
inflexibility of the Indian organization, both bodily and mental, is
owing to the isolation in which each small tribe has lived, and to
the narrow round of life and thought, and close intermarriages for
countless generations, which are the necessary results. Their fecundity
is of a low degree, for it is very rare to find an Indian family having
so many as four children, and we have seen how great is their liability
to sickness and death on removal from place to place.”[2027] Touching
the Isánna Indians, Mr. Wallace asserts that they are said not to be
nearly so numerous, nor to increase so rapidly, as the Uaupés; which
may perhaps be owing to their marrying with relations, while the latter
prefer strangers.[2028] And v. Tschudi supposes that the low fecundity
of the Botocudos is caused by their endogamous habits; for when their
women marry out of their own horde, especially with whites or negroes,
they are generally very fertile.[2029]

The Calidonian Indians of the Isthmus of Darien, according to Mr.
Gisborne, are bound never to cross the breed with foreigners;
hence intermarriage is very constant, and, as he remarks, the race
degenerates.[2030] The Pueblos in New Mexico, too, are said to
deteriorate because of their constant intermarriage in the same
village.[2031] As regards the Hottentots, Barrow remarks, “The
impolitic custom of hording together in families, and of not marrying
out of their own kraals, has no doubt tended to enervate this race of
men, and reduced them to their present degenerated condition, which is
that of a languid, listless phlegmatic people, in whom the prolific
powers of nature seem to be almost exhausted.” Few of the women have
more than two or three children, and many of them are barren. But this
is not the case when a Hottentot woman is connected with a white man.
“The fruit of such an alliance,” says Barrow, “is not only in general
numerous, but they are beings of a very different nature from the
Hottentot.”[2032]

In too early marriages, the licentious habits of both sexes, and
the intermarriage of near relatives, the Rev. J. Sibree finds the
causes of the infertility of the women of Madagascar.[2033] Among
the Garos, the chiefs have, in comparison with the lower classes,
degenerated physically, and Colonel Dalton is inclined to think that
this degeneration is a result of close interbreeding.[2034] The
Lundu Sea Dyaks, according to Sir Spenser St. John, have decreased
greatly in numbers—from a thousand families to ten. “They complain
bitterly,” he says, “that they have no families, that their women are
not fertile; indeed, there were but three or four children in the
whole place. The men were fine-looking and the women well-favoured and
healthy—remarkably clean and free from disease. We could only account
for their decreasing numbers by their constant intermarriages.”[2035]
Mr. Foreman thinks that the low intellect and mental debility
perceptible in many families among the domesticated natives of the
Philippines are due to consanguineous marriages.[2036] Mr. Bachelor
connects the rapid decrease of the Ainos with their endogamous
habits.[2037] And Mr. Meade remarks, with regard to the Maoris, that
one of the principal causes of the diminishing population is said to be
their intermarriages, which cause barrenness among the women.[2038]

Of no little interest to us are the Todas of the Neilgherry Hills. Mr.
Marshall remarks that, among them, relationship is intimate far beyond
that witnessed in any country approaching civilization—“intimate to
such a degree, that the whole tribe, where not parents and children,
brothers and sisters, are all first cousins, descended from lines of
first cousins prolonged for centuries.”[2039] As regards the general
appearance of the people, a large proportion of both sexes and of all
ages are doubtless in excellent health, and their fecundity, according
to Dr. Shortt, is by no means of a low degree.[2040] Nevertheless, the
Todas are dying out. In infancy the mortality is so great that, as a
rule, there is in each family only a small number of children.[2041]
“It is rarely that there are more than two or three children,” says
the missionary Metz, “and it is not at all an uncommon thing to
find only a single child, while many families have none at all.” The
numbers of the Todas have, consequently, for years past been gradually
declining, and probably the time is not far distant when they will have
passed away.[2042] Of course, we do not know whether this depends upon
their close intermarriages, but there is, at any rate, some reason to
suspect that this is the case. That the intermarrying has not produced
more evil effects on the population, may possibly be owing to the
wealth for which the Neilgherry Hills are remarkable, and to their
climate, which, for mildly invigorating properties and equable seasonal
changes throughout the year, is perhaps unrivalled anywhere within the
tropics.[2043]

Another very much in-and-in bred people are the Persians. Among them,
husband and wife are generally of the same family, and very often
cousins. Yet Dr. Polak who has lived in Persia for nine years, partly
as a teacher in the medical school of Teheran, partly as physician to
the Shah, and during this residence has had excellent opportunities of
acquainting himself with the conditions of the people, has not observed
that the diseases which are supposed to result from consanguineous
marriages prevail more frequently there than elsewhere. Nor has he
found that the Persian women are generally less fertile than others.
Yet the families are exceedingly small, as the mortality among children
is enormous. Of six, perhaps two as a rule survive, but very often none
at all, most of them dying in their second year. Dr. Polak believes,
indeed, that, on an average, scarcely more than one living child comes
to each woman. A princess in Teheran was looked upon quite as a wonder
because she had eight children alive, and the European physician
was asked if he ever before, in his own country, had seen a similar
case.[2044]

More important than any of these statements is the following testimony
concerning the Karens of Burma, for which I am indebted to the Rev.
Dr. Alonzo Bunker, who has been a resident among that people during
more than twenty years. He says that, in some of their villages,
exogamy prevails, in others endogamy, but marriages between parents
and children, brothers and sisters, are prohibited everywhere, and
even first cousins very seldom marry, though there is no law against
such connections. There is a striking difference with regard to
stature, health, strength and fecundity, between the inhabitants of
the exogamous and those of the endogamous villages, the latter being
much inferior in all these respects. Dr. Bunker has no doubt that this
inferiority is owing to the intermarriage of kinsfolk, and he asserts
that even the natives themselves ascribe it to this cause, though they
obstinately keep up the old custom, regarding marriages out of their
own village as highly unbecoming. In cases in which missionaries have
been able to persuade young men to choose wives from another village,
Dr. Bunker assures me that the good effects of a cross appeared at
once.[2045]

There are some other peoples who ascribe evil results to close
intermarriage. Mr. Cousins informs me that the Cis-Natalian Kafirs
believe “that their offspring would be of a more sickly nature if
such were allowed”; and Mr. Eyles writes that the Zulus, on the border
of Pondoland, regard sterility and deformity as consequences of
consanguineous unions. The Australian Dieyerie, according to Mr. Gason,
have a tradition that, after the creation, fathers, mothers, sisters,
brothers, and others of the closest kin intermarried promiscuously,
until the bad effects of these marriages became manifest. A council of
the chiefs was then assembled to consider in what way the evil might be
averted, and the result of their deliberations was a petition to the
Muramura, or Good Spirit. In answer to this he ordered that the tribe
should be divided into branches, and distinguished one from the other
by different names, after objects animate and inanimate, such as dogs,
mice, emu, rain, and so forth, and that the members of any such branch
should be forbidden to marry other members of the same branch.[2046]
Again, touching the Kenai, in the north-western part of North America,
Richardson states, “It was the custom that the men of one stock should
choose their wives from another, and the offspring belonged to the race
of the mother. This custom has fallen into disuse, and marriages in the
same tribe occur; but the old people say that mortality among the Kenai
has arisen from the neglect of the ancient usage.”[2047]

In a Greenland Eskimo tale, the father of Kakamak, finding that all his
grandchildren have died before reaching the age of puberty, suggests to
his son-in-law, “Perhaps we are too near akin.”[2048] Two Mohammedan
travellers of the ninth century tell us that the Hindus never married
a relation, because they thought alliances between unrelated persons
improved the offspring.[2049] In Hadîth, the collection of Mohammedan
traditions, it is said, “Marry among strangers; thus you will not
have feeble posterity.” “This view,” says Goldziher, “coincides
with the opinion of the ancient Arabs that the children of endogamous
marriages are weakly and lean. To this class also belongs the proverb
of Al-Meydânî, ‘ ... Marry the distant, marry not the near’ (in
relationship).” A poet, praising a hero, says, “He is a hero, not
borne by the cousin (of his father), he is not weakly; for the seed of
relations brings forth feeble fruit.”[2050]

In opposition to the view that these opinions are the results of
experience, it may be urged that any infraction of the customs or
laws of ancestors is commonly thought to call down divine vengeance.
Father Veniaminof tells us that, among the early Aleuts, incest,
which was considered the gravest crime, was believed to be always
followed by the birth of monsters with walrus-tusks, beard, and other
disfiguration;[2051] and among the Kafirs, according to Mr. Fynn, it
is a general belief that the offspring of an incestuous union will be
a monster—“a punishment inflicted by the ancestral spirit.”[2052]
But whatever may be said of the other cases referred to, no such
explanation can possibly hold good for the Arabs. Among them, marriage
with a near relation involved no infringement of their marriage
regulations. On the contrary, in spite of the opinions in favour of
exogamy, the preference for marriage with a cousin was dominant among
them, and a man had even a right to the hand of his “bint ‘amm,” the
daughter of a paternal uncle.[2053]

Taking all these facts into consideration, I cannot but believe that
consanguineous marriages, in some way or other, are more or less
detrimental to the species. And here, I think, we may find a quite
sufficient explanation of the horror of incest; not because man at an
early stage recognized the injurious influence of close intermarriage,
but because the law of natural selection must inevitably have operated.
Among the ancestors of man, as among other animals, there was no doubt
a time when blood-relationship was no bar to sexual intercourse. But
variations, here as elsewhere, would naturally present themselves;
and those of our ancestors who avoided in-and-in breeding would
survive, while the others would gradually decay and ultimately perish.
Thus an instinct would be developed which would be powerful enough,
as a rule, to prevent injurious unions. Of course it would display
itself simply as an aversion on the part of individuals to union with
others with whom they lived; but these, as a matter of fact, would
be blood-relations, so that the result would be the survival of the
fittest.

Whether man inherited the feeling from the predecessors from whom he
sprang, or whether it was developed after the evolution of distinctly
human qualities, we do not know. It must necessarily have arisen at
a stage when family ties became comparatively strong, and children
remained with their parents until the age of puberty, or even longer.
Exogamy, as a natural extension of this instinct, would arise when
single families united in small hordes. It could not but grow up if
the idea of union between persons intimately associated with one
another was an object of innate repugnance. There is no real reason
why we should assume, as so many anthropologists have done,[2054] that
primitive men lived in small endogamous communities, practising incest
in every degree. The theory does not accord with what is known of the
customs of existing savages; and it accounts for no facts which may not
be otherwise far more satisfactorily explained.

The objection will perhaps be made that the aversion to sexual
intercourse between persons living very closely together from early
youth is too complicated a mental phenomenon to be a true instinct,
acquired through spontaneous variations intensified by natural
selection. But there are instincts just as complicated as this
feeling, which, in fact, only implies that disgust is associated with
the idea of sexual intercourse between persons who have lived in a
long-continued, intimate relationship from a period of life at which
the action of desire is naturally out of the question. This association
is no matter of course, and certainly cannot be explained by the mere
liking for novelty. It has all the characteristics of a real, powerful
instinct, and bears evidently a close resemblance to the aversion to
sexual intercourse with individuals belonging to another species.

       *       *       *       *       *

Besides the horror of incest, there is another feeling to which
reference may here be made. “L’amour,” says Bernardin de
Saint-Pierre, “ ... ne résulte que des contrastes; et plus ils sont
grands, plus il a d’énergie. C’est ce que je pourrois prouver par
mille traits d’histoire.... L’influence des contrastes en amour est si
certaine, qu’en voyant l’amant on peut faire le portrait de l’objet
aimé sans l’avoir vu, pourvu qu’on sache seulement qu’il est affecté
d’une forte passion.”[2055] Schopenhauer likewise observes that every
person requires from the individual of the opposite sex a one-sidedness
which is the opposite of his or her own. The most manly man will seek
the most womanly woman, and _vice versa_. Weak or little men have a
decided inclination for strong or big women, and strong or big women
for weak or little men. Blondes prefer dark persons, or brunettes;
snub-nosed persons, hook-nosed; persons with excessively slim, long
bodies and limbs, those who are stumpy and short; and so on.[2056]
A similar view is held by M. Prosper Lucas, Mr. Alexander Walker,
Professor Mantegazza, Mr. Grant Allen, and other writers.[2057] “In
the love of the sexes,” says Professor Bain, “the charm of disparity
goes beyond the standing differences of sex; as in contrasts of
complexion, and of stature.”[2058]

Some writers have suggested that love thus excited by differences is
favourable to fecundity, those marriages in which it exists being more
prolific than others.[2059] Thus Mr. Andrew Knight, a most experienced
breeder, remarks, “I am disposed to think that the most powerful
human minds will be found offspring of parents of different hereditary
constitutions. I prefer a male of a different colour from the breed of
the female, where that can be obtained, and I think that I have seen
fine children produced in more than one instance, where one family
has been dark and the other fair. I am sure that I have witnessed the
bad effects of marriages between two individuals very similar to each
other in character and colour, and springing from ancestry of similar
character. Such have appeared to me to be like marriages between
brothers and sisters.”[2060]

These statements, of course, prove nothing, but they may perhaps
derive some value from the fact that they are made by so many different
observers. The statistical investigation of Professor Alphonse de
Candolle, bearing upon the same question, rests on firmer ground. He
has found, from facts collected in Switzerland, North Germany, and
Belgium, that marriages are most commonly contracted between persons
with different colours of the eye, except in the case of brown-eyed
women, who are generally considered more attractive than others.[2061]
He has noted, further, that the number of children is considerably
smaller in families where the parents have the same colour of the eye
than where the reverse is the case.[2062] But Professor Wittrock could
not, in Sweden, find any such difference in fecundity between the two
categories of marriages;[2063] and Mr. Galton observes, “Whatever may
be the sexual preferences for similarity or for contrast, I find little
indication in the average results obtained from a fairly large number
of cases, of any single measurable personal peculiarity, whether it be
stature, temper, eye-colour or artistic tastes, influencing marriage
selection to a notable degree.”[2064]

If contrasts instinctively seek each other, this may partly account
for the readiness with which love awakens love. Every one knows some
unhappy lover who has never been able to win the heart of the person
he adores; but in most cases, I should say, love is mutual. And this,
perhaps, is owing not only to the contagiousness of the passion, but
also to the attractive power of contrasts, which acts equally upon both
parties. Thus we might explain, to some extent, the extreme variation
of tastes, and the fact that, besides the general standard of beauty
common to the whole race, there exists a more detailed ideal special to
each individual.




CHAPTER XVI

SEXUAL SELECTION AS INFLUENCED BY AFFECTION AND SYMPATHY, AND BY
CALCULATION


Sexual love is the passion which unites the sexes. The stimulating
impressions produced by health, youth, and beauty, and ornaments
and other artificial means of attraction, are all elements of this
feeling. The antipathy to sexual intercourse with individuals of
another species, and the horror of incest, belong to the same
phenomenon. But the psychology of love is by no means exhausted by
this. “Simple et primitif comme toutes les forces colossales,” says
Professor Mantegazza, “l’amour paraît pourtant formé des éléments de
toutes les passions humaines.”[2065] Around the sexual appetite as the
leading element there are aggregated many different feelings, such as
admiration, pleasure of possession, love of freedom, self-esteem, and
love of approbation.[2066] A complete analysis of love would fill a
volume. Here I shall discuss only one of the most important elements of
this highly compound feeling, the sentiment of affection.

In the lower stages of human development sexual affection is much
inferior in intensity to the tender feelings with which parents
embrace their children; and among several peoples it seems to be almost
unknown. Thus, speaking of the Hovas in Madagascar, Mr. Sibree says
that, among them, until the spread of Christianity, there was “no lack
of strong affection between blood-relations—parents and children,
brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren;” but the idea of
love between husband and wife was hardly thought of.[2067] On the Gold
Coast, says Major Ellis, “love, as understood by the people of Europe,
has no existence.”[2068] At Winnebah, according to Mr. Duncan, “not
even the appearance of affection exists between husband and wife;”
and almost the same is asserted by M. Sabatier with reference to the
Kabyles, by Signor Bonfanti with reference to the Bantu race.[2069]
Munzinger says that, among the Beni-Amer, it is considered even
disgraceful for a wife to show any affection for her husband.[2070]
The Chittagong Hill tribes, according to Captain Lewin, have “no idea
of tenderness, nor of chivalrous devotion.” Marriage is among them
regarded as merely a convenient and animal connection.[2071] In the
Island of Ponapé, according to Dr. Finsch, love in our sense of the
term is entirely unknown.[2072] As regards the Eskimo of Newfoundland,
Heriot asserts, “Like all other men in the savage state, they treat
their wives with great coldness and neglect, but their affection
towards their offspring is lively and tender.”[2073] In Greenland, a
man thought nothing of beating his wife, but it was an heinous offence
for a mother to chastise her children.[2074] Almost the same is said
of the Kutchin by Mr. Jones, and of the Eskimo of Norton Sound by Mr.
Dall.[2075] According to Mr. Morgan, the refined passion of love is
unknown to the North American Indians in general.[2076]

Such statements, however, may easily be misleading. The love of a
savage is certainly very different from the love of a civilized man;
nevertheless, we may discover in it traces of the same ingredients.
There are facts which tend to show that even very rude savages may have
conjugal affection; nay, that among certain uncivilized peoples it has
reached a remarkably high degree of development.

Among the wretched Bushmans, according to Mr. Chapman, there is love
in all their marriages.[2077] Among the races of the Upper Congo, love
is ennobled by a certain poetry;[2078] and with the Touaregs, there is
a touch of almost chivalrous sentiment in the relations between men
and women.[2079] Regarding the man-eating Niam-Niam, Dr. Schweinfurth
asserts that they display an affection for their wives which is
unparalleled among other natives of an equally low grade.[2080]

The Hos are good husbands and wives, and although they have no terms
in their own language to express the higher emotions, “they feel
them all the same.”[2081] The missionary Jellinghaus found tokens of
affectionate love between married people among the Munda Kols, Mr.
Fawcett among the Savaras, Sir Spenser St. John among the Sea Dyaks,
Mr. Man among the Andamanese.[2082] In New Caledonia, says M. Moncelon,
“l’amour existe, et j’ai vu des suicides par amour.”[2083] In Samoa,
stories of affectionate love between husband and wife are preserved
in song.[2084] In Tonga, according to Mariner, most of the women
were much attached to their husbands;[2085] and in Fiji, says Dr.
Seemann, “even widowers, in the depth of their grief, have frequently
terminated their existence, when deprived of a dearly beloved
wife.”[2086] In several of the Australian tribes, married people are
often much attached to each other, and continue to be so even when they
grow old.[2087] Concerning the aborigines of Victoria, Daniel Bunce
says it is an error to suppose that there exists no settled love or
lasting affection between the sexes; among the Narrinyeri, Mr. Taplin
has known as well-matched and loving couples as he has among Europeans;
and, according to Mr. Bonney, husband and wife among the natives of the
River Darling, rarely quarrel, and “they show much affection for each
other in their own way.”[2088]

Among the Eskimo of the north-east coast of North America, visited
by Lyon, “young couples are frequently seen rubbing noses, their
favourite mark of affection, with an air of tenderness.”[2089]
The Tacullies, as Harman informs us, are remarkably fond of their
wives.[2090] And Mr. Catlin goes even so far as to deny that the
North American Indians are “in the least behind us in conjugal, in
filial, and in paternal affection,”[2091]—a statement with which Mr.
Morgan does not agree. Mr. Brett asserts that, among the natives of
Guiana, instances of conjugal attachment are very frequent.[2092] Azara
and Mantegazza found tokens of it among some other South American
tribes;[2093] and the rude Fuegians are said to “show a good deal of
affection for their wives.”[2094]

It is, indeed, impossible to believe that there ever was a time when
conjugal affection was entirely wanting in the human race. Though
originally of far less intensity than parental love, especially on the
mother’s side, as being of less importance for the existence of the
species, yet it seems, in its most primitive form, to have been as
old as marriage itself. It must be a certain degree of affection that
induces the male to defend the female during her period of pregnancy;
but often it is the joint care of the offspring, more than anything
else, that makes the married couple attached to each other. With
reference to the Dacotahs, Mr. Prescott remarks that “as children
increase, the parents appear to be more affectionate.”[2095]

Of course it is impossible to suppose that mutual love can generally
be the motive which leads to marriage when the wife is captured or
purchased from a foreign tribe. In the main, Mr. Hall’s assertion
as to the Eskimo visited by him, that “love—if it come at all—comes
after the marriage,”[2096] holds good for many savage peoples. Among
the Australians, for instance, according to Mr. Brough Smyth, love
has often no part in the preparations for marriage. “The bride is
dragged from her home—she is unwilling to leave it; and if fears are
entertained that she will endeavour to escape, a spear is thrust
through her foot or her leg. A kind husband will, however, ultimately
evoke affection, and fidelity and true love are not rare in Australian
families.”[2097]

The affection accompanying the union of the sexes has gradually
developed in proportion as altruism in general has increased. Thus
love has only slowly become the refined feeling it is in the heart of
a highly civilized European. In Eastern countries with their ancient
civilization there exists even now but little of that tenderness
towards the woman which is the principal charm of our own family life.
In China, up to recent times, it was considered “good form” for a
man to beat his wife, and, if the Chinaman of humble rank spared her
a little, he did so only in order not to come under the necessity of
buying a successor.[2098] In Hindu families, according to Dubois,
sincere mutual friendship is rarely met with. “It is in vain,” he
says, “to expect, between husband and wife, that reciprocal confidence
and kindness which constitute the happiness of a family. The object for
which a Hindu marries is not to gain a companion to aid him in enduring
the evils of life, but a slave to bear children and be subservient to
his rule.”[2099] The love of which the Persian poets sing has either
a symbolic or a very profane meaning.[2100] Among the Arabs, says
Burckhardt, “the passion of love is, indeed, much talked of by the
inhabitants of towns; but I doubt whether anything is meant by them
more than the grossest animal desire.”[2101] Mr. Finck remarks that
in the whole of the Bible there is not a single reference to romantic
love.[2102] And even in Greece, according to some authorities, the love
of the sexes was little more than sexual instinct.[2103]

It is also obvious that marriage cannot be contracted from affection
where the young women before marriage are kept quite apart from the
men, as is done in Eastern countries. In China it often happens that
the parties have not even seen each other till the wedding-day; and,
in Greece, custom was scarcely less rigorous in this respect.[2104] In
vain Plato urged that young men and women should be more frequently
permitted to meet one another, so that there should be less enmity and
indifference in the married life.[2105] Plutarch hopes that love will
come after marriage.[2106]

The feeling which makes husband and wife true companions for better and
worse can grow up only in societies where the altruistic sentiments
of man are strong enough to make him recognize woman as his equal,
and where she is not shut up as an exotic plant in a green-house, but
is allowed to associate freely with men. In this direction European
civilization has been advancing for centuries, and there can be no
reason to fear that it will ever be permanently diverted from the path
by which alone some of the most important of its ends can be attained.

When affection came to play a more prominent part in human sexual
selection, higher regard was paid to intellectual, emotional, and moral
qualities, through which the feeling is chiefly provoked. Later on, we
shall see how great are the consequences which spring from this fact.
For the present it may be enough to say that the preference given
to higher qualities by civilized men contributes much to the mental
improvement of the race. Dr. Stark observes that the intemperate,
profligate, and criminal classes do not commonly marry; and the like is
to a large extent true of persons who are very inferior in intellect,
emotions, and will.[2107]

Affection depends in a very high degree upon sympathy. Though distinct
aptitudes, these two classes of emotions are most intimately connected:
affection is strengthened by sympathy, and sympathy is strengthened by
affection. Community of interests, opinions, sentiments, culture, and
mode of life, as being essential to close sympathy,[2108] is therefore
favourable to warm affection. If love is excited by contrast, it is so
only within certain limits. The contrast must not be so great as to
exclude sympathy.

Great difference of age is fatal to close sympathy. Wieland noted that
most people who fall in love do so with persons of about their own
age;[2109] and statistics prove the observation to be correct. Men who
marry comparatively late in life usually avoid too great difference in
age.[2110] The foundation of this admiration and preference, modified
by age, says Mr. Walker, “appears to be the similarity of objects
and interests which are inseparable from similar periods of life, the
association of these with a similar intensity of sexual desire, the
consequent production of similar sympathy, and the resolve that it
shall be permanent.”[2111]

A very important factor is similarity in the degree of cultivation. It
seldom happens that a “gentleman” falls in love with a peasant-girl,
or an artizan with a “lady.” This does more than almost anything else
to maintain the separation of the different classes, and to preserve
the existing distribution of wealth among the various groups of society.

Want of sympathy prevents great divisions of human beings—such
as different races or nations, hereditary castes, classes, and
adherents of different religions—from intermarrying, even where
personal affection plays no part in the choice of the mate. Thus many
uncivilized peoples carefully avoid marrying out of their own tribe,
the chief reason being, I think, the strong dislike which distinct
savage and barbarous nations have for one another. Mr. McLennan called
such peoples “endogamous,” in contradistinction to peoples who are
“exogamous,” _i.e._, do not marry within their own tribe or clan.
But this classification has caused much confusion, “exogamy” and
“endogamy” not being real contraries. For there exists among every
people an outer circle—to use Sir Henry Maine’s very appropriate
terminology—out of which marriage is either prohibited, or generally
avoided; as well as an inner circle, including the clan, or, at any
rate, the very nearest kinsfolk, within which no marriage is allowed.

Like the inner circle, the outer circle varies considerably in extent.
Rengger states that many of the Indian races of Paraguay are too
proud to intermarry with any race of a different colour, or even of a
different stock.[2112] In Guiana and elsewhere, Indians do not readily
intermix with negroes, whom they despise.[2113] Among the Isthmians
of Central America, “marriage was not contracted with strangers or
people speaking a different language”;[2114] and in San Salvador,
according to Palacio, a man who had intercourse with a foreign woman
was killed.[2115] Mr. Powers informs us of a Californian tribe who
would put to death a woman for committing adultery with or marrying a
white man;[2116] and among the Barolongs, a Bechuana tribe, the same
punishment was formerly inflicted on any one who had intercourse with a
European.[2117] Among the Kabyles, “le mariage avec une négresse n’est
pas défendu en principe; mais la famille s’opposerait à une pareille
union.”[2118]

The Chinese, according to Mr. Jamieson, refuse marriage with the
surrounding barbarous tribes, with whom, as a rule, they have no
dealings, either friendly or hostile.[2119] The black and fairer
people of the Philippines have from time immemorial dwelt in the same
country without producing an intermediate race;[2120] the Bugis of
Perak have kept themselves very distinct from the people among whom
they live;[2121] and, in Sumatra, it is a rare thing for a Malay man to
marry a Kubu woman.[2122] The Munda Kols severely punish a girl who is
seduced by a Hindu, whereas intercourse with a man of their own people
is regarded by most of them as quite a matter of course.[2123] And,
in Ceylon, even those Veddahs who live in settlements, although they
have long associated with their neighbours, the Sinhalese, have not yet
intermarried with them.[2124]

Count de Gobineau remarks that not even a common religion and country
can extinguish the hereditary aversion of the Arab to the Turk, of
the Kurd to the Nestorian of Syria, of the Magyar to the Slav.[2125]
Indeed, so strong, among the Arabs, is the instinct of ethnical
isolation, that, as a traveller relates, at Djidda, where sexual
morality is held in little respect, a Bedouin woman may yield herself
for money to a Turk or European, but would think herself for ever
dishonoured if she were joined to him in lawful wedlock.[2126]

Marriages between Lapps and Swedes very rarely occur, being looked upon
as dishonourable by both peoples. They are equally uncommon between
Lapps and Norwegians, and it hardly ever happens that a Lapp marries
a Russian.[2127] At various times, Spaniards in Central America,
Englishmen in Mauritius, Frenchmen in Réunion and the Antilles, and
Danish traders in Greenland, have been prevented by law from marrying
natives.[2128] Among the Hebrews, during the early days of their
power and dominion, marriages with aliens seem to have been rare
exceptions.[2129] The Romans were prohibited from marrying barbarians;
Valentinian inflicted the penalty of death for such unions.[2130]
Tacitus was of opinion that the Germans refused marriage with foreign
nations,[2131] and the like seems to have been the case with the
Slavs.[2132]

Among several peoples marriage very seldom, or never, takes place even
outside the territory of the tribe or community. This is the case
with many tribes of Guatemala,[2133] the Ahts,[2134] Navajos,[2135]
and Pueblos.[2136] In the village of Schawill, in Southern Mexico,
according to Mr. Stephens, “every member must marry within the rancho,
and no such thing as a marriage out of it had ever occurred. They
said it was impossible, it could not happen.... This was a thing so
little apprehended that the punishment for it was not defined in their
penal code; but being questioned, after some consultations, they said
that the offender, whether man or woman, would be expelled.”[2137]
Speaking of the Chaymas in New Andalusia, among whom marriages are
contracted between the inhabitants of the same hamlet only,[2138]
v. Humboldt says, “Savage nations are subdivided into an infinity
of tribes, which, bearing a cruel hatred toward each other, form no
intermarriages, even when their languages spring from the same root,
and when only a small arm of a river, or a group of hills, separates
their habitations.”[2139] This holds good especially for several of
the Brazilian tribes.[2140] In ancient Peru it was not lawful for the
natives of one province or village to marry those of another.[2141]

In Equatorial Africa, according to Mr. Du Chaillu, the non-cannibal
tribes do not intermarry with their cannibal neighbours, whose peculiar
practices are held in abhorrence.[2142] Barrow states that the
Hottentots always marry within their own kraal;[2143] and a Bushman
woman would regard intercourse with any one out of the tribe, no matter
how superior, as a degradation.[2144] Among the Hovas, the different
tribes, clans, and even families as a rule do not intermarry, as Mr.
Sibree says, “in order to keep landed property together, as well as
from a strong clannish feeling.”[2145] Mr. Swann informs me that, among
the Waguha, of West Tanganyika, marriages out of the tribe are avoided,
though not prohibited; and Archdeacon Hodgson writes that this is very
often the case in Eastern Central Africa.

In India there are several instances of tribe-or clan-endogamy.[2146]
The Tipperahs and Abors, for example, view with abhorrence the idea of
their girls marrying out of their own clan,[2147] and Colonel Dalton
was gravely assured that, “when one of the daughters of Pádam so
demeans herself, the sun and the moon refuse to shine, and there is
such a strife in the elements that all labour is necessarily suspended,
till by sacrifice and oblation the stain is washed away.”[2148] The
Ainos not only despise the Japanese as much as the Japanese despise
them, but are not very sociable even among themselves: one village
does not like to marry into another.[2149] The same may be said of
the Sermatta Islanders;[2150] whilst the Minahassers,[2151] the
Dyaks,[2152] and the natives of New Guinea[2153] and New Britain,[2154]
as a general rule, marry within their own tribe. Among the New
Zealanders, according to Mr. Yate, “great opposition is made to any
one taking, except for some political purpose, a wife from another
tribe,” and marriage generally takes place between relatives.[2155]
In Australia there are groups of tribes, so-called associated tribes,
generally speaking the same dialect, who are in the habit of uniting
for common defence and other purposes. Marriage between the members
of associated tribes is the rule,[2156] but many tribes are mostly
endogamous.[2157]

In ancient Wales, according to Mr. Lewis, marriage was to be within
the clan.[2158] At Athens, at least in its later history, if an alien
lived as a husband with an Athenian woman, he was liable to be sold
as a slave, and to have his property confiscated; and, if an Athenian
lived with a foreign woman, she was liable to like consequences, and he
to a penalty of a thousand drachmæ.[2159] Marriage with foreign women
was unlawful for all Spartans, and was made unlawful for the Heraclidæ
by a separate rhetra.[2160] At Rome, any marriage of a citizen with
a woman who was not herself a Roman citizen, or did not belong to a
community possessing the privilege of _connubium_ with Rome—which was
always expressly conferred—was invalid; no legitimate children could
be born of such a marriage.[2161] In early times it was even customary
for a father to seek, for his daughter, a husband from his own _gens_,
marriage out of it being mentioned as an extraordinary thing.[2162]

Prohibitions of intermarriage do not refer only to persons belonging
to different nations or tribes; very often they relate also to persons
belonging to different classes or castes of the same community. Yet
in many, perhaps most, cases these prohibitions originally coincided.
Castes are frequently, if not always, the consequences of foreign
conquest and subjugation, the conquerors becoming the nobility, and the
subjugated the commonalty or slaves. Thus, before the Norman conquest,
the English aristocracy was Saxon; after it, Norman. The descendants of
the German conquerors of Gaul were, for a thousand years, the dominant
race in France; and until the fifteenth century all the higher nobility
were of Frankish or Burgundian origin.[2163] The Sanskrit word for
caste is “varna,” _i.e._, colour, which shows how the distinction
of high and low caste arose in India. That country was inhabited by
dark races before the fairer Aryans took possession of it; and the
bitter contempt of the Aryans for foreign tribes, their domineering
spirit, and their strong antipathies of race and of religion, found
vent in the pride of class and caste distinctions. Even to this day
a careful observer can distinguish the descendants of conquerors and
conquered. “No sojourner in India,” says Dr. Stevenson, “can have
paid any attention to the physiognomy of the higher and lower orders
of natives without being struck with the remarkable difference that
exists in the shape of the head, the build of the body, and the colour
of the skin between the higher and the lower castes into which the
Hindu population is divided.”[2164] This explanation of the origin
of Indian castes is supported by the fact that it is in some of the
latest Vedic hymns that we find the earliest references to those four
classes—the Brahmans, the Kshatriyas, the Vaiśyas, and the Śudras—to
which all the later castes have been traced back.[2165] The Incas
of Peru were known as a conquering race; and the ancient Mexicans
represented the culture-heroes of the Toltecs as white.[2166] Among the
Beni-Amer, the nobles are mostly light coloured, while the commoners
are blackish.[2167] The Polynesian nobility have a comparatively fair
complexion,[2168] and seem to be the descendants of a conquering
or superior race. “The chiefs, and persons of hereditary rank and
influence in the islands,” says Ellis, “are, almost without exception,
as much superior to the peasantry or common people, in stateliness,
dignified deportment, and physical strength, as they are in rank
and circumstances; although they are not elected to their station
on account of their personal endowments, but derive their rank and
elevation from their ancestry. This is the case with most of the
groups of the Pacific, but particularly so in Tahiti and the adjacent
islands.”[2169] Among the Shans, according to Dr. Anderson, “the
majority of the higher classes seemed to be distinguished from the
common people by more elongated oval faces and a decidedly Tartar type
of countenance.”[2170] In America, at the time of the earliest European
immigration, a kind of caste distinction arose, white blood being
synonymous with nobility; and, in La Plata, Spaniards, Mestizoes, and
Indians were separated from each other even in church.[2171]

As descendants of different ancestors, members of noble families
keep up their separate position, and remain almost as foreigners to
the people among whom they live. Speculating on the want of sympathy
among the various classes in societies in which such distinctions
are recognized, Count de Tocqueville says, “Each caste has its own
opinions, feelings, rights, manners, and modes of living. Thus the
men of whom each caste is composed do not resemble the mass of their
fellow-citizens; they do not think or feel in the same manner, and they
scarcely believe that they belong to the same human race.... When the
chroniclers of the Middle Ages, who all belonged to the aristocracy by
birth or education, relate the tragical end of a noble, their grief
flows apace; whereas they tell you at a breath, and without wincing,
of massacres and tortures inflicted on the common sort of people. Not
that these writers felt habitual hatred or systematic disdain for the
people; war between the several classes of the community was not yet
declared. They were impelled by an instinct rather than by a passion;
as they had formed no clear notion of a poor man’s sufferings, they
cared but little for his fate.” Then, in proof of this, the writer
gives extracts from Madame de Sévigné’s letters, displaying a cruel
jocularity which, in our day, “the harshest man writing to the most
insensible person of his acquaintance” would not venture wantonly to
indulge in; and yet Madame de Sévigné was not selfish or cruel: she was
passionately attached to her children, and ever ready to sympathize
with her friends, and she treated her servants and vassals with
kindness and indulgence.[2172]

It is to this want of affection and sympathy between the different
layers of society, together with the vain desire of keeping the blood
pure, that the prohibition of marriage out of the class, or the general
avoidance of such marriages, owes its origin. Among the Ahts, for
instance, who take great pride in honourable birth, a patrician loses
caste unless he marries a woman of corresponding rank, in his own or
another tribe.[2173] Among the Isthmians of Central America, the lords
married only the daughters of noble blood; and, in Guatemala, marriage
with a slave reduced the freeman to a slave’s condition.[2174] The
tribes of Brazil also consider such alliances highly disgraceful.[2175]

Nowhere are the different orders of society more distinctly separated
from each other than in the South Sea Islands. In the Marianne group,
it was the common belief that only the nobles were endowed with an
immortal soul; and a nobleman who married a girl of the people was
punished with death.[2176] In Polynesia also, the commoners were looked
upon by the nobility almost as a different species of beings.[2177]
Hence in the higher ranks marriage was concluded only between persons
of corresponding position; and if, in Tahiti, a woman of condition
chose an inferior person as a husband, the children he had by her were
killed.[2178] In the Indian Archipelago, marriages between persons
of different rank are, as a rule, disapproved, and in some places
they are prohibited.[2179] Among the Hovas of Madagascar, the three
great divisions—the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves,—with few
exceptions, cannot intermarry; neither do the three different classes
of slaves marry each other.[2180] Almost the same rule holds good for
the different orders of the Beni-Amer and Marea;[2181] whilst, among
the Tedâ, the smiths form an hereditary and utterly despised caste by
themselves, being obliged to marry solely with members of their own
caste.[2182] By several African peoples, however, slaves and freemen
are allowed to intermarry.[2183]

The Aenezes of Arabia never intermarry with the “szona,”
handicraftsmen or artizans; nor do they ever marry their daughters to
Fellahs, or to inhabitants of towns.[2184] In India, intermarriage
between different castes was in Manu’s time permissible, but is now
altogether prohibited. Of the original four castes, the Brahmans
alone have retained their purity to any extent, but there is an almost
endless number of trade-castes, resulting chiefly from associations
of men engaged in the same occupation.[2185] Moreover, as Sir Monier
Williams remarks, “we find castes within castes, so that even the
Brahmans are broken up and divided into numerous races, which again
are subdivided into numerous tribes, families, or sub-castes ... which
do not intermarry.”[2186] Class-endogamy prevails in Ceylon,[2187]
Siam,[2188] and Corea;[2189] and in the Chittagong district, when a
slave marries, the person chosen must be a slave.[2190] In China,
play-actors, policemen, boatmen, and slaves are not allowed to
marry women of any other class than that to which they respectively
belong.[2191] And in Japan, before the year 1868, when a new order
of things was introduced, the different classes of nobles were not
permitted to intermarry with each other or with common people.[2192]

In Europe there have been similar prohibitions. In Rome, plebeians
and patricians could not intermarry till the year 455 B.C., nor were
marriages allowed between patricians and clients. Cicero himself
disapproved of intermarriages of _ingenui_ and freedmen, and, though
such alliances were generally permitted under the Emperors, yet a
senator could not marry a freed-woman, nor a patroness her liberated
slave. Between freemen and slaves _contubernium_ could take place, but
not marriage.[2193] Among the Teutonic peoples, in ancient times, any
freeman who had intercourse with a slave was punished with slavery, and
a woman guilty of such a crime might be killed. In the Scandinavian
countries, slavery came to an end at a comparatively early period, but
in Germany it was succeeded by serfdom; and equality of birth continued
to be regarded as an indispensable condition of lawful marriage. As
late as the thirteenth century any German woman who had intercourse
with a serf lost her liberty.[2194] From the class of freemen, both
in Germany and in Scandinavia, the nobility gradually emerged as a
distinct order, and marriages between persons of noble birth and
persons who, although free, were not noble, came to be considered
misalliances.[2195] In Sweden, in the seventeenth century, such
marriages were punished.[2196]

Modern civilization tends to pull down the barriers which separate
the various classes of society, just as it tends to diminish the
differences in interests, habits, sentiments, and knowledge. Birth no
longer determines to the same extent as before a man’s social position,
and nobility has become a shadow of what it was. Thus there survive
but few traces of the former class-endogamy. According to German Civil
Law, the marriage of a man belonging to the high nobility with a woman
of inferior birth is still regarded as a _disparagium_; and the woman
is not entitled to the rank of her husband, nor is the full right of
inheritance possessed by her or by her children.[2197] Although in
no way prevented by law, marriages out of the class are generally
avoided by custom. “The outer or endogamous limit, within which a man
or woman must marry,” says Sir Henry Maine, “has been mostly taken
under the shelter of fashion or prejudice. It is but faintly traced in
England, though not wholly obscured. It is (or perhaps was) rather more
distinctly marked in the United States, through prejudices against the
blending of white and coloured blood. But in Germany certain hereditary
dignities are still forfeited by a marriage beyond the forbidden
limits; and in France, in spite of all formal institutions, marriages
between a person belonging to the _noblesse_ and a person belonging
to the _bourgeoisie_ (distinguished roughly from one another by the
particle ‘de’) are wonderfully rare, though they are not unknown.[2198]

Different nations, like the different classes of society, have been
gradually drawing nearer to each other. National prejudices have
diminished, and international sympathy has increased. During the
Middle Ages a foreigner was called in Germany “ein Elender,” because
he stood outside the law;[2199] to-day he enjoys the protection of
the law in all civilized countries, and is not as a foreigner an
object of prejudice. This widening of sympathy, and improved means of
communication, have of course made intermarriages between the several
nations much more common than they used to be.

Religion, finally, has formed a great bar to intermarriage. In British
India, the descendants of all the Mohammedan races—Arab, Iranian,
Turanian, Mongol, and Hindu converts—intermarry, but there are few
unions between Christian men and Mohammedan women.[2200] Indeed,
according to Mr. Lane, such a marriage is not permitted under any
circumstances, and cannot take place otherwise than by force. On the
other hand, it is held lawful for a Mohammedan to marry a Christian or
a Jewish woman, if induced to do so by excessive love of her, or if he
cannot obtain a wife of his own religion. In this case, however, the
offspring must follow the father’s faith, and the wife does not inherit
when the husband dies.[2201] Marriage with a heathen woman is never
permitted to a Mussulman.[2202]

It is mainly religion that has kept the Jews a relatively pure race.
“The Jew,” says Dr. Neubauer, “has no preference for, or any aversion
from, one race or another, provided he can marry a woman of his
religion, and _vice versa_.”[2203] Indeed, the Jewish law does not
recognize marriage with a person of another belief,[2204] though there
are instances of such marriages in the early days of Israel.[2205]
During the Middle Ages, marriage between Jews and Christians was
prohibited by the Christians also, and universally avoided.[2206]
“The folk-lore of Europe,” Mr. Jacobs remarks, “regarded the Jews as
something infra-human, and it would require an almost impossible amount
of large toleration for a Christian maiden of the Middle Ages to regard
union with a Jew as anything other than unnatural.” Mr. Jacobs thinks
it may be doubted whether even at the present day there is one mixed
marriage to five hundred pure Jewish marriages.[2207]

St. Paul indicates that a Christian was not allowed to marry a
heathen,[2208] and Tertullian calls such an alliance fornication.[2209]
In early times, the Church often encouraged marriages of this sort as
a means of propagating Christianity, and it was only when its success
was beyond doubt that it actually prohibited them.[2210] The Council
of Elvira expressly forbade Christian parents to give their daughters
in marriage to heathens, ordering that those who did so should be
excommunicated.[2211]

Even the adherents of different Christian confessions have been
prohibited from intermarrying. In the Roman Church the prohibition of
marriage with heathens and Jews (_impedimentum cultus disparitatis_)
was soon followed by the prohibition of “mixed marriages”
(_impedimentum mixtae religionis_); and the Protestants also originally
forbade such unions. The Greek Church, on the other hand, made in this
respect a distinction between _schismatici_, or those who dissent from
the Church in non-essential points only, and _haeretici_, or those who
dissent from its fundamental doctrines.[2212] Mixed marriages are not
now contrary to the civil law either in Roman Catholic or in Protestant
countries; but in countries belonging to the Orthodox Greek Church the
ecclesiastical restrictions have been adopted by the State. In Russia,
Greece, and Servia, Roman Catholics and Protestants are regarded as
_schismatici_ but in the Turkish countries as _haeretici_.[2213] It is
noteworthy that, in countries which are partly Roman Catholic, partly
Protestant, mixed marriages form only a comparatively small percentage
of the whole number of marriages.[2214]

In no respect has modern civilization acted more beneficently than as
a promoter of religious toleration. In our time difference of faith
discourages sympathy to a much less extent than it did in former ages.
Hence the number of mixed marriages everywhere tends to increase. In
Bavaria, for instance, they amounted in 1835-1850 to 2·8 per cent.
of the whole number of marriages, in 1850-1860 to 3·6 per cent., in
1860-1870 to 4·4 per cent., in 1870-1875 to 5·6 per cent., and in
1876-1877 to 6·6 per cent.[2215]

While, therefore, civilization has narrowed the inner limit, within
which a man or woman must not marry, it has widened the outer limit
within which a man or woman _may_ marry, and generally marries.
The latter of these processes has been one of vast importance in
man’s history. Originating in race-or caste-pride, or in religious
intolerance, the endogamous rules have, in their turn, helped to keep
up and strengthen these feelings. Law is by nature conservative,
maintaining sentiments developed under past conditions. It is only
by slow degrees that the ideas of a new time become strong enough to
release mankind from ancient prejudices.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have hitherto dealt only with the poetry of sexual selection—love;
now something is to be said of its prose—dry calculation. And we may
conveniently begin with man’s appreciation of woman’s fertility,
as this has some of the characteristics of an instinct. Desire for
offspring is universal in mankind. Abortion, indeed, is practised now
and then, and infanticide frequently takes place among many savage
peoples; but these facts do not disprove the general rule.

Speaking of the Crees, Chippewyans, and other Indians on the eastern
side of the Rocky Mountains, Harmon says that “all Indians are
very desirous of having a numerous offspring.”[2216] Among the
Ingaliks, “children are anxiously desired, even when women have
no husbands.”[2217] Among the Mayas, disappointed couples prayed
earnestly, and brought many offerings to propitiate the god whose
anger was supposed to have deferred their hopes.[2218] “Be numerous
in offspring and descendants,” is a frequent marriage benediction or
salutation in Madagascar; for to die without posterity is looked upon
as a great calamity, and is termed “dead as regards the eye.”[2219] A
negro considers childlessness the greatest disaster which can happen
to him;[2220] Bosman once asked one of the king’s captains in Fida how
many children he had, and he answered, sighing, that he was so unhappy
as not to have many—he could not pretend to have had above seventy,
including those who were dead. Among the Waganda and Wanyoro, great
rejoicings take place in the case of the birth of twins.[2221] The
Shaman heathens of Siberia regarded an abundance of children and cattle
as the most essential condition of a man’s happiness.[2222] “Honest
people have many children,” a Japanese proverb says;[2223] the Chinese
regard a large family of sons as a mark of the divine favour;[2224]
and to become the father of a son is described in Indian poems as the
greatest happiness which may fall to the share of a mortal.[2225] In
Persia, childlessness is considered the most horrible calamity.[2226]
One of the chief blessings that Moses in the name of God promised the
Israelites was a numerous progeny; and the ancient Romans regarded the
procreation of legitimate children as the real end of marriage.[2227]
“He who has no children, has no happiness either,” the South
Slavonians say;[2228] and German folk-lore compares a marriage without
offspring with a world without sun.[2229]

A woman therefore is valued not only as a wife but as a mother.
Nowhere has greater stress been laid on this idea than in ancient
Lacedaemon. A husband, if he considered that the unfruitfulness of
the marriage was owing to himself, gave his matrimonial rights to a
younger man, whose child then belonged to the husband’s family; and
to the wives of men who, for example, fell in battle before having
children, other men, probably slaves, were assigned, that there might
be heirs and successors to the deceased husband.[2230] Among many
peoples the respect in which a woman is held is proportionate to
her fecundity,[2231] and a barren wife is frequently despised as an
unnatural and useless being.[2232] In Angola, according to Livingstone,
in the native dances, “when any one may wish to deride another, in the
accompanying song a line is introduced, 'So and so has no children, and
never will get any.’” The offended woman feels the insult so keenly
that it is not uncommon for her to rush away and commit suicide.[2233]
Among the Creeks, a man always calls his wife his son’s mother;[2234]
and, among the Todas, in addressing a man with the casual question,
“Are you married?” the ordinary way of putting it would be to say,
“Is there a son?”[2235]

It is obvious, then, that fecundity must be one of the qualities which
a man most eagerly requires from his bride. Mr. Reade tells us that,
in certain parts of Africa, especially in malarious localities, where
women are so frequently sterile, no one cares to marry a girl till she
has borne a child; and among the Votyaks, according to Dr. Buch, a girl
gets married sooner if she is a mother.[2236]

We have seen several instances of husband and wife not living together
as married people before the birth of a child. Among the Creeks,
marriages were contracted for a year, but if they proved fruitful,
they were, as a rule, renewed.[2237] Again, with regard to an order of
the Essenes, Josephus states that, considering succession to be the
principal part of human life, they tried their spouses for three years,
and then married them only if there was a prospect of the union being
fruitful.[2238] Among many peoples it is the practice for a man to
repudiate a barren wife.

The desire for offspring, with its consequence, the appreciation of
female fecundity, is due to various causes. First, there is in man
an instinct for reproduction. Mr. Marshall remarks, “Of this desire
for progeny I have seen many examples amongst the Todas, so strongly
marked, but to all appearances apart from the sense of personal
ambition, and separate from any demands of religion or requirements for
support in old age, as to give the impression that it was the primitive
faculty of Philoprogenitiveness, acting so insensibly, naturally, as
to have the character more of a plain instinct, than of an intelligent
human feeling.”[2239] With this instinct a feeling of parental pride
is associated. “Children,” says Hobbes, “are a man’s power and his
honour.”[2240]

Among the Hebrews and the ancient Aryan nations, the desire for
offspring, particularly sons, had its root chiefly in religious belief,
being a natural outcome of the idea that the spirits of the dead were
made happy by homage received at the hands of their male posterity.
The same is the case with the Chinese[2241] and Japanese,[2242] and
perhaps, to a certain extent, with some peoples at a lower stage of
civilization. The savage believes that the life which goes on after
death, differs in nothing from this life, that wants and pursuits
remain as before, that consequently the dead man’s spirit eats and
drinks, and needs fire for warmth and cooking. It is, of course, his
surviving descendants who have to see that he is well provided for in
these respects. Hence the offerings to deceased ancestors for various
periods after death and the feasts for the dead.[2243] Among the
Thlinkets according to Holmberg, it sometimes happens that a man spends
his whole fortune as well as his wife’s marriage portion on such a
feast, and has to live as a poor man for the rest of his life.[2244]

But no doubt children are most eagerly longed for by savage men because
they are of use to him in his lifetime. They are easily supported when
young, and in times of want they may be left to die or be sold. When
a few years old, the sons become able to hunt, fish, and paddle, and
later on they are their father’s companions in war. The daughters help
their mother to provide food, and, when grown up, they are lucrative
objects of trade. Finally, when old, the parents would often suffer
want had they not their children to support them.[2245] Hence, in
a savage condition of life, children are the chief wealth of the
family. And the same is the case at somewhat higher stages of social
development. Mr. Lane remarks that, in Egypt, “at the age of five or
six years, the children become of use to tend the flocks and herds; and
at a more advanced age, until they marry, they assist their fathers in
the operations of agriculture. The poor in Egypt have often to depend
entirely upon their sons for support in their old age; but many parents
are deprived of these aids, and consequently reduced to beggary, or
almost to starvation.”[2246] To a certain extent, this holds good for
the uneducated classes in Europe also.

With the progress of civilization the desire for offspring has
become less intense. The religious motive has of course died out in
the Christian world, and, in proportion as social life becomes more
complicated, and a professional education becomes more necessary for
success in the struggle for existence, children, at least in “the
upper classes” and among towns-people, put their parents to expense
instead of being a source of wealth. A childless couple may indeed,
deplore the absence of children; but a woman is no longer held in
respect only, or principally, as a mother; and marriage, according to
modern ideas, is something more than an institution for the procreation
of legitimate offspring. Yet it is remarkable that, in Switzerland,
although barrenness is no sufficient reason for a man to repudiate his
wife, two-fifths of the total number of divorces take place between
married people who have no children whilst the sterile marriages amount
only to one-fifth of the number of marriages.[2247]

A wife is of use to her husband not merely because she gives him
labourers, but also because she herself is a labourer. Drying
and preparing fish and meat, lighting and attending to the fire,
transporting baggage, picking berries, dressing hides and making
clothes, cooking food and taking care of the children—these are, in
the savage state, the chief pursuits of a wife. Among agricultural
and cattle-farming peoples, she has besides, to cultivate the soil
and to tend the cattle. A wife, therefore, is chosen partly because
of her ability to perform such duties. Thus, among the Greenlanders,
cleverness in sewing and skill in the management of household affairs
are the most attractive qualities of a woman.[2248] Among other Eskimo
tribes and in Tierra del Fuego, middle-aged men will connect themselves
with old women who are best able to take care of their common
comforts.[2249] The Inland Columbians, according to Mr. Bancroft, make
“capacity for work the standard of female excellence;”[2250] and,
among the Turkomans, young widows fetch double the price of spinsters,
because they are more accustomed to hard labour, and more experienced
in household concerns.[2251]

A husband’s function is to protect his family from enemies and to
prevent them falling into distress. A woman, as we have already seen,
even instinctively prefers a courageous and strong man to one who is
cowardly and feeble. But reflection also makes her choose a man who
is well able to defend her and to provide food. Among the Comanches,
says Mr. Parker, “young girls are not averse to marry very old men,
particularly if they are chiefs, as they are always sure of something
to eat.”[2252]

At more advanced stages of civilization, money and inherited property
often take the place of skill, strength, and working ability. Thus,
wife-purchase and husband-purchase, still persist in modern society,
though in disguised forms.




CHAPTER XVII

MARRIAGE BY CAPTURE AND MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE


The practice of capturing wives prevails in various parts of the world,
and traces of it are met with in the marriage ceremonies of several
peoples, indicating that it occurred much more frequently in past ages.

Speaking of the inhabitants of Unimak, Coxe says that they invaded the
other Aleutian islands, and carried off women—the chief object of their
incursions.[2253] Among the Ahts, a man occasionally steals a wife
from the women of his own tribe;[2254] whilst the Bonaks of California
usually take women in battle from other tribes, and the Macas Indians
of Ecuador acquire wives by purchase, if the woman belongs to the
same tribe, but otherwise by force.[2255] All the Carib tribes used
to capture women from different peoples and tribes, so that the men
and women nowhere spoke the same tongue;[2256] and v. Martius states
that, in Brazil, “some tribes habitually steal their neighbours’
daughters.”[2257]

Among the Mosquito Indians, after the wedding is all arranged and
the presents paid, the bridegroom seizes his bride and carries her
off, followed by her female relatives, who pretend to try to rescue
her.[2258] The Araucanians considered the carrying off of the bride by
pretended violence an essential prerequisite to the nuptials, and,
according to Mr. E. R. Smith, it is even “a point of honour with the
bride to resist and struggle, however willing she may be.”[2259] The
Uaupés “have no particular ceremony at their marriages, except that of
always carrying away the girl by force, or making a show of doing so,
even when she and her parents are quite willing.”[2260] Almost the same
is said of the Fuegians, though among them the capture is sometimes
more than a ceremony.[2261]

Andersson remarks that, among the Bushmans, woman is only too often
_belli teterrima causa_.[2262] Speaking of the Bechuanas, Mr. Conder
says, “As regards wedding ceremonies, there is one of casting an
arrow into the hut by the bridegroom, which is worthy of notice
as symbolic.”[2263] Among the Wakamba, marriage is an affair of
purchase, but the bridegroom “must then carry off the bride by force
or stratagem.”[2264] The Wa-taïta and Wa-chaga of Eastern Equatorial
Africa have also a marriage ceremony of capture;[2265] and the like is
the case with the Inland Negroes mentioned by Lord Kames,[2266] and the
Abyssinians.[2267] Among the tribes of Eastern Central Africa described
by Mr. Macdonald, marriage by capture occurs not as a symbol only.[2268]

According to a common belief, the Australian method of obtaining
wives is capture in its most brutal form.[2269] But contrary to Mr.
Howitt,[2270] Mr. Curr informs us that only on rare occasions is a wife
captured from another tribe, and carried off.[2271] The possession of
a stolen woman would lead to constant attacks, hence the tribes set
themselves very generally against the practice.[2272] Even elopements,
according to Mr. Mathew, are now usually more fictitious than
real;[2273] but there are strong reasons for believing that formerly,
when the continent was only partially occupied, elopements from within
the tribe frequently occurred.[2274]

In Tasmania the capture of women for wives from hostile and alien
tribes was generally prevalent.[2275] Among the Maoris, the ancient and
most general way of obtaining a wife was for the man to get together
a party of his friends and carry off the woman by force, apparent or
actual.[2276] A similar practice occurs on the larger islands of the
Fiji Group,[2277] in Samoa,[2278] Tukopia,[2279] New Guinea,[2280]
and extremely frequently in the Indian Archipelago,[2281] and among
the wild tribes of India.[2282] Among the Arabs,[2283] Tartars,[2284]
and other peoples of Central Asia, as also in European Russia,[2285]
traces of capture occur in the marriage ceremony, whilst the
Tangutans,[2286] Samoyedes,[2287] Votyaks,[2288] &c.,[2289] are still
in the habit of stealing wives, or elope with their sweethearts, if
the bridegroom cannot afford to pay the fixed purchase-sum. Among
the Laplanders,[2290] Esthonians,[2291] and Finns,[2292] marriage
by capture occurred in former days, and in some parts of Finland
symbolical traces of it in the marriage ceremony have been found in
modern times.[2293]

The same practice prevailed among the peoples of the Aryan race.
According to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ one of the eight legal forms of
the marriage ceremony was the Râkshasa rite, _i.e._, “the forcible
abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps,
after her kinsmen have been slain or wounded, and their houses broken
open.” This rite was permitted for the Kshatriyas by the sacred
tradition.[2294] According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, marriage by
capture was at one time customary throughout ancient Greece;[2295]
and, as Plutarch informs us, it was retained by the Spartans as an
important symbol in the marriage ceremony.[2296] Even now, according
to Sakellarios, capture of wives occasionally occurs in Greece.[2297]
Among the Romans, the bride fled to the lap of her mother, and was
carried off by force by the bridegroom and his friends.[2298] In the
historical age this was a ceremony only, but at an earlier time the
capture seems to have been a reality. “Les premiers Romains,” says
M. Ortolan, “d’après leurs traditions héroïques, ont été obligés
de recourir à la surprise et à la force pour enlever leurs premières
femmes.”[2299] The ancient Teutons frequently captured women for
wives.[2300] Speaking of the Scandinavian nations, Olaus Magnus says
that they were continually at war with one another, “propter raptas
virgines aut arripiendas.”[2301] Among the Welsh, on the morning of the
wedding-day, the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends on horseback,
carried off the bride.[2302] The Slavs in early times, according to
Nestor, practised marriage by capture;[2303] and in the marriage
ceremonies of the Russians and other Slavonian nations, reminiscences
of this custom still survive.[2304] Indeed, among the South Slavonians,
capture _de facto_ was in full force no longer ago than the beginning
of the present century.[2305] According to Olaus Magnus, it prevailed
in Muscovy, Lithuania, and Livonia;[2306] and, according to Seignior
de Gaya, the symbol of it occurred in his time in Poland, Prussia, and
Samogithia.[2307]

The list of peoples among whom marriage by capture occurs, either as
a reality or as a symbol, might easily be enlarged.[2308] There are
peoples, however, who seem to have nothing of the kind. As regards the
Chinese, Mr. Jamieson says, “Of the capture of wives there is, as far
as I am aware, historically no trace, nor is the form to be found among
any of the ceremonies of marriage with which I am acquainted.”[2309]
Moreover, it is doubtful whether the ceremonies given as instances of
symbolical capture are, in every case, survivals of capture _de facto_,
in the real sense of the term, that is, taking the woman against not
only her own will, but that of her parents. Mr. Spencer suggests
that one origin of the form of capture may be the resistance of the
pursued woman, due to coyness, partly real and partly assumed;[2310]
and, though this suggestion has been much attacked, it can scarcely be
disproved. On the East Coast of Greenland, according to Dr. Nansen,
the only method of contracting a marriage is still for the man to
go to the girl’s tent, catch her by the hair or anything else which
offers a hold, and drag her off to his dwelling without further ado.
Violent scenes are often the result, as single women always affect the
utmost bashfulness and aversion to any proposal of marriage, lest they
should lose their reputation for modesty. But “the woman’s relations
meanwhile stand quietly looking on, as the struggle is considered a
purely private affair, and the natural desire of the Greenlander to
stand on a good footing with his neighbour prevents him from attempting
any interference with another’s business.”[2311] Again, according to
Mr. Abercromby, marriage _with_ capture—by which he understands capture
of a bride, associated with some other form of marriage, such as that
by purchase—may be regarded rather as a result of the innate universal
desire to display courage, than as a survival of a still older practice
of taking women captive in time of war.[2312]

Mr. McLennan thinks that marriage by capture arose from the rule of
exogamy. But there are peoples—the Maoris, Ahts, &c.—among whom this
practice occurs or has remained as a symbol, who are, nevertheless,
what Mr. McLennan would call endogamous. We are not entitled to say
that, “wherever exogamy can be found, we may confidently expect
to find, after due investigation, at least traces of a system of
capture.”[2313] On reckoning up the peoples among whom the combination
of capture and exogamy is met with, Dr. Tylor observes that the number,
“though enough to show that they coexist freely, falls short of what
would justify the inference that they are cause and effect.”[2314]

It seems to me extremely probable that the practice of capturing
women for wives is due chiefly to the aversion to close
intermarriage—existing, as we have seen, among endogamous tribes
also,—together with the difficulty a savage man has in procuring a
wife in a friendly manner, without giving compensation for the loss
he inflicts on her father. Being something quite different from the
wrestling for wives, already mentioned as the most primitive method
of courtship, marriage by capture flourished at that stage of social
growth when family ties had become stronger, and man lived in small
groups of nearly related persons, but when the idea of barter had
scarcely occurred to his mind.[2315] From the universality of the
horror of incest, and from the fact that primitive hordes were in a
chronic state of warfare with one another, the general prevalence of
this custom may be easily explained. But as it is impossible to believe
that there ever was a time when friendly negotiations between families
who could intermarry were altogether unknown, we cannot suppose that
capture was at any period the exclusive form of contracting marriage,
although it may have been the normal form. In Australia, where
marriage by capture takes place between members of hostile communities
only,[2316] we are aware of no tribe—exogamous or endogamous—living in
a state of absolute isolation. On the contrary, every tribe entertains
constant relations, for the most part amicable, with one, two, or
more tribes; and marriages between their members are the rule.[2317]
Moreover, the custom, prevalent among many savage tribes, of a husband
taking up his abode in his wife’s family seems to have arisen very
early in man’s history. And Dr. Tylor’s schedules show that there are
in different parts of the world even twelve or thirteen well-marked
exogamous peoples among whom this habit occurs.[2318]

       *       *       *       *       *

As appears from the instances quoted, the practice of capturing wives
is, in the main, a thing of the past. Among most existing uncivilized
peoples a man has, in some way or other, to give compensation for his
bride.[2319] Marriage by capture has been succeeded by marriage by
purchase.

The simplest way of purchasing a wife is no doubt to give a kinswoman
in exchange for her. “The Australian male,” says Mr. Curr, “almost
invariably obtains his wife or wives, either as a survivor of a
married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life
for his daughters.”[2320] A similar exchange is sometimes effected in
Sumatra.[2321]

Much more common is the custom of obtaining a wife by services rendered
to her father. The man goes to live with the family of the girl for a
certain time, during which he works as a servant. This practice, with
which Hebrew tradition has familiarized us, is widely diffused among
the uncivilized races of America,[2322] Africa,[2323] Asia,[2324] and
the Indian Archipelago.[2325] Often it is only those men who are too
poor to pay cash that serve in the father-in-law’s house till they have
given an equivalent in labour; but sometimes not even money can save
the bridegroom from this sort of servitude.[2326] In some cases he has
to serve his time before he is allowed to marry the girl; in others he
gets her in advance. Again, among several peoples, already mentioned,
the man goes over to the woman’s family or tribe to live there for
ever; but Dr. Starcke suggests that this custom has a different origin
from the other, being an expression of the strong clan sentiment, and
not a question of gain.[2327]

According to Mr. Spencer, the obtaining of wives by services
rendered, instead of by property paid, constitutes a higher form
of marriage, and is developed along with the industrial type of
society. “This modification,” he says, “practicable with difficulty
among rude predatory tribes becomes more practicable as there arise
established industries affording spheres in which services may be
rendered.”[2328] But it should be noticed that, even at a very low
stage of civilization, a man may help his father-in-law in fishing and
hunting, whilst industrial work promotes accumulation of property, and
consequently makes it easier for the man to acquire his wife by real
purchase. We find also the practice of serving for wives prevalent
among such rude races as the Fuegians and the Bushmans; and, in the
‘Eyrbyggja Saga,’ Vîgstyr says to the berserk Halli, who asked for the
hand of his daughter Âsdî, “As you are a poor man, I shall do as the
ancients did and let you deserve your marriage by hard work.”[2329] It
seems then, almost probable that marriage by services is a more archaic
form than marriage by purchase; but generally they occur simultaneously.

The most common compensation for a bride is property paid to her owner.
Her price varies indefinitely. A pretty, healthy, and able-bodied girl
commands of course a better price than one who is ugly and weak;[2330]
a girl of rank, a better price than one who is mean and poor;[2331] a
virgin, generally a better than a widow or a repudiated wife.[2332]
Among the Californian Karok, for instance, a wife is seldom purchased
for less than half a string of dentalium shell, but “when she
belongs to an aristocratic family, is pretty, and skillful in making
acorn-bread and weaving baskets, she sometimes costs as high as two
strings.”[2333] The bride-price however, varies most according to the
circumstances of the parties, and according to the value set on female
labour. In British Columbia and Vancouver Island, the value of the
articles given for the bride ranges from £20 to £40 sterling.[2334]
The Indians of Oregon buy their wives for horses, blankets, or buffalo
robes.[2335] Among the Shastika in California, “a wife is purchased
of her father for shell-money or horses, ten or twelve cayuse ponies
being paid for a maid of great attractions.”[2336] Again, the Navajos
of New Mexico consider twelve horses so exorbitant a price for a wife,
that it is paid only for “one possessing unusual qualifications, such
as beauty, industry, and skill in their necessary employments”;[2337]
and the Patagonians give mares, horses, or silver ornaments for the
bride.[2338]

In Africa, not horses but cattle are considered the most proper
equivalent for a good wife. Among the Kaffirs, three, five, or ten
cows are a low price, twenty or thirty a rather high; but, according
to Barrow, a man frequently obtained a wife for an ox or a couple of
cows.[2339] The Damaras are so poor a people that they are often glad
to take one cow for a daughter.[2340] Among the Banyai, many heads of
cattle or goats are given to induce the parents of the girl “to give
her up,” as it is termed, _i.e._, to forgo all claim on her offspring,
for if nothing is given, the family from which she comes can claim
the children as part of itself.[2341] In Uganda, the ordinary price
of a wife is either three or four bullocks, six sewing needles, or a
small box of percussion caps, but Mr. Wilson was often offered one in
exchange for a coat or a pair of shoes.[2342] In the Mangoni country,
two skins of a buck are considered a fair price,[2343] and among the
Negroes of Bondo, a goat;[2344] whereas, among the Mandingoes, as
we are told by Caillié, no wife is to be had otherwise than by the
presentation of slaves to the parents of the mistress.[2345]

The Chulims paid from five to fifty roubles for a wife, the Turalinzes
usually from five to ten.[2346] Rich Bashkirs pay sometimes even
3,000 roubles, but the poorest may buy a wife for a cart-load of wood
or hay.[2347] In Tartary, parents sell a daughter for some horses,
oxen, sheep, or pounds of butter; among the Samoyedes and Ostyaks,
for a certain number of reindeer.[2348] Among the Indian Kisáns,
“two baskets of rice and a rupee in cash constitute the compensatory
offering given to the parents of the girl.”[2349] Among the Mishmis, a
rich man gives for a wife twenty mithuns (a kind of oxen), but a poor
man can get a wife for a pig.[2350] In Timor-laut, according to Mr.
Forbes, “no wife can be purchased without elephants’ tusks.”[2351]
In the Caroline Islands, “the man makes a present to the father of
the girl whom he marries, consisting of fruits, fish, and similar
things!”[2352] In Samoa, the bride-price included canoes, pigs, and
foreign property of any kind which might fall into their hands;[2353]
and, among the Fijians, “the usual price is a whale’s tooth, or a
musket.”[2354]

Among some peoples marriage may take place on credit, though,
generally, the wife and her children cannot leave the parental home
until the price is paid in full.[2355] In Unyoro, according to Emin
Pasha, when a poor man is unable to procure the cattle required for
his marriage at once, he may, by agreement with the bride’s father,
pay them by instalments; the children, however, born in the meantime
belong to the wife’s father, and each of them must be redeemed with a
cow.[2356]

Marriage by exchange or purchase is not only generally prevalent among
existing lower races; it occurs, or formerly occurred, among civilized
nations as well. In Central America and Peru, a man had to serve for
his bride.[2357] In China, a present is given by the father of the
suitor, the amount of which is not left to the goodwill of the parties,
as the term “present” would suggest, but is exactly stipulated for
by the negotiators of the marriage; hence, as Mr. Jamieson remarks,
it is no doubt a survival of the time when the transaction was one of
ordinary bargain.[2358] In Japan, the proposed husband sends certain
prescribed presents to his future bride, and this sending of presents
forms one of the most important parts of the marriage ceremony. In
fact, when once the presents have been sent and accepted, the contract
is completed, and neither party can retract. Mr. Küchler says he has
been unable to find out the exact meaning of these presents: the
native books on marriage are silent on the subject, and the Japanese
themselves have no other explanation to give than that the custom has
been handed down from ancient times.[2359] But from the facts recorded
in the next chapter it is evident that the sending of presents is a
relic of a previous custom of marrying by purchase.

In all branches of the Semitic race men had to buy or serve for
their wives, the “mohar” or “mahr” being originally the same as a
purchase-sum.[2360] In the Books of Ruth and Hosea, the bridegroom
actually says that he has bought the bride;[2361] and the modern
Jews, according to Michaelis, have a sham purchase among their
marriage ceremonies, which is called “marrying by the penny.”[2362]
In Mohammedan countries marriage differs but little from a real
purchase.[2363] The same custom prevailed among the Chaldeans,
Babylonians,[2364] and Assyrians.[2365]

Speaking of the ancient Finns, the Finnish philologist and traveller,
Castrén, remarks, “There are many reasons for believing that a cap
full of silver and gold was one of the best proxies in wooing among our
ancestors.”[2366] Evident traces of marriage by purchase are, indeed,
found in the ‘Kalevala’ and the ‘Kanteletar’;[2367] and, in parts of
Finland, symbols of it are still left in the marriage ceremony.[2368]
Among the East Finnish peoples, marriage by purchase exists even now,
or did so till quite lately.[2369]

Wife purchase, as Dr. Winternitz remarks, was the basis of
Indo-European marriage before the separation of peoples took
place.[2370] The Hindu bride, in Vedic times, had to be won by rich
presents to the future father-in-law;[2371] and one of the eight
forms of marriage mentioned, though disapproved of, by Manu—the Âsura
form—was marriage by purchase. According to Dubois, to marry and to
buy a wife are in India synonymous terms.[2372] Aristotle tells us
that the ancient Greeks were in the habit of purchasing wives,[2373]
and in the Homeric age a maid was called “ἀλφεσίβοια,” _i.e._, one
“who yields her parents many oxen as presents from her suitor.”
Among the Thracians, according to Herodotus, marriage was contracted
by purchase.[2374] So also throughout Teutonic antiquity.[2375] The
ancient Scandinavians believed that even the gods had bought their
wives.[2376] In Germany, the expression “to purchase a wife” was in
use till the end of the Middle Ages, and we find the same term in
Christian IV.'s Norwegian Law of 1604.[2377] As late as the middle of
the sixteenth century the English preserved in their marriage ritual
traces of this ancient legal procedure;[2378] whilst in Thuringia,
according to Franz Schmidt, the betrothal ceremony even to this day
indicates its former occurrence.[2379]

Purchase, as Dr. Schrader remarks, cannot with equal certainty be
established as the oldest form of marriage on Roman soil.[2380] But
the symbolical process of _coemptio_—the form of marriage among the
plebeians—preserved a reminiscence of the original custom in force
if not at Rome, at least among the ancestors of the Romans.[2381] In
Ireland and Wales, in ancient times, the bride-price consisted usually
of articles of gold, silver, and bronze, sometimes even of land.[2382]
The Slavs, also, used to buy their wives;[2383] and, among the South
Slavonians, the custom of purchasing the bride still partially
prevails, or recently did so. In Servia, at the beginning of the
present century, the price of girls reached such a height that Black
George limited it to one ducat.[2384]

In spite of this general prevalence of marriage by purchase, we have
no evidence that it is a stage through which every race has passed. It
must be observed, first, that in sundry tribes the presents given by
the bridegroom are intended not exactly to compensate the parents for
the bride, but rather to dispose them favourably to the match. Colonel
Dalton says, for example, that, among the Pádams, one of the lowest
peoples of India, it is customary for a lover to show his inclinations
whilst courting by presenting his sweetheart and her parents with small
delicacies, such as field mice and squirrels, though the parents seldom
interfere with the young couple’s designs, and it would be regarded as
an indelible disgrace to barter a child’s happiness for money.[2385]
The Ainos of Yesso, says Mr. Bickmore, “do not buy their wives, but
make presents to the parents of saki, tobacco, and fish;”[2386] and the
amount of these gifts is never settled beforehand.[2387] The game and
fruits given by the bridegroom immediately before marriage, among the
Puris, Coroados, and Coropos, seem to v. Martius to be rather a proof
of his ability to keep a wife than a means of exchange; whereas the
more civilized tribes of the Brazilian aborigines carry on an actual
trade in women.[2388]

Speaking of the Yukonikhotana, a tribe of Alaska, Petroff states
that the custom of purchasing wives does not exist among them.[2389]
The Californian Wintun, who rank among the lower types of the race,
generally pay nothing for their brides.[2390] The Niam-Niam and some
other African peoples,[2391] most of the Chittagong Hill tribes,[2392]
the aboriginal inhabitants of Kola and Kobroor, of the Aru Archipelago,
who live in trees or caves,[2393] and apparently also the Andamanese
are in the habit of marrying without making any payment for the bride.
Among the Veddahs, according to M. Le Mesurier, no marriage presents
are given on either side,[2394] but Mr. Hartshorne states that “a
marriage is attended with no ceremony beyond the presentation of some
food to the parents of the bride.”[2395]

In Ponapé, says Dr. Finsch, marriage is not based on purchase;[2396]
but this is contrary to the general custom in the Carolines,[2397]
as also in the adjacent Pelew Islands,[2398] where women are bought
as wives by means of presents to the father. In the Kingsmill Group,
according to Wilkes, “a wife is never bought, but it is generally
supposed that each party will contribute something towards the
household stock.”[2399] With regard to the Hawaiians, Ellis remarks,
“We are not aware that the parents of the woman received anything from
the husband, or gave any dowry with the wife.”[2400] And Mr. Angas even
asserts that the practice of purchasing wives is not generally adopted
in Polynesia.[2401] But the statement is doubtful, as, at least in
Samoa,[2402] Tahiti,[2403] and Nukahiva,[2404] the bridegroom gains the
bride by presents to her father. And in Melanesia marriage by purchase
is certainly universal.[2405] Among the South Australian Kurnai,
according to Mr. Howitt, marriages were brought about “most frequently
by elopement, less frequently by capture, and least frequently by
exchange or by gift.”[2406]

Purchase of wives may, with even more reason than marriage by capture,
be said to form a general stage in the social history of man. Although
the two practices often occur simultaneously, the former has, as a
rule, succeeded the latter, as barter in general has followed upon
robbery. The more recent character of marriage by purchase appears
clearly from the fact that marriage by capture very frequently occurs
as a symbol where marriage by purchase occurs as a reality. Moreover,
there can be little doubt that barter and commerce are comparatively
late inventions of man.

Dr. Peschel, indeed, contends that barter existed in those ages in
which we find the earliest signs of our race. But we have no evidence
that it was in this way that the cave-dwellers of Périgord, of the
reindeer period, obtained the rock crystals, the Atlantic shells, and
the horns of the Polish Saiga antelope, which have been found in their
settlements; and we may not in any case, conclude that “commerce has
existed in all ages, and among all inhabitants of the world.”[2407]
There are even in modern times instances of savage peoples who seem to
have a very vague idea of barter, or perhaps none at all. Concerning
certain Solomon Islanders, Labillardière states, “We could not learn
whether these people are in the habit of making exchanges; but it is
very certain that it was impossible for us to obtain anything from
them in this way; ... yet they were very eager to receive everything
that we gave them.”[2408] For some time after Captain Weddell began
to associate with the Fuegians, they gave him any small article he
expressed a wish for, without asking any return; but afterwards they
“acquired an idea of barter.”[2409] Nor did the Australians whom Cook
saw, and the Patagonians visited by Captain Wallis in 1766, understand
traffic, though they now understand it.[2410] Again, with regard to the
Andamanese Mr. Man remarks, “They set no fixed value on their various
properties, and rarely make or procure anything with the express
object of disposing of it in barter. Apparently they prefer to regard
their transactions as presentations, for their mode of negotiating
is to _give_ such objects as are desired by another in the hope of
receiving in return something for which they have expressed a wish, it
being tacitly understood that unless otherwise mentioned beforehand,
no ‘present’ is to be accepted without an equivalent being rendered.
The natural consequence of this system is that most of the quarrels
which so frequently occur among them originate in failure on the part
of the recipient in making such a return as had been confidently
expected.”[2411] It must also be noted that those uncivilized peoples
among whom marriage by purchase does not occur are, for the most part,
exceedingly rude races.

As M. Koenigswarter[2412] and Mr. Spencer[2413] have suggested, the
transition from marriage by capture to marriage by purchase was
probably brought about in the following way: abduction, in spite
of parents, was the primary form; then there came the offering of
compensation to escape vengeance; and this grew eventually into the
making of presents beforehand. Thus, among the Ahts, according to Mr.
Sproat, when a man steals a wife, a purchase follows, “as the friends
of the woman must be pacified with presents.”[2414] In New Guinea[2415]
and Bali,[2416] as also among the Chukmas[2417] and Araucanians,[2418]
it often happens that the bridegroom carries off, or elopes with, his
bride, and afterwards pays a compensation-price to her parents. Among
the Bodo and Mech, who still preserve the form of forcible abduction in
their marriage ceremony, the successful lover, after having captured
the girl, gives a feast to the bride’s friends and with a present
conciliates the father, who is supposed to be incensed.[2419] The same
is reported of the Maoris,[2420] whilst among the Tangutans, according
to Prejevalsky, the ravisher who has stolen his neighbour’s wife pays
the husband a good sum as compensation, but keeps the wife.[2421]

It is a matter of no importance in this connection that among certain
peoples, the price of the bride is paid not to the father, but to
some other nearly related person, especially an uncle,[2422] or to
some other relatives as well as to the father.[2423] In any case
the price is to be regarded as a compensation for the loss sustained
in the giving up of the girl, and as a remuneration for the expenses
incurred in her maintenance till the time of her marriage.[2424]
Sometimes, as among several negro peoples, daughters are trained for
the purpose of being disposed of at a profit; but this is a modern
invention, irreconcilable with savage ideas. Thus, among the Kafirs,
the practice of making an express bargain about women hardly prevailed
in the first quarter of this century, and the verb applied to the act
of giving cattle for a girl, according to Mr. Shooter, involves not the
idea of an actual trade, but rather that of reward for her birth and
nurture.[2425]

To most savages there seems nothing objectionable in marriage by
purchase. On the contrary, Mr. Bancroft states that the Indians in
Columbia consider it in the highest degree disgraceful to the girl’s
family, if she is given away without a price;[2426] and, in certain
tribes of California, “the children of a woman for whom no money was
paid are accounted no better than bastards, and the whole family are
contemned.”[2427] It was left for a higher civilization to raise women
from this state of debasement. In the next chapter we shall consider
the process by which marriage ceased to be a purchase contract, and
woman an object of trade.




CHAPTER XVIII

THE DECAY OF MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE. THE MARRIAGE PORTION


It has often been said that the position of women is the surest gauge
of a people’s civilization. This assertion, though not absolutely,
is approximately true. The evolution of altruism is one of the chief
elements in human progress, and consideration for the weaker sex is one
of the chief elements in the evolution of altruism.

According as more elevated ideas regarding women grew up among the
so-called civilized peoples, the practice of purchasing wives was
gradually abandoned, and came to be looked upon as infamous. The
wealthier classes took the first step, and poorer and ruder persons
followed their example. It is of no little interest to follow the
course of this process.

In India, in ancient times, the Âsura form, or marriage by purchase,
was lawful for all the four castes. Afterwards it fell into disrepute,
and was prohibited among the Brahmans and Kshatriyas, but it was
approved of in the case of a Vaiśya and of a Śudra. Manu forbade it
altogether.[2428] “No father who knows the law,” he says, “must take
even the smallest gratuity for his daughter; for a man who, through
avarice, takes a gratuity, is a seller of his offspring.”[2429]
Purchase survived as a symbol only in the Ârsha form, according to
which the bridegroom sent a cow and a bull or two pairs to the
bride’s father.[2430] Manu expressly condemns those who call this
gift a gratuity;[2431] hence the Ârsha form was counted by Manu and
other lawgivers as one of the legitimate modes of marriage.[2432]
The Greeks of the historical age had ceased to buy their wives; and
in Rome, _confarreatio_, which suggested no idea of purchase, was in
the very earliest known time the form of marriage in force among the
patricians. Among clients and plebeians also, the purchase of wives
came to an end in remote antiquity, surviving as a mere symbol in their
_coemptio_.[2433] Among the Germans, according to Grimm, it was only
Christianity that abolished marriage by purchase.[2434] Laferrière
and Koenigswarter think it prevailed among the Saxons as late as the
reign of Charles the Great, and that in England it was prohibited by
Cnut.[2435] In _Lex Alamannorum_, _Lex Ripuariorum_, ‘Grâgâs,’ and
the Norwegian laws, real purchase money is not spoken of; and there is
reason to believe that the “mundr,” mentioned in the elder ‘Gula-lag’
had gradually lost its original meaning of price for a bride.[2436]

In the Talmudic law, the purchase of wives appears as merely symbolic,
the bride-price being fixed at a nominal amount.[2437] The Mohammedan
“mahr” is also frequently merely nominal.[2438] Among the Finns,
the purchase of wives had disappeared in the remote times when their
popular songs originated.[2439] Though it still was usual for a
bridegroom to give presents to his bride and her parents, passages
in the songs indicate that not even the memory of a real purchase
survived.[2440] In China, although marriage presents correspond
exactly to purchase-money in a contract of sale, the people will not
hear of their being called a “price”;[2441] which shows that, among
them also, some feeling of shame is attached to the idea of selling a
daughter.

We may discern two different ways in which this gradual disappearance
of marriage by purchase has taken place. It has been suggested that the
sum with which the bridegroom bought the bride became a payment for
the guardianship of her.[2442] However this may be, the purchase-money
became in time smaller and smaller, and took in many cases the form of
more or less arbitrary presents. Only a relic of the ancient custom, as
we have seen, was left, often appearing as a sham sale in the marriage
ceremonies. Another mode of preserving the symbol of sale was the
receipt of a gift of real value, which was immediately returned to the
giver. This arrangement is said by Âpastamba to have been prescribed
by the Vedas “in order to fulfil the law”—that is, the ancient law
by which the binding form of marriage was a sale.[2443] Generally,
however, not the same but another gift is presented in return. Thus,
at Athens, at some time which cannot be determined, but which was
undoubtedly earlier than the age of Solon, the dower in the modern
sense arose; and, as has been suggested,[2444] this portioning of the
bride by her father or guardian very probably implied originally a
return of the price paid. Again, in China, exchange of presents takes
place between the guardians of the bridegroom and the guardians of the
bride; and this exchange forms the subject of a long section in the
penal code, for, “the marriage articles and betrothal presents once
exchanged, the parties are considered irrevocably engaged.”[2445] In
Japan, the bride gives certain conventional presents to her future
husband and his parents and relatives, and, as to the value of these
presents, she should always be guided by the value of those brought by
the bridegroom.[2446] Among the ancient Germans, according to Tacitus,
the wife in her turn presented the husband with some kind of arms,
and this mutual exchange of gifts formed the principal bond of their
union.[2447] Grimm also suggests that the meaning of the Teutonic dowry
was partly that of a return gift.[2448]

On the other hand, the purchase-sum was transformed into the morning
gift and the dotal portion. A part—afterwards the whole—was given
to the bride either directly by the bridegroom or by her father.
Manu says, “When the relatives do not appropriate for their use the
gratuity given, it is not a sale; in that case the gift is only a token
of respect and of kindness towards the maidens.”[2449] This gift was
called “çulka,” or her fee; but its close connection with a previous
purchase appears from the fact that it passed in a course of devolution
to the woman’s brothers, and one rendering of the text of Gautama
which regulates this succession, even allowed the fee to go to her
brothers during her life.[2450] In modern India, according to Dubois,
men of distinction do not appropriate the money acquired by giving a
daughter in marriage, but lay it out in jewels, which they present to
the lady on the wedding-day.[2451] Among the Greeks of the Homeric age,
the father did not always keep the wedding-presents for his own use,
but bestowed them, wholly or in part, on the daughter as her marriage
portion. At a later period, the bridegroom himself gave the presents
to his wife, when he saw her unveiled for the first time, or after the
νὺξ μυστική.[2452] Among the Teutons the same process of development
took place. Originally, the purchase-sum went to the guardian of the
bride, partly, perhaps, to her whole family; but by-and-by it came
to be considered her own property,[2453] as Tacitus says, “Dotem non
uxor marito sed uxori maritus offert.”[2454] This was the case among
the Scandinavians at the date of the inditing of their laws, and among
the Langobardi from the seventh century.[2455] “La dot,” says M.
Ginoulhiac, “n’est autre chose que le prix de la coemption en usage
dans la loi salique; elle fut donnée à la femme au lieu de l’être à
ses parents, qui ne reçurent plus que le _solidum_ et _denarium_,
ou le prix fictif, et après la mort de l’épouse, une partie de la
dot.”[2456] In _Lex Alamannorum_ and _Lex Ripuariorum_, only a _dos_
which the wife receives directly from her husband is spoken of.[2457]
And it seems probable that the morning gift, which has survived very
long in Europe,[2458] originated in the purchase-sum, or formed a
part of it,[2459] though it has often been considered a _pretium
virginitatis_.[2460] According to ancient Irish law, a part of the
“coibche,” or bridal gift, went to the bride’s father, or, if he was
dead, to the head of her tribe;[2461] but another part was given by the
bridegroom to the bride herself after marriage. The same was the case
with the Welsh “cowyll”;[2462] and the Slavonic word for bride-price,
“vĕno,” came to be frequently used for _dos_.[2463]

Speaking of the ancient Babylonians, Herodotus says that “the
marriage portions were furnished by the money paid for the beautiful
damsels.”[2464] Among the Hebrews, as it seems the “mohar,” or a
part of it, was given to the bride herself.[2465] We read in the
Book of Genesis that Abraham’s servant “brought forth jewels of
silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebecca: he
gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things.”[2466]
Professor Robertson Smith is inclined to believe that, in Arabia,
before Mohammed, a custom had established itself by which the husband
ordinarily made a gift—under the name of “sadâc”—to his wife upon
marriage, or by which a part of the “mahr” was customarily set aside
for her use.[2467] But under Islam the difference between “mahr”
and “sadâc” disappeared, the price paid to the father becoming the
property of the woman.[2468]

But it is not only in the history of the great civilized nations that
we find marriage by purchase falling into decay. Among several peoples
who are still in a savage or semi-civilized state, the custom of
purchasing the wife has been modified, and of a few it is expressly
stated that they consider such a traffic disgraceful.[2469] The change
has taken place in exactly the same way as we have seen to be the case
with higher races.

On the one hand, the purchase has become more or less a symbol. In some
cases the gift no longer represents the actual value of the girl, in
others it is followed by a return gift. Thus, in Oregon, “the wife’s
relations always raise as many horses (or other property) for her
dower, as the bridegroom has sent the parents, but scrupulously take
care not to turn over the same horses or the same articles.”[2470] The
Ahts consider it a point of honour that the purchase-money given for
a woman of rank shall, some time or other, be returned in a present
of equal value.[2471] Similar statements are made with reference
to the Patagonians,[2472] Mishmis,[2473] and certain tribes in the
Indian Archipelago.[2474] Among the Bagobos of the Philippines, if the
newly-married couple are satisfied with each other, the father of the
wife gives the half of the purchase-sum back to the husband;[2475]
whilst, in Saraë, the girl’s father, at the wedding, has to return even
five times the price which he received from the bridegroom’s father at
the espousals, the return gift, however, becoming the common property
of the married couple.[2476] Among the Badagas of the Neilgherries
also, the return gift is generally greater in value than the sum which
has been paid for her.[2477] Several other peoples contract marriages
by an exchange of presents.[2478]

On the other hand there are peoples among whom the purchase-sum, or
a part of it, is given to the bride either by her father or by the
bridegroom himself. But, as this may be an indirect way of compensating
the bridegroom for the price he has paid, it is in many cases almost
impossible to distinguish between this custom and the one last
mentioned. It is equally hard to distinguish between the cases in which
the bride receives a part of the price from her father, and those in
which she receives a gift from the bridegroom directly. But perhaps the
greatest difficulty of all is to make out whether the presents obtained
from the bridegroom formed originally a part of the bride-price or were
only a means of gaining her own consent. Among the Eskimo, the lover
presents clothes to the lady, who puts them on, and is thenceforth
his wife.[2479] Among the Dacotahs, men ask for consent to marriage
by sending the price of the girl, and in addition often give presents
to the object of their esteem.[2480] Speaking of the South American
Guanas, Azary says, “Toutes les cérémonies du mariage se réduisent à
un petit présent que le mari fait à sa prétendue.”[2481] Again, among
the Javanese,[2482] Kalmucks,[2483] and Ahl el Shemál, a Bedouin tribe
of Syria,[2484] the money or articles which the father receives for
his daughter are generally looked upon as a settlement or provision
for the wife; and among the Pelew Islanders,[2485] Mishmis,[2486]
Bashkirs,[2487] Votyaks,[2488] &c.,[2489] she receives a larger or
smaller part of the bride-price.

       *       *       *       *       *

From marriage by purchase we have thus reached the practice of dower,
which is apparently the very reverse of it. But, as we have seen, the
marriage portion derives its origin partly from the purchase of wives.
Where, as among the Marea,[2490] the endowment becomes the exclusive
property of the husband, it is, no doubt, intended to be a compensation
for the bride-price; whilst, among other peoples, money or goods for
which the man has bought his wife are handed over to her by the father
as a marriage portion which, in a certain way, belongs to her. Yet, as
we shall see directly, the dowry does not in every case spring from a
previous purchase.

The marriage portion serves different ends, often indissolubly mixed
up together. It may have the meaning of a return gift. It may imply
that the wife as well as the husband is expected to contribute to the
expenses of the joint household. It is also very often intended to be a
settlement for the wife in case the marriage be dissolved through the
husband’s death or otherwise. But as, in such instances, the husband
generally has the usufruct of the portion, as long as the union lasts,
it is in many cases impossible to discern whether the original meaning
was that of a return gift to the man or of a settlement for the woman.

We read in the ‘Laws of Manu,’ “What was given before the nuptial
fire, what was given on the bridal procession, what was given in token
of love, and what was received from her brother, mother, or father,
that is called the sixfold property of a woman. Such property, as well
as a gift subsequent and what was given to her by her affectionate
husband, shall go to her offspring, even if she dies in the lifetime of
her husband.”[2491] The Hindu law recognizes the dominion of a married
woman over this property (her “strîdhan”),[2492] but the husband has
nevertheless power to use and consume it in case of distress.[2493]
At Athens, the administration of the dower certainly belonged to the
husband, who might defray with it the expenses of the marriage, and
even had a right to alienate the movable objects forming a part of the
marriage portion.[2494] But it did not become his property. If the
marriage tie was dissolved through divorce or through the husband’s
death, the dower had to be restored to the woman, who, as a security
for this restitution, had a mortgage, consisting generally of a piece
of real property;[2495] or if, in case of divorce, the husband did not
restore the dower, he paid, whilst it was retained, nine oboli every
month as interest.[2496] The Roman _dos_ was intended to be the wife’s
contribution towards the expenses of the marriage state.[2497] It
became the husband’s property, as if it were a patrimony which he had
a right not only to administer, but even to dispose of independently
of the will of his wife.[2498] This confusion of the dower with the
patrimony was tolerable as long as marriage was contracted for life,
but became very disastrous during the period when divorces were
frequent. At the end of the Republican era, therefore, the husband’s
right to dispose of his wife’s marriage portion was limited. It had to
be restored in case of divorce, as also in case of the marriage being
dissolved through the husband’s death. The _Lex Julia de adulteriis_
prevented him from alienating dotal land without the wife’s consent, or
mortgaging it even with her consent; and the legislation of Justinian
prevented alienation with the wife’s consent, and declared the law on
the subject applicable to provincial land.[2499] The general tradition
of the Roman _dos_ was carried on by the Church, the practical object
being to secure for the wife a provision of which the husband could
not wantonly deprive her, and which would remain to her after his
death.[2500] The Roman dotal right, more or less modified in the laws
of the different countries, underlies modern European legislation; the
husband generally administers and has the use of his wife’s dotation,
but it remains _her_ property.[2501]

Among the Germans of early times, the bride-price which was handed
over to the woman as her marriage portion became her exclusive
property, of which the husband could not dispose.[2502] Besides this
_dos_, she received from her parents an endowment, as a sort of
compensation for her inheritance, or as an advance on it. This also
was her private property, at least so far that it went to her if
the marriage was dissolved.[2503] Among the Slavs, the dower seems
originally to have been given to the wife as a security in the event of
her needing independent support; and, among the Poles and Bohemians,
the husband could make no use of it, unless he left his own goods as
a deposit.[2504] In Wales, a woman received not only a part of the
bride-price, “cowyll,” but also a marriage portion from her father,
called “agweddi” (representing the “tincur” of the Irish), which,
during cohabitation, belonged to husband and wife jointly. In case
they separated before the end of seven years, the wife was to receive
this portion back; and in any case, even if she left her husband for
no reason before the seventh year, she had her “cowyll.” If the
separation took place after this period, the property which the wife
brought with her was divided.[2505]

The Hebrews, in early times, generally gave daughters as a dowry only a
part of the “mohar.” Afterwards a woman who married was endowed with
a portion called “nedunia,” of which the husband had the usufruct as
long as the marriage lasted.[2506] The Mohammedans, as a rule, settle
very large dowers on their wives; and it is generally stipulated that
two-thirds of the dowry shall be paid immediately before the marriage
contract is made, whilst the remaining third is held in reserve, to be
paid to the wife in case of her being divorced against her own consent,
or in case of the husband’s death.[2507] And whatever property the
wife receives from her parents or any other person on the occasion of
her marriage, or otherwise, is entirely at her own disposal, and not
subject to any claim of her husband or his creditors.[2508] Speaking
of newly-married people among the Mexicans, Acosta says, “When
they went to house they made an inventory of all the man and wife
brought together, of provisions for the house, of land, of iewells
and ornaments, which inventories every father kept, for if it chanced
they made any devorce (as it was common amongest them when they agree
not), they divided their goods according to the portion that every one
brought.”[2509]

Among races at a lower stage of civilization[2510] the dowry commonly
subserves a similar end—that is, in case of separation or divorce, the
wife gets back her marriage portion, though the husband, as it seems in
most cases, has the usufruct of it as long as marriage lasts. But, in
savage life, the dowry plays no important part. Often nothing of the
kind exists,[2511] and, where it does, the portion generally consists
of some food, clothes, household goods, or other trifles,[2512] and
occasionally of cattle.[2513] Ultimately, as we have seen, the dowry is
due to a feeling of respect and sympathy for the weaker sex, which, on
the whole, is characteristic of a higher civilization.[2514] And, as
we have spoken of a stage of marriage by capture and another stage of
marriage by purchase, we may now speak of a third, where fathers are
bound by law or custom to portion their daughters.

Thus the Hebrews[2515] and Mahommedans[2516] consider it a religious
duty for a man to give a dower to his daughter. In Greece the dowry
came to be thought almost necessary to make the distinction between
a wife and a concubine παλλακή;[2517] and Isaeus says that no decent
man would give his legitimate daughter less than a tenth of his
property.[2518] Indeed, so great were the dowers given that, in
the time of Aristotle, nearly two-fifths of the whole territory of
Sparta were supposed to belong to women.[2519] In Rome, even more
than in Greece, the marriage portion became a mark of distinction
for a legitimate wife.[2520] It was the duty of the wife to
provide her husband with _dos_, and a woman herself had a legal
claim to be provided with a dower by her father or other paternal
ascendants.[2521] And, though later on, Justinian in several of his
constitutions declares that _dos_ is obligatory for persons of high
rank only,[2522] the old custom did not fall into desuetude.[2523] The
Prussian ‘Landrecht’ still prescribes that the father, or eventually
the mother, shall arrange about the wedding and fit up the house of
the newly-married couple.[2524] According to the ‘Code Napoléon,’
on the other hand, parents are not bound to give a dower to their
daughters,[2525] and the same principle is generally adopted by modern
legislation. Yet there is still a strong feeling, especially in the
so-called Latin countries, in favour of dotation. This feeling, as
Sir Henry Maine remarks, is the principal source of those habits of
saving and hoarding, which characterize the French people, and is
probably descended, by a long chain of succession, from the obligatory
provisions of the marriage law of the Emperor Augustus.[2526]

In this course of development, the marriage portion has often become
something quite different from what it was originally. It has in many
cases become a purchase-sum by means of which a father buys a husband
for his daughter, as formerly a man bought a wife from her father.
Euripides, transferring to the heroic age the practice of his own time,
makes Medea complain that her sex had to purchase husbands with great
sums of money.[2527] “Pars minima est ipsa puella sui,” the Latin poet
sings. And, in our days, a woman without a marriage portion, unless she
has some great natural attractions, runs the risk of being a spinster
for ever. This state of things naturally grows up in a society where
monogamy is prescribed by law, where the adult women outnumber the
adult men, where many men never marry, and where married women too
often lead an indolent life.




CHAPTER XIX

MARRIAGE CEREMONIES AND RITES


Among primitive men marriage was, of course, contracted without any
ceremony whatever; and this is still the case with many uncivilized
peoples. Among the Eskimo, visited by Captain Hall, “there is no
wedding ceremony at all, nor are there any rejoicings or festivities.
The parties simply come together, and live in their own tupic or
igloo.”[2528] The Bonaks of California, according to Mr. Johnston,
have no marriage ceremony. The man simply speaks to the girl’s
parents, and to the girl herself; and, if the couple live together for
some time harmoniously, they are considered husband and wife.[2529]
Among the Comanches, too, “there is no marriage ceremony of any
description;”[2530] and the same is said of several other aboriginal
tribes of America,[2531] as also of the Outanatas of New Guinea,[2532]
the Solomon Islanders,[2533] and the Tasmanians.[2534] In Australia,
wedding ceremonies are unknown in most tribes, but it is said that
in some there are a few unimportant ones.[2535] In the Hill Tribes
of North Aracan, marriage “is a simple contract unaccompanied
by ceremony.”[2536] So also among the Khasias,[2537] Chalikata
Mishmis,[2538] Aino,[2539] Negroes of Bondo,[2540] &c.

Marriage ceremonies arose by degrees and in various ways. When the
mode of contracting a marriage altered, the earlier mode, from having
been a reality, survived as a ceremony. Thus, as we have seen, the
custom of capture was transformed into a mere symbol, after purchase
was introduced as the legal form of contracting a marriage. In other
instances the custom of purchase has survived as a ceremony, after it
has ceased to be a reality.

According as marriage was recognized as a matter of some importance,
the entering into it came, like many other significant events in human
life, to be celebrated with certain ceremonies. Very commonly it is
accompanied by a wedding feast. Among the Nufi people, for example,
the nuptials consist of the payment of the bride-price followed
by eating and drinking.[2541] Among the Wanyoro, the wedding is
celebrated by a great deal of feasting, and the bride is taken by a
procession of friends to her new lord.[2542] Often the feast continues
for several days, a week, or even longer.[2543] In Mykonos, of the
Cyclades, according to Mr. Bent, ten or fifteen days of festivity
usually accompany a marriage.[2544] Among some peoples, the expenses
are defrayed by the bridegroom,[2545] in others by the father of the
bride.[2546] Probably, in the former cases, the feast is considered
almost a part of the purchase sum, whilst in the latter it is, perhaps,
occasionally regarded as a compensation for the bride-price.

The marriage ceremony often indicates in some way the new relation
into which the man and woman enter to each other. Sometimes it
symbolizes sexual intercourse,[2547] but far more frequently the living
together, or the wife’s subjection to her husband. Among the Navajos,
the ceremony merely consisted in eating maize pudding from the same
platter;[2548] and among the Santals, says Colonel Dalton, “the social
meal that the boy and girl eat together is the most important part of
the ceremony, as by the act the girl ceases to belong to her father’s
tribe, and becomes a member of her husband’s family.”[2549] Eating
together is, in the Malay Archipelago, the chief and most wide-spread
marriage ceremony.[2550] The same custom occurs among the Hovas,
Hindus, Esthonians, in Ermland in Prussia, and in Sardinia.[2551] Again
in some Brazilian tribes, marriage is contracted by the husband and
wife drinking brandy together.[2552]

In Japan, where the ceremony seems to be regarded as the least
important part of the whole proceeding, it consists in the drinking by
both parties, after a prescribed fashion, of a fixed number of cups of
wine.[2553] In Scandinavia, the couple used to drink the contents of a
single beaker—a custom which also occurs in Russia.[2554] The joining
of hands, or the bridegroom’s taking the bride by the hand, is, as Dr.
Winternitz remarks, one of the most important marriage ceremonies
among all Indo-European peoples.[2555] The same custom occurs among
the Orang-Banûwa of Malacca;[2556] whilst, among the Orang-Sakai,
“the little finger of the right hand of the man is joined to that of
the left hand of the woman.”[2557] At Khasia weddings, “the couple
about to be married merely sit together in one seat, and receive their
friends, to whom they give a dinner or feast.”[2558] Among the Veddahs
of Ceylon, the bride ties a thin cord of her own twisting round the
bridegroom’s waist, and they are then husband and wife. This string is
emblematic of the marriage tie, and, “as he never parts with it, so he
clings to his wife through life.”[2559] The Hindu bride and bridegroom,
again, have their hands bound together with grass.[2560] Among the
Gonds and Korkús, the actual marriage ceremonies consist, in part,
of “eating together, tying the garments together, dancing together
round a pole, being half drowned together by a douche of water, and
the interchange of rings,—all of which may be supposed to symbolize
the union of the parties.”[2561] In many parts of India, bride and
bridegroom are, for the same reason, marked with one another’s
blood,[2562] and Colonel Dalton believes this to be the origin of the
custom, now so common, of marking with red-lead. Thus, the Parkheyas
use a red powder called “sindúr,” the bridegroom sealing the compact
by touching and marking with it the forehead of his bride.[2563]

Among the Australian Narrinyeri, on the other hand, a woman is
supposed to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to
her husband’s hut, and making his fire for him.[2564] The Negroes of
Loango contract their marriages by the bridegroom’s eating from two
dishes, which the bride has cooked for him in his own hut.[2565] In
Dahomey, according to Mr. Forbes, there is no ceremony in marriage,
except where the king confers the wife, “in which instance the maiden
presents her future lord with a glass of rum.”[2566] In Croatia, the
bridegroom boxes the bride’s ears in order to indicate that henceforth
he is her master.[2567] And in ancient Russia, as part of the marriage
ceremony, the father took a new whip, and after striking his daughter
gently with it, told her that he did so for the last time, and then
presented the whip to the bridegroom.[2568]

Many of the ceremonies observed at our own weddings belong to the
classes here noticed. The “best man” seems originally to have been the
chief abettor of the bridegroom in the act of capture; the nuptials are
generally celebrated with a feast in the house of the bride’s father,
and the wedding-ring is a symbol of the close union which exists
between husband and wife.[2569] Even the religious part of the ceremony
has its counterpart among many Pagan nations.

It was natural that a religious character should be given to nuptials,
as well as to other events of importance, by the invoking of divine
help for the future union. In Hudson’s Island, says Turner, “hardly
anything could be done without first making it known to the gods
and begging a blessing, protection, or whatever the case might
require.”[2570] Among the Dyaks, one of the eldest male members of
the assembled party smears at the wedding the hands of the bridegroom
and bride with the blood of a pig and a fowl, implores the protection
of the male spirit, Baak, and the female spirit, Hiroeh Bakak, and
recommends the married couple to their care, wishing them all sorts
of earthly blessings.[2571] Among the Gonds, sacrifice to the gods,
and unlimited gorging and spirit drinking are usually the wind-up of
the wedding.[2572] In Patagonia, the husband, after having brought
the bride into his hut, makes a sacrifice to the foul spirit; and the
Macatecas, a tribe subject to the Mexican empire “fasted, prayed,
and sacrificed to their gods for the space of twenty days after their
marriage.”[2573]

Most commonly a priest is called to perform the religious rite. “The
marriages of the Fijians,” Wilkes says, “are sanctioned by religious
ceremonies.... The Ambati, or priest, takes a seat, having the
bridegroom on his right and the bride on the left hand. He then invokes
the protection of the god or spirit upon the bride, after which he
leads her to the bridegroom, and joins their hands with injunctions to
love, honour, and obey, to be faithful and die with each other.”[2574]
This, however, happens principally among the chiefs; among the common
people, the marriage rites are less ceremonious, the priest of the
tribe only coming to the house and invoking happiness upon the
union.[2575] The Tahitians, too, considered the sanction of the gods
essential to the marriage contract. The preliminaries being adjusted,
the parties repaired to the temple, where the priest addressed the
bridegroom usually in the following terms:—“Will you not cast away
your wife?” to which the bridegroom answered, “No.” Turning to the
bride, he proposed to her a like question, and received a similar
answer. The priest then addressed them both, saying, “Happy will it be
if thus with you two.” He then offered a prayer to the gods on their
behalf, imploring that they might live in affection, and realize the
happiness marriage was designed to secure.[2576] In the Kingsmill
Islands, the priest presses the foreheads of the young couple together,
and pours on their heads a little cocoa-nut oil; then he takes a branch
of a tree, dips it in water, and sprinkles their faces, at the same
time praying for their future happiness and prosperity.[2577] Among the
Kukis, the young couple are led before the Thémpoo, or priest, “who
presents them with a stoup of liquor out of which they both drink,
while he continues muttering some words in his unknown language;”[2578]
and, among the Khyoungtha[2579] and Garos,[2580] a priest beseeches the
gods to bless the union. Among the Igorrotes of Luzon it is a priestess
that performs the marriage ceremony, praying to the spirits of the
deceased in the presence of all the kinsfolk of the couple.[2581] The
Jakuts require the shaman’s assistance for their nuptials,[2582] and so
did formerly the Kalmucks.[2583]

The religious ceremonies connected with marriage are not limited to
prayers, sacrifices, and other means of pleasing the gods; efforts are
also made to ascertain their will beforehand. In Siam, the parents of
the parties solicit the opinion of some fortune-teller on the point
whether the year, month, and day of the week when the couple were born,
will allow of their living happily together as husband and wife.[2584]
Among the Chukmas, “omens are carefully observed, and many a promising
match has been put a stop to by unfavourable auguries.”[2585] The same
is the case with other peoples of India,[2586] the Mongols,[2587]
some Turkish nations,[2588] &c. In several countries it is considered
a thing of the utmost importance to find out the right day for the
wedding, by consulting the stars or otherwise.[2589]

Among civilized nations marriage is almost universally contracted
with religious ceremonies either with or without the assistance of a
priest. The ancient Mexicans were married by their priests,[2590] and
so were the Chibchas[2591] and Mayas.[2592] In Nicaragua, the priest,
in performing the ceremony of marriage, took the parties by the little
finger, and led them to a fire which was kindled for the occasion. He
instructed them in their duty, and, when the fire became extinguished,
the parties were looked upon as husband and wife.[2593]

By Buddhist monks marriage is regarded only as a concession to human
frailty, and, in Buddhistic countries, it is therefore a simple civil
contract;[2594] nevertheless, it is commonly contracted with some
religious ceremony, and often with the assistance of a lama.[2595] In
China, the bridal pair are conducted to the ancestral hall, where they
prostrate themselves before the altar, on which the ancestral tablets
are arranged.[2596] Among the Hebrews, marriage was no religious
contract, and there is no trace of a priestly consecration of it either
in the Scriptures or in the Talmud. Yet, according to Ewald, it may
be taken for granted that a consecration took place on the day of
betrothal or wedding, though the particulars have not been preserved in
any ancient description.[2597] Among the Mohammedans also, marriage,
though a mere civil contract, is concluded with a prayer to Allah.[2598]

“Les lois des peuples de l’antiquité,” M. Glasson says, “avaient un
caractère à la fois religieux et civil; il n’est donc pas étonnant
qu’elles aient le plus souvent fait du mariage un acte à la fois
religieux et civil.”[2599] In Egypt, at least during the Ptolemaic
period, the wedding is supposed to have been accompanied by a religious
ceremony.[2600] Among the ancient Persians, the betrothal was performed
by a priest, who joined the hands of the couple whilst reading some
prayers.[2601] The Hindus used by prayers and sacrifices to invoke
the help of the gods at their weddings.[2602] According to Sir W. H.
Macnaghten, marriage is among them “not merely a civil contract, but a
sacrament, forming the last of the ceremonies prescribed to the three
regenerate classes, and the only one for Śudras; and an unmarried
man has been declared to be incapacitated from the performance of
religious duties.”[2603] In Greece, marriages were generally, though
not always, contracted at the divine altars and confirmed by oaths,
the assistance of a priest, however, not being requisite. Before the
marriage was solemnized, the gods were consulted and their assistance
implored by prayers and sacrifices, which were usually offered to
some of the deities that superintended the union of the sexes, by the
parents or other relations of the persons to be married. For marriage,
as Musonius says, “stands under the protection of great and powerful
gods;” and Plato teaches us that a man shall cohabit only with a woman
who has come into his house with holy ceremonies.[2604] From the
Homeric age we have no instances of marriages being contracted with
sacrifices and religious rites, but we must not therefore take for
granted that they were entirely wanting.[2605] The Teutons, according
to Weinhold, looked upon marriage as an important and holy undertaking,
about which it was necessary that the gods should be consulted; and
offerings were probably in use among all peoples of this branch of the
Aryan race.[2606] The Romans, at their nuptials, made a sacrifice,
named _libum farreum_, to the gods, and the couple were united with
prayer.[2607] In the mode of marriage called _confarreatio_, the
Pontifex Maximus seems to have instructed them in the formulas, and
some modern authorities even believe that he performed the marriage
ceremony. But Rossbach thinks that this was scarcely the case in early
times, when every house-father himself was a priest.[2608] Besides
sacrifices and prayers, auspices formed a very important part of a
Roman wedding; and, if the gods were found to be opposed to the match,
the nuptials were put off or the match was abandoned. Even Cicero
considered it wicked to marry without auspices.[2609]

It has been suggested that, among primitive Aryans, religious
ceremonies were requisite for the validity of marriage.[2610] This was
certainly not the case in historical times either among the Greeks
or among the Teutons; and at Rome such ceremonies were obligatory
only in _confarreatio_.[2611] But this form of marriage peculiar
to the patricians, derived its origin from a very early period,
and Rossbach remarks that the farther back we go in antiquity, the
more strictly we find the religious ceremonies attended to.[2612]
In _confarreatio_ they were essential even in the eye of the law,
whilst in _coemptio_ and _usus_ sacrifices and auspices were merely
of secondary importance.[2613] Later on, when indifference to the old
faith increased, they became more and more uncommon, till at the end of
the period of the Pagan Emperors, they were almost exceptional, being
regarded as a matter of no significance.[2614]

Christianity gave back to marriage its religious character. The
founder of the Christian Church had not prescribed any ceremonies
in connection with it, but in the earliest times the Christians, of
their own accord, asked for their pastors’ benediction. This was not,
indeed, a necessity, and for widows sacerdotal nuptials were not
even allowed.[2615] Yet from St. Paul’s words, “Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο
μέγα ἐστίν”[2616]—in the Vulgate translated, “Sacramentum hoc magnum
est,”—the dogma that marriage is a sacrament was gradually developed.
Though this dogma was fully recognized in the twelfth century,[2617]
marriage was, nevertheless, considered valid without ecclesiastical
benediction till the year 1563, when the Council of Trent made it an
essentially religious ceremony.

Luther’s opinion that all matrimonial affairs belong not to the
Church, but to the jurists, was not accepted by the legislators of the
Protestant countries. Marriage certainly ceased to be thought of as a
sacrament, but continued to be regarded by the Protestants as a Divine
institution; hence sacerdotal nuptials remained as indispensable as
ever.

It was the French Revolution that first gave rise to an alteration in
this respect. The constitution of the 3rd September, 1791, declares
in its seventh article, title ii., “La loi ne considère le mariage
que comme contrat civil. Le pouvoir législatif établira pour tous
les habitants, sans distinction, le mode par lequel les naissances,
mariages et décès seront constatés et il désignera les officiers
publics qui en recevront les actes.”[2618] To this obligatory civil act
a sacerdotal benediction may be added, if the parties think proper.

Since then civil marriage has gradually obtained a footing in the
legislation of most European countries, in proportion as liberty of
conscience has been recognized. The French system has lately been
adopted in Germany and Switzerland; whilst other nations have been
less radical. “Tantôt,” says M. Glasson, “on a le choix entre le
mariage civil ou le mariage religieux, en ce sens que l’union bénie à
l’église vaut en même temps, d’après la loi, comme mariage civil: c’est
ce qui a lieu en Angleterre et en Espagne. Tantôt le mariage religieux
est une condition de la validité du mariage civil, comme en Roumanie.
En Italie, on peut indifféremment célébrer l’une ou l’autre des deux
unions la première. Enfin, il y a des pays où le mariage civil joue
un rôle purement secondaire: en Autriche, en Portugal, en Suède, en
Norwége, il est subsidiaire; en Russie il n’a été établi que pour les
sectaires.”[2619]

Civil marriage, implying the necessity of the union being sanctioned
by secular authority, is not a merely European institution. Among the
ancient Peruvians, the king convoked annually, or every two years, at
Cuzco all the marriageable young men and maidens of his family. After
calling them by name, he joined their hands, and delivered them to
their parents. Such marriages among that class were alone denominated
lawful; and the governors and chiefs were, by their offices, obliged
to marry, after the same formalities, the young men and women of the
provinces over which they presided.[2620] In Nicaragua also, marriage
was “a civil rite, performed by the cacique.”[2621] And among the
savage Pomo of California, who have two chiefs, a “war-chief” and a
“peace-chief,” the latter, as being a kind of _censor morum_, has to
perform the marriage ceremonies, so far as they extend, _i.e._, he
causes the parties to enter into a simple covenant in presence of their
parents and friends.[2622] Again, among certain tribes no marriage
is permitted without the chief’s approval. But such cases seem to be
exceptions among non-European peoples, especially those of a lower
culture, marriage being generally considered a private matter, with
which the authorities or the community have nothing to do, if only it
takes place between persons who, by law or custom, are permitted to
intermarry.

In this chapter reference has often been made to the validity of
marriage. A lawful marriage is, indeed, quite a different thing from
a marriage in the natural history sense of the term. The former,
which is contracted under the formalities and in accordance with
the stipulations prescribed by the written or unwritten laws of the
country, implies the recognition by society both of the validity of the
union and the legitimacy of the children. Every people is not so happy
as the Nukahivans, among whom, according to Lisiansky, no such thing as
illegitimacy is known.[2623] The Greeks regarded a union into which the
woman entered without dowry as concubinage, rather than as marriage.
Among other peoples purchase is the only way of contracting a valid
marriage. So it was with the ancient Germans and Scandinavians.[2624]
So it is with the Californian Karok, among whom the children of a
woman who is not purchased are accounted no better than bastards and
constitute a class of social outcasts who can intermarry only among
themselves.[2625] Often certain ceremonies are required for a marriage
to be legal. Thus the Romans considered an alliance made without
_sponsalia_, _nuptiæ_, and _dos_, concubinage.[2626] Among the Nez
Percés in Oregon, the consent of the parents is all that is necessary
for a marriage to be valid; sometimes, when the parents refuse their
consent, a run-away match occurs, “but it is not regarded as a legal
marriage, and the woman thereafter is considered a prostitute, and is
treated accordingly.”[2627]




CHAPTER XX

THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE


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.

Polygyny was permitted by most of the ancient peoples with whom history
acquaints us, and is, in our day, permitted by several civilized
nations and the bulk of savage tribes.

The ancient Chibchas practised polygyny to a large extent.[2628] Among
the Mexicans[2629] and the Peruvian Incas,[2630] a married man might
have, besides his legitimate wife, less legitimate wives or concubines.
The same is the case in China and Japan, where the children of a
concubine have the same legal rights as the children of a wife.[2631]
In Corea, the mandarins are even bound by custom, besides having
several wives, to retain several concubines in their “yamen.”[2632]

Tradition shows polygyny and concubinage to have been customary among
the Hebrews during the patriarchal age. Esau married Judith and
Basemath, Jacob married Leah and Rachel.[2633] Later on, we read of
Solomon, who had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred
concubines;”[2634] and of Rehoboam, who “took eighteen wives and
threescore concubines.”[2635] Indeed, polygyny was so much a matter of
course that the law did not even criticize it.[2636] According to the
Talmudic right also, it was permitted, though the number of legitimate
wives was restricted to four.[2637] Among European Jews, it was still
practised during the Middle Ages, and, among Jews living in Mohammedan
countries, it occurs even to this day.[2638] The Korân allows a man to
take four legitimate wives,[2639] and he may take as many concubines as
he likes. Between a wife and a concubine the difference is, indeed, not
great: the former has her father as her protector, whilst the latter is
defenceless against the husband.[2640] A slave, on the other hand, is
not permitted to have more than two wives at the same time.[2641]

Diodorus Siculus informs us that the Egyptians were not restricted to
any number of wives, but that everyone married as many as he chose,
with the exception of the priesthood, who were by law confined to
one consort.[2642] The Egyptians had concubines also, most of whom
appear to have been foreign women—war-captives or slaves; and these
were members of the family, ranking next to the wives and children
of their lord, and probably enjoying a share of the property after
his death.[2643] With regard to the Assyrians, Professor Rawlinson
states that, so far as we have any real evidence, their kings appear
as monogamists; but he thinks it is probable that they had a certain
number of concubines.[2644] In Media, on the other hand, polygyny
was commonly practised among the more wealthy classes;[2645] and the
Persian kings, particularly in later times, had a considerable number
of wives and concubines.[2646]

None of the Hindu law-books restricts the number of wives whom a man is
permitted to marry.[2647] We find undoubted cases of polygyny in the
hymns of the ‘Rig-Veda,’[2648] and several passages in the ‘Laws of
Manu’ provide for a plurality of wives without any restriction.[2649]
Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Balfour says, “By the law a Hindu
may marry as many wives, and by custom keep as many concubines, as he
may choose.”[2650]

The Greeks of the Homeric age frequently had concubines, who lived
in the same house as the man’s family, and were regarded half as
wives.[2651] Polygyny, in the fullest sense of the term, appears to be
ascribed to Priam, but to no one else.[2652] At a later period a kind
of concubinage seems to have been recognized in Greece by law, and
scarcely proscribed by public opinion;[2653] and bigamy was practised
by the tyrants in some of the Greek colonies.[2654] The Romans were
more strictly monogamous. Among them, concubinage was always well
distinguished from legal marriage, and, according to Rossbach, was much
less common in early times than subsequently.[2655]

Among the Teutons, at the beginning of their history, we come across
plurality of wives in the West,[2656] and especially in the North.
The Scandinavian kings indulged in polygyny,[2657] and it does not
seem to have been restricted to them only.[2658] Nor was it unknown to
the pagan Russians.[2659] In the Finnish poems, though polygyny is not
mentioned, there are passages which seem to indicate that it was not
entirely unheard of among the Finns of early times.[2660]

Even in the Christian world open polygyny has occasionally been
permitted, or at least tolerated. It was frequently practised by the
Merovingian kings, and one law of Charles the Great seems to imply
that it was not unknown even among priests.[2661] Soon after the Peace
of Westphalia, bigamy was allowed in some German States where the
population had been largely reduced during the Thirty Years’ War. And
in modern Europe polygyny, as Mr. Spencer remarks, long survived in the
custom which permitted princes to have many mistresses; “polygyny in
this qualified form remaining a tolerated privilege of royalty down to
late times.”[2662] Moreover, St. Augustin said expressly that he did
not condemn polygyny;[2663] and Luther allowed Philip the Magnanimous
of Hessen, for political reasons, to marry two women. Indeed, he openly
declared that, as Christ is silent about polygyny, he could not forbid
the taking of more than one wife.[2664] The Mormons, as all the world
knows, regard polygyny as a divine institution.

Among many savage peoples polygyny is developed to an extraordinary
extent. In Unyoro, according to Emin Pasha, it would be absolutely
improper for even a small chief to have fewer than ten or fifteen
wives, and poor men have three or four each.[2665] Serpa Pinto tells
us of a minister in the Barôze, who at the time of his visit to that
country had more than seventy wives.[2666] In Fiji, the chiefs had from
twenty to a hundred wives;[2667] and, among all of the North American
tribes visited by Mr. Catlin, “it is no uncommon thing to find a chief
with six, eight, or ten, and some with twelve or fourteen wives in
his lodge.”[2668] The King of Loango is said to have seven thousand
wives.[2669]

It is a more noteworthy fact that among not a few uncivilized peoples,
polygyny is almost unknown, or even prohibited. The Wyandots, according
to Heriot, restricted themselves to one wife;[2670] and, among the
Iroquois, polygyny was not permitted, nor did it ever become a
practice.[2671] It is said that, among the Californian Kinkla and
Yurok, no man has more than one wife.[2672] The Karok do not allow
bigamy even to the chief; and, though a man may own as many women
for slaves as he can purchase, he brings obloquy upon himself if he
cohabits with more than one.[2673] Nor does polygyny occur among the
Simas, the Coco-Maricopas, and several other tribes on the banks of
the Gila and the Colorado;[2674] nor among the Moquis in New Mexico,
and certain nations who inhabit the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.[2675] And,
in several tribes of South America, the men are stated to have but one
wife.[2676]

The Guanches of the Canary Islands, except the inhabitants of
Lancerote, lived in monogamy;[2677] and the same is the case with the
Quissama tribe in Angola, the Touaregs, and the Beni-Mzab.[2678] Among
all the Moorish tribes in the Western Sahara, Vincent did not meet a
single man who had a plurality of wives.[2679]

In Asia we find many instances of strictly monogamous peoples. The
Veddahs in Ceylon are so rigorous in this respect that infidelity
never seems to occur among them.[2680] In the Andaman Islands,
according to Mr. E. H. Man, “bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, and divorce
are unknown;”[2681] and the Nicobar Islanders—at least those on the
most northern island, Car Nicobar—“have but one wife, and look upon
unchastity as a very deadly sin.”[2682] Among the Koch and Old Kukis,
polygyny and concubinage are forbidden;[2683] whilst, among the Pádams,
Mikris, and Munda Kols, a man, though not expressly forbidden to have
many wives, is blamed if he has more than one.[2684] The Badagas of
the Neilgherry Hills, the Nagas of Upper Assam, the Kisáns, and Meches
confine themselves to one consort at the same time;[2685] and so do
the Mrús and Toungtha, who do not consider it right for a master to
take advantage of his position even with regard to the female slaves
in his house.[2686] Among the Santals, says Mr. E. G. Man, a woman
reigns alone in her husband’s wigwam, “as there is seldom, if ever, a
second wife or concubine to divide his affections—polygamy, although
not exactly prohibited, being not very popular with the tribe.”[2687]
Among the Karens of Burma,[2688] and certain tribes of Indo-China, the
Malay Peninsula, and the Indian Archipelago, polygyny is said either
to be forbidden[2689] or unknown.[2690] The Igorrotes of Luzon are
so strictly monogamous, that, in case of adultery, the guilty party
can be compelled to leave the hut and the family for ever.[2691] The
Hill Dyaks marry but one wife, and a chief who once broke through this
custom lost all his influence; adultery is entirely unknown among
them.[2692] The Alfura of Minahassa were formerly monogamists, and the
occasional occurrence of polygyny in later times, according to Dr.
Hickson, was a degeneration from the old customs, brought about perhaps
by Mohammedan influence.[2693]

In Santa Christina or Tauata (Marquesas Islands), monogamy is said
to be the exclusive form of marriage.[2694] Among the Papuans of
Dorey, not only is polygyny forbidden, but concubinage and adultery
are unknown.[2695] In Australia, Mr. Curr has discovered some truly
monogamous tribes. In the Eucla tribe, “none of the men have more than
one wife;”[2696] among the Karawalla and Tunberri tribes, dwelling on
the Lower Diamantina, polygyny is not allowed;[2697] and in the Birria
tribe, “the possession of more than one wife is absolutely forbidden,
or was so before the coming of the whites.”[2698]

In certain American tribes the chiefs alone are permitted to have a
plurality of wives.[2699] A similar exclusive privilege seems to have
been granted to the nobility in ancient Peru.[2700] Among the Ainos
of Yessy, according to v. Siebold only the chief of the village, and,
in some places, the wealthier men are allowed to have more than one
wife.[2701]

Even where polygyny is permitted by custom or law, it is by no means
so generally practised as is often supposed. Almost everywhere it is
confined to the smaller part of the people, the vast majority being
monogamous. We are told that, in the New Hebrides, “all the men are
polygamists, generally having three or four wives apiece;”[2702] that
among certain Kafir tribes, “the average number of wives to each
married man amongst the common people is about three;”[2703] that,
among the Masai, a poor man has generally two wives.[2704] But there
is sufficient evidence that such peoples form exceptions to an almost
universal rule.

In a ‘Sociological Study’ on the Lower Congo, Mr. Phillips remarks,
“It is a mistaken opinion that in a polygamous society most men
have more than one wife: the relative numbers of the sexes forbid
the arrangement being extended to the whole population; really only
the wealthier can indulge in a plurality of wives, the poorer having
to be content with one or often with none.”[2705] Proyart says the
same of the people of Loango, adding that the rich, who can use the
privilege of having many wives, are far from being numerous;[2706]
and like statements are made with reference to several other negro
peoples.[2707] Among many Kafir tribes,[2708] the Bechuanas,[2709]
Hottentots,[2710] and Eastern Central Africans,[2711] monogamy is the
rule; whilst, amongst the Touaregs,[2712] Tedâ,[2713] Marea,[2714]
Beni-Amer,[2715] &c.,[2716] polygyny is expressly stated to be confined
to a few men only. “La plupart des Kabyles,” say Messrs. Honateau and
Letournex, “n’ont ... qu’une femme;”[2717] and in Egypt, according to
Mr. Lane, not more than one husband in twenty has two wives.[2718] We
may, indeed, say with Munzinger[2719] that even in Africa, the chief
centre of polygynous habits, polygyny is an exception.

It is so among all Mohammedan peoples, in Asia and Europe, as well
as in Africa.[2720] “In India,” says Syed Amír’ Alí, “more than
ninety-five per cent. of Mohammedans are at the present moment,
either by conviction or necessity, monogamists. Among the educated
classes versed in the history of their ancestors, and able to compare
it with the records of other nations, the custom is regarded with
disapprobation amounting almost to disgust. In Persia, according to
Colonel Macgregor’s statement, only two per cent. of the population
enjoy the questionable luxury of a plurality of wives.[2721] Moreover,
although polygyny is sanctioned by custom among the Cochin Chinese,
the Siamese, the Hindus, and many other races of India, the mass of
these peoples are in practice monogamous.[2722] In China, among the
labouring classes, it is rare to find more than one woman to one man,
and Dr. Gray thinks that, in the earliest ages, concubinage was a
privilege of the wealthy classes only.[2723] Among the peoples of
Central and Northern Asia and, generally, among all the uncivilized or
semi-civilized peoples belonging to the Russian Empire, polygyny is,
or, before the introduction of Christianity, was, an exception.[2724]

In the Indian Archipelago, says Mr. Crawfurd, polygyny and concubinage
exist only among a few of the higher ranks, and may be looked upon
as a kind of vicious luxury of the great, for it would be absurd to
regard either one or the other as an institution affecting the whole
mass of society.[2725] The truth of this assertion is fully confirmed
by Raffles, as regards the Javanese; by Low and Boyle, as regards
the Malays of Sarawak; by Marsden, Wilken, and Forbes as regards the
Sumatrans; by Schadenberg, as regards the Aëtas of the Philippines; and
so on.[2726]

In various parts of the Australian continent monogamy is said to be the
rule.[2727] In the Larrakía tribe (Port Darwin), for instance, only
about ten per cent. of those who are married have two wives.[2728] In
Tasmania, polygyny, if not unknown, was quite exceptional.[2729] Among
the Maoris, according to Dieffenbach, it is “very uncommon.”[2730] In
the Sandwich Islands, it was practised only by the chiefs, whose means
enabled them to maintain a plurality of wives.[2731] Indeed, in almost
every group of the Pacific Islands polygyny is expressly stated to be
an exception.[2732]

The same is the case with the American aborigines.[2733] Dalager states
that, on the west coast of Greenland, in his time, hardly one man in
twenty had two wives, and it was still more uncommon for one man to
have three or four.[2734] Among the Thlinkets, as a rule, a man had but
one wife.[2735] The aborigines of Hispaniola, with the exception of
the king or chief, seemed to Columbus to live in monogamy.[2736] And
Mr. Bridges writes that, in Tierra del Fuego, polygyny is practised
“in some districts very rarely, in others more frequently, but in no
part generally.”

All the statements we have from the ancient world seem to indicate that
polygyny was an exception. Speaking of the Hebrews, Dr. Scheppig says
that, although our information about the marital affairs of common
Hebrews is too scanty to entitle us to conclude, from the scarcity of
cases of polygyny recorded, that such cases were actually rare, we may
assume that keeping up several establishments was too expensive for any
but the rich.[2737] In Egypt, as we may infer from the numerous ancient
paintings illustrative of domestic life in that country, polygyny
was of rare occurrence; and Herodotus expressly affirms that it was
customary for the Egyptians to marry only one wife.”[2738] Spiegel
thinks that the ancient Persians were as a rule monogamous,[2739]
and Sir Henry Maine and Dr. Schrader make a similar suggestion as to
the early Indo-Europeans in general.[2740] Among the West Germans,
according to Tacitus, only a few persons of noble birth had a plurality
of wives;[2741] and, in India, polygyny as a rule was confined to kings
and wealthy lords.[2742] In a hymn of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ which dwells
upon the duality of the two Aświns, the pairs of deities are compared
with pairs of almost everything that runs in couples, including a
husband and wife, and two lips uttering sweet sounds.[2743]

Where polygyny occurs, it is modified, as a rule, in ways that tend
towards monogamy: first, through the higher position granted to one
of the wives, generally the first married; secondly, through the
preference given by the husband to his favourite wife as regards sexual
intercourse.

Among the Greenlanders,[2744] Thlinkets,[2745] Kaniagmuts,[2746]
Crees,[2747] and probably most of the North American tribes who
practise polygyny,[2748] the first married wife is the mistress of
the house. The Aleuts distinguish the first or real wife from the
subsequent wives by a special name.[2749] Among the Ahts, the children
of a chief’s extra wives have not the father’s rank.[2750] The
Algonquins, says Heriot, permit two wives to one husband, but “the
one is considered of a rank superior to the other, and her children
alone are accounted legitimate.”[2751] Among the Mexicans,[2752]
Mayas,[2753] Chibchas,[2754] and Peruvians,[2755] the first wife took
precedence of the subsequent wives, or, strictly speaking, they had
only one “true and lawful wife,” though as many concubines as they
liked. In Nicaragua, bigamy, in the juridical sense of the term,
was punished by exile and confiscation of property;[2756] and, in
Mexico, neither the wives of “second rank” nor their children could
inherit property.[2757] Among the Mosquitoes, Tamanacs, Uaupés,
Mundrucûs,[2758] and other South American peoples,[2759] the first
wife generally has superiority in domestic affairs. Among the Brazilian
aborigines, however, no difference in rights exist between the children
of different wives.[2760]

The first wife is superior in authority to the others among the
Western Victorians, Narrinyeri, Maoris,[2761] &c.[2762] In Samoa, a
chief had, besides his wife, one, two, or three concubines;[2763] and
in Tahiti, according to Ellis, it was rather a system of concubinage
than a plurality of wives, that prevailed among the higher chiefs, the
woman to whom the chief was first united in marriage, or whose rank
was nearest his own, being generally considered his wife in the proper
sense of the term, while the others held an inferior position.[2764]

In the Indian Archipelago, according to Mr. Crawfurd, the wife of the
first marriage is always the real mistress of the family; the rest are
often little better than her hand-maids.[2765] The same holds good for
the Burmese, according to Lieutenant-General Fytche; for the Santals,
according to Colonel Dalton.[2766] In Siam, “the wife who has been the
object of the marriage ceremony ‘khan mak’ takes precedence of all
the rest, and she and her descendants are the only legal heirs to the
husband’s possessions.”[2767] Among the Khamtis, Samoyedes,[2768] and
other Asiatic peoples,[2769] the first wife is always the mistress of
the household and the most respected in the family; whilst, among the
Ainos,[2770] Mongols, and Tangutans,[2771] one man can take only one
lawful wife, though as many concubines as he pleases. But, except among
the Ainos, the children of concubines are illegitimate and have no
share in the inheritance.

The polygyny of China is a legalized concubinage, and the law actually
prohibits the taking of a second wife during the lifetime of the
first.[2772] The wife is invested with a certain amount of power over
the concubines, who may not even sit in her presence without special
permission.[2773] She addresses her partner with a term corresponding
to our “husband,” whilst the concubines call him “master.”[2774]
These are generally women with large feet and of low origin, not
unfrequently slaves or prostitutes; whereas the wife is almost
invariably, except of course in the case of Tartar ladies, a woman
with small feet.[2775] A wife cannot be degraded to the position of
a concubine, nor can a concubine be raised to the position of a wife
so long as the wife is alive, under a penalty in the one case of a
hundred, in the other of ninety blows.[2776] But the question upon
which the legitimacy of the offspring depends, is not whether the woman
is wife or concubine, but whether she has been received into the house
of the man or not.[2777] In Mohammedan countries, in households where
two or more wives belong to one man, the first married generally enjoys
the highest rank; she is called “the great lady,” and is commonly
united with her husband for life. But all the children of the man are
considered equally legitimate, even those born of female slaves.[2778]

Among the negro peoples, the principal wife, to whom the housekeeping
and command over all the rest are intrusted, is in most cases the one
first married. She has certain privileges, and in many cases can be
repudiated only if she has been unfaithful to her husband.[2779] Among
the Edeeyahs of Fernando Po, it was for the first wife alone that a
man had to serve several years with his father-in-law.[2780] Speaking
of the Eastern Central African tribes, Mr. Macdonald says, “As a
rule, a man has one wife that is free, while the other three or four
are slaves.... The chief wife is generally the woman that was married
first.... The chief wife has the superintendence of the domestic and
agricultural establishment. She keeps the others at their work, and
has power to exercise discipline upon them.” Generally, it is only by
inheriting the possessions of an elder brother that a man procures more
than one free wife.[2781] Among the Damaras and other South African
tribes, the eldest son of the principal or first wife inherits his
father’s property.[2782] Speaking of the Basutos, Mr. Casalis observes,
“A very marked distinction exists between the first wife and those
who succeed her. The choice of the ‘great’ wife (as she is always
called) is generally made by the father, and is an event in which all
the relations are interested. The others, who are designated by the
name of ‘serete’ (heels), because they must on all occasions hold an
inferior position to the mistress of the house, are articles of luxury,
to which the parents are not obliged to contribute.” The chief of the
Basutos, when asked by foreigners how many children he has, alludes in
his answer only to those of his first wife; and, if he says he is a
widower, this means that he has lost his real wife, and has not raised
any of his concubines to the rank she occupied.[2783] Among the Zulus,
the chief wife is the one first married,[2784] and this is often, but
not always, the case among the Kafirs.[2785] According to Rochon,
polygyny in Madagascar is, in fact, a sort of concubinage.[2786]

Eber suggests that the kings of ancient Egypt, although they might
have many concubines, had only one real wife, as there is no
instance of two consorts given in the inscriptions.[2787] Professor
Rawlinson makes a similar remark as to the polygyny of the Persian
kings.[2788] Regarding the Hindus, Mr. Mayne says, “A peculiar
sanctity ... seems to have been attributed to the first marriage, as
being that which was contracted from a sense of duty, and not merely
for personal gratification. The first married wife had precedence
over the others, and her first-born son over his half-brothers. It
is probable that originally the secondary wives were considered as
merely a superior class of concubines, like the hand-maids of the
Jewish patriarchs.”[2789] It was necessary that the first married
wife should be of the same caste as her husband.[2790] She sat by him
at marriages and other religious ceremonies, was head of the family,
and entitled to adopt a son if she had no sons at the time of her
husband’s death.[2791] The modified polygyny of the ancient Assyrians
and Greeks has been already noted. The ancient Scandinavians had
almost always only one legitimate wife, though as many concubines
as they chose.[2792] Touching the Pagan Russians, Ewers says that
of the wives of a prince one probably had precedence.[2793] Among
the Mormons, Sir R. F. Burton observes, “the first wife, as among
polygamists generally, is _the_ wife and assumes the husband’s name and
title.”[2794]

The difference in the position held by the several wives belonging to
one man, shows itself also in the demand of various peoples that the
first wife shall be of the husband’s rank, whilst the succeeding wives
may be of lower birth.[2795]

As just mentioned, there is another way in which polygyny is modified.
Among certain peoples the husband is bound by custom or law to cohabit
with his wives in turn. The Caribs, when they married several sisters
at the same time, lived a month with each in her separate hut.[2796]
Among the wild Indians of Chili, according to Mr. Darwin, the cazique
lives a week in turn with each of his wives.[2797] The Kafirs have an
old traditional law requiring a husband who has many wives to devote
three succeeding days and nights to each of them.[2798] A Mohammedan
is obliged to visit his four legal wives by turns;[2799] and the same
custom prevails, according to Krasheninnikoff, in Kamchatka.[2800]
The negroes often follow a like rule in order to keep peace in the
family.[2801] And, in Samoa, the system adopted when a person has
several wives, “is to allow each wife to enjoy three days’ supremacy
in rotation.”[2802] But such arrangements are, no doubt, exceptions,
and it is doubtful whether, in these cases, theory and practice
coincide.[2803] A marriage may, in fact, be monogamous, though, from a
juridical point of view, it is polygynous.

“It is not uncommon for an Indian,” says Carver, “although he takes
to himself so many wives, to live in a state of continence with many of
them for several years,” and those who do not succeed in pleasing the
husband may “continue in their virgin state during the whole of their
lives.”[2804] Among the Apaches, the chiefs “can have any number of
wives they choose, but one only is the favourite.”[2805] In Bokhara,
a rich man generally has two, three, or four wives; yet, according
to Georgi, one of them, as a rule, holds precedence in the husband’s
love.[2806] Speaking of the modern Egyptians, Mr. Lane says, “In
general, the most beautiful of a man’s wives or slaves is, of course,
for a time his greatest favourite; but in many—if not most—cases,
the lasting favourite is not the most handsome.”[2807] Sometimes the
wife who has proved most fruitful and given birth to the healthiest
children is most favoured by the husband;[2808] and, among the Indians
of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon, according to Dr. Gibbs,
the man usually lives with his first wife, at least after his interest
in subsequent wives has cooled down.[2809] But it is generally the
youngest wife who is the favourite. An Arabian Sheik said to Sir S. W.
Baker, “I have four wives; as one has become old, I have replaced
her with a young one; here they all are (he now marked four strokes
upon the sand with his stick). This one carries water; that grinds the
corn; this makes the bread; the last does not do much, as she is the
youngest, and my favourite.”[2810] In Guiana, “an Indian is never
seen with two young wives; the only case in which he takes a second
is when the first has become old.” The first wife certainly retains
the management of domestic affairs, but she no longer possesses the
husband’s love.[2811] Statements to a similar effect are made regarding
the Arabs of the Sahara, Tahitians, Central Asiatic Turks, Mormons,
&c.[2812]

Bigamy is the most common form of polygyny, and a multitude of wives is
the luxury of a few despotic rulers or very wealthy men. The Eskimo,
for example, have rarely more than two wives, and a Greenlander who
took a third or fourth was blamed by his countrymen, as we are told
by Cranz.[2813] The tribes of Oregon generally confine themselves to
a couple of wives.[2814] Bishop Salvado never knew a West Australian
native with more than two—“à moins peut-être que par générosité un
homme ne prenne sous sa protection la femme de son ami ou parent
absent; ou bien que par voie d’hérédité il n’adopte les veuves de son
frère.”[2815] Rich Kafirs are stated to have commonly two or three
wives;[2816] and Colonel Dalton does not recollect that, among the
Khamtis, he ever met with a case in which more than two women were
married to one husband.[2817] The Hebrews who indulged in polygyny were
generally bigamists.[2818]

       *       *       *       *       *

Polyandry is a much rarer form of marriage than polygyny. In
Oonalashka, one of the Aleutian Islands, according to v. Langsdorf, a
woman sometimes lived with two husbands who agreed between themselves
upon the conditions on which they were to share her.[2819] Among the
Kaniagmuts, two or three men occasionally had a wife in common;[2820]
and Veniaminoff tells us that in ancient times a Thlinket woman,
besides her real husband, could have a legal paramour, who usually
was the brother of the husband.[2821] Among the Eskimo also, “two men
sometimes marry the same woman.”[2822] Father Lafitau writes, “Par
une suite de la Gynécocratie, la polygamie, qui n’est pas permise aux
hommes, l’est pourtant aux femmes chez les Iroquois Tsonnontouans,
où il en est, lesquelles ont deux maris, qu’on regarde comme
légitimes.”[2823] Among the Avanos and Maypurs, along the Orinoco, v.
Humboldt found that brothers often had but one wife;[2824] according to
Mr. Brett, the Warraus do not consider the practice of one woman having
two husbands to be bad; and he mentions an instance of a woman amongst
them having even three.[2825]

In Nukahiva, as we are told by Lisiansky, in rich families every
woman had two husbands, of whom one might be called the assistant
husband.[2826] In New Caledonia, according to M. Moncelon, polyandry
does not seem to have been entirely unknown;[2827] and Mr. Radfield
writes to me from Lifu that an old man knew of three cases of
polyandrous marriage having occurred in that island, but the husbands
were despised by the rest of the natives. In two of these cases the
husbands were brothers, in the third they were unrelated. It is said
that, among the Tasmanians, “polyandry, or something very like it,
existed;”[2828] but this statement, if correct, refers to altogether
exceptional cases.

Bontier and Le Verrier assert that, in the island of Lancerote, of the
Canaries, most women had three husbands.[2829] Thunberg observes that,
among the Hottentots, there were women who married two men.[2830] Dr.
Fritsch mentions the existence of polyandry among the Damaras, and
Mr. Theal among the mountain tribes of the Bantu race.[2831] The Hovas
of Madagascar have a word to express the leave given to a wife to have
intercourse with another man during a husband’s prolonged absence from
home.[2832]

Until prohibited by the governor, Sir Henry Ward, about the year 1860,
polyandry prevailed among the Sinhalese throughout the interior of
Ceylon, one woman having in many cases three or four husbands, and
in others five or six or even seven. It is recorded that the same
practice was at one time universal throughout the island, except among
the Veddahs,[2833] and even now it occurs in spite of government
interdict.[2834] The husbands are usually members of the same family,
and most frequently brothers.

Among the Todas, all brothers of one family, be they many or few, live
in mixed cohabitation with one or more wives. “If there be four or
five brothers,” says Dr. Shortt, “and one of them, being old enough,
gets married, his wife claims all the other brothers as her husbands,
and, as they successively attain manhood, she consorts with them; or,
if the wife has one or more younger sisters, they in turn, on attaining
a marriageable age, become the wives of their sister’s husband or
husbands.... Owing, however, to the great scarcity of women in this
tribe, it more frequently happens that a single woman is wife to
several husbands, sometimes as many as six.”[2835] The same practice
occurs among the Kurgs of Mysore.[2836] Among the Nairs of Malabar,
it is the custom for one woman “to have attached to her two males,
or four, or perhaps more, and they cohabit according to rules.”[2837]
Polyandry is also found among the Miris, Dophlas, Butlas,[2838]
Sissee Abors,[2839] Khasias,[2840] and Santals.[2841] It prevails
in the Siwalik mountains, Sirmore,[2842] Ladakh,[2843] the Jounsar
and Bawar hill districts attached to the Doon,[2844] Kunawar,[2845]
Kotegarh,[2846] and, especially, in Tibet. This custom exists, as
Mr. Wilson asserts, “all over the country of the Tibetan-speaking
people; that is to say, from China to the dependencies of Kashmir
and Afghanistan, with the exception of Sikkim, and some other of the
provinces on the Indian side of the Himalaya, where, though the Tibetan
language may in part prevail, yet the people are either Aryan in race,
or have been much influenced by Aryan ideas.”[2847] Polyandry is said
to occur among the Saporogian Cossacks;[2848] and Mr. Ravenstein
quotes a statement of a Japanese traveller that it prevails among the
Smerenkur Gilyaks in Eastern Siberia.[2849]

With the exception of the Nairs, Khasias, and Saporogian Cossacks, the
husbands in almost every one of these cases are stated to be brothers.
A colonel who lived among the Kulus of Kotegarh for twenty-five
years assures us that, among that people, the husbands are always
brothers;[2850] and, so far as Mr. Wilson could learn, the polyandry
of Central Asia must be limited to the marriage of one woman to two or
more brothers, no other form being found there.[2851]

A very curious kind of polyandry prevails, according to Dr. Shortt,
among the Reddies. It often happens that a young woman of sixteen
or twenty years of age is married to a boy of five or six years, or
even of a tenderer age. After marriage the wife lives with some other
man, a near relation on the maternal side, frequently an uncle, and
sometimes with her boy-husband’s own father, the progeny so begotten
being affiliated to the boy-husband. When he comes of age he finds his
wife an old woman, and perhaps past child-bearing. So he, in his turn,
takes possession of the wife of some other boy, who will nominally be
the father of her children.[2852] A similar custom is said to exist
among the Vellalah caste in the Coimbore district,[2853] and prevailed,
till the emancipation of the serfs, among the Russian peasants, the
father being in the habit of cohabiting with the wife of his son during
the son’s minority.[2854] Ahlqvist mentions the occurrence of the same
practice among the Ostyaks,[2855] v. Haxthausen among the Ossetes.[2856]

Passing to ancient nations, we find indications of polyandry in a hymn
in the ‘Rig-Veda,’ which is addressed to the two Aświns,[2857], and
in the Mahâbhârata, where Draupadi is represented as won at an archery
match by the eldest of the five Pandava princes, and as then becoming
the wife of all. According to Strabo, polyandry occurred in Media, and
in Arabia Felix, where all male members of the same family married
one woman.[2858] Ma-touan-lin states that, among the Massagetæ, the
brothers had one wife in common, and when a man had no brothers he
associated with other men, as otherwise he was obliged to live single
through the whole of his life.[2859] We have in the Irish Nennius
direct evidence of the existence of polyandry among the Picts,[2860]
and of the ancient Britons Cæsar says that “by tens and by twelves
husbands possessed their wives in common, and especially brothers
with brothers, and parents with children.”[2861] Among the ancient
Scandinavians we possibly find a trace of this custom in the mythic
statement that the goddess Frigg, during the absence of her husband
Odin, was married to his brothers Vili and Ve.[2862]

Among the peoples of America, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, just
referred to, polyandry, in almost every case, is confined to a very
small part of the population; and among the polyandrous nations
of India and Central Asia it is by no means the exclusive form
of marriage. Sir Emerson Tennent says that, in Ceylon, polyandry
prevails chiefly among the wealthier classes, whilst, according to
Dr. Davy, it is “more or less general among the high and low, the
rich and poor,” other forms of marriage, however, being by no means
excluded.[2863] Among the Todas, “any degree of complication in
perfectly lawful wedded life may be met with, from the sample of
the single man living with the single wife, to that of the group of
relatives married to a group of wives.”[2864] Mr. Balfour says that
“the practice of polyandry does not seem to have ever prevailed
generally amongst the Nairs and many of the Teeyer of North Malabar,
from Kurumbranad to Mangalore.”[2865] Among the Miris there are only
a few instances of this custom.[2866] Of the Dophlas those who can
afford it are polygynists.[2867] Among the Khasias, polyandry “can be
said to prevail only among the poorer sort, with whom, too, it would
often seem to mean rather facility of divorce than the simultaneous
admission of a plurality of husbands.”[2868] Among the Santals, the
wife of the eldest brother _may_ be at the same time a wife for the
younger brothers also.[2869] The Sissee Abors have often as many wives
as they can afford to buy;[2870] and in the Kunawar valley, polyandry
is common only in the upper part of the valley, whilst polygyny
prevails in the lower part.[2871] In the Kotegarh valley, according
to Dr. Stulpnagel, the practice of polyandry is not universal; it
can scarcely be said to be even very common. “If diligently searched
for,” he observes, “single cases of polyandry will be found in the
Kôtgadh parganâ, in Kulu, in the territory of the Rânâs of Komarsen
and Kaneti, and in Bussahir.... Though common enough in Kunawar at
the present day, it exists side by side with polygamy and monogamy.
In one house there may be three brothers with one wife; in the next
three brothers with four wives, all alike in common; in the next house
there may be a man with three wives to himself; in the next a man with
only one wife.”[2872] Among the Butias, or Botis, of Ladakh, according
to Sir Alexander Cunningham, polyandry prevails “only among the
poorer classes, for the rich, as in all Eastern countries, generally
have two or three wives, according to their circumstances.”[2873]
In the Jounsar and Bawah pargannahs, polyandry is almost universal,
but it is apparently unknown in the hills of Garhwal on the east,
or those of the Simla superintendency on the west.[2874] Nowhere,
except perhaps in the Neilgherry Hills, has polyandry prevailed more
extensively than in Tibet; but it is not the only form of marriage.
According to Captain J. D. Cunningham, “even among the Lamaic
Tibetans any casual influx of wealth, as from trade or other sources,
immediately leads to the formation of separate establishments by the
several members of a house.”[2875] We may thus take for granted that
polyandry, although frequently practised in certain parts of India and
Central Asia,[2876] nowhere excludes the simultaneous occurrence of
other forms of marriage. The instances of ancient Aryan polyandry in
India evidently form exceptions to the general rule among the people
of the Vedic period. The father of Draupadi is represented by the
compilers of the epic as shocked at the proposal of the princes to
marry his daughter:—“You who know the law,” he says, “must not commit
an unlawful act which is contrary to usage and the Vedas.” In the
Râmâyana, the giant Virâdha attacks the two divine brothers Râma and
Lakshmana and their wife Sítâ, saying, “Why do you two devotees remain
with one woman? Why are you, O profligate wretches, corrupting the
devout sages?”[2877] And in the ‘Aitareya Brâhmana’ we read that “one
man has many wives, but one wife has not many husbands at the same
time.”[2878] Indeed, with the exception of the Massagetæ, the account
of whom cannot be critically checked, there is no people among whom
polyandry is stated to be the only recognized form of marriage.

Like polygyny, polandry is modified in directions tending towards
monogamy. As one, usually the first married, wife in polygynous
families is the chief wife, one, usually the first, husband in
polyandrous families is the chief husband. This was the case with
the Aleuts, among whom, according to Erman, the secondary husband
was generally a hunter or wandering trader; and with the Kaniagmuts,
among whom, as we have already seen, he acted as husband and master
of the house during the absence of the true lord. Upon the latter’s
return, the deputy not only yielded to him his place, but became in
the meantime his servant.[2879] In Nukahiva, the subordinate partner
sometimes was chosen after marriage, “but in general,” says Lisiansky,
“two men present themselves to the same woman, who, if she approves
their addresses, appoints one for the real husband, and the other
as his auxiliary; the auxiliary is generally poor, but handsome and
well-made.”[2880]

In Ladakh, according to Moorcraft and Trebeck, should there be several
brothers in a family, the juniors, if they agree to the arrangement,
become inferior husbands to the wife of the elder; all the children,
however, are supposed to belong to the head of the family. The younger
brothers have, indeed, no authority; they wait upon the elder as his
servants, and can be turned out of doors at his pleasure, without
its being incumbent upon him to provide for them. On the death of
the eldest brother, his property, authority, and widow devolve upon
his next brother.[2881] In Kamaon, too, where the brothers of a
family all marry one wife, the children are attributed to the eldest
brother.[2882] The same is the case in the Jounsar district, as it
was formerly with the Massagetæ.[2883] Touching the polyandrous
tribes of Arabia Felix, Strabo tells us that the eldest brother was
the ruler of the family, and that the common wife spent the nights
with him.[2884] Among the ancient Britons, as described by Cæsar, the
children were regarded as belonging to him who had first taken the
virgin to wife.[2885] In Tibet, the choice of a wife is the right of
the elder brother, and the contract he makes is understood to involve
a marital contract with all the other brothers, if they choose to
avail themselves of it. The children call the eldest husband father,
the younger husbands uncles.[2886] Among the Todas also, the eldest
brother seems to be the real husband. “If the husband has brothers or
very near relatives, all living together,” says Mr. Marshall, “they
may each, if both she and he consent, participate in the right to be
considered her husband also, on making up a share of the dowry that has
been paid.”[2887] Again, in Spiti, where polyandry no longer prevails,
the same object is attained by the custom of primogeniture, by which
only the eldest son marries, while the younger sons become monks.[2888]
Speaking of the Khyoungtha, a Chittagong Hill tribe, Captain Lewin
observes, “After marriage a younger brother is allowed to touch the
hand, to speak and laugh with his elder brother’s wife; but it is
thought improper for an elder even to look at the wife of his younger
brother. This is a custom more or less among all hill tribes; it is
found carried to even a preposterous extent among the Santals.”[2889]
In this custom there is perhaps a trace of ancient polyandry.

       *       *       *       *       *

Summing up the results reached in this chapter, we may safely say that,
although polygyny occurs among most existing peoples, and polyandry
among some, monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage.
It was so also among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct
knowledge. Monogamy is the form which is generally recognized as
legal and permitted. The great majority of peoples are, as a rule,
monogamous, and the other forms of marriage are usually modified in a
monogamous direction.

We have still to inquire how the matter stood in early times, and to
trace the general development of the forms of human marriage. But, in
accordance with our method of investigation, we must first examine the
causes by which these forms have been influenced.




CHAPTER XXI

THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

(_Continued_)


It has also been asserted that monogamy is the natural form of human
marriage because there is an almost equal number of men and women. But
this is by no means the case. The numerical proportion between the
sexes varies, and in some cases varies greatly, among different peoples.

In the whole district of Nutka, it seemed to Meares that there were
not so many women as men, whereas, further north, the women decidedly
preponderated.[2890] Among the Kutchin, according to Kirby, women
form the minority;[2891] and they seem to hold the same position
among the Upper Californians and Western Eskimo.[2892] But as a rule,
among the North American aborigines, the opposite is apparently the
case. Thus there are more women than men among certain Eskimo tribes,
according to Dr. King; among the natives of the Sitka Islands,
according to Lisiansky; among the Californian Shastika, according to
Mr. Powers.[2893] The census of the Creeks taken in the year 1832
showed 6,555 men and 7,142 women; that of the Indian population around
Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, the Upper Mississippi, &c., in
the same year, 3,144 men and 3,571 women, excluding children, that
of the Nez Percés in Oregon, taken in 1851 by Dr. Dart, 698 men and
1,182 women.[2894] Among the Blackfeet and Shiyann, according to Mr.
Morgan—among the Puncahs and some other tribes, according to Mr.
Catlin—the number of women is said to be twice as large as that of men,
and in some cases even three times as large.[2895]

In Yucatan, according to Stephens, there are two women to one man;
among the Guaranies, according to Azara, fourteen women to thirteen
men; in Cochabamba, according to Gibbon, even five to one.[2896]
Among the Zapotecs and other nations of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,
the women are greatly in excess of the men;[2897] whereas, among the
Tarumas,[2898] Avanos, Maypurs,[2899] and Guanas,[2900] the men are
stated to be more numerous than the women. Von Martius says that among
the Indians of Brazil, the number varied in some villages in favour of
the male sex, in others in favour of the female.[2901]

In Australia the men seem generally to be in the majority.[2902]
Speaking of the Australian natives, the Rev. L. Fison says, “I think
we may suppose that the number of males generally exceeds that of
females among the lower savages; at least, quite a number of observers
declare that such is the fact.”[2903] Among the Western Australians,
according to Mr. Oldfield, at all times the males are in excess of the
other sex.”[2904] Wilhelmi makes a similar statement with regard to
several other tribes;[2905] but this rule does not apply to all the
Australians. “On Herbert River,” says Herr Lumholtz, “the women are
more numerous than the men; this is also the case among the tribes
south-west of the Carpentarian Gulf and elsewhere. But, according to
accurate observations, the opposite is the case in a large part of
Australia.”[2906] In some tribes of the interior, Mr. Sturt found that
among children there were about two girls to one boy.[2907]

In Tasmania, according to Breton, the men greatly exceeded the women
in number.[2908] So also in Tahiti, where, at the time of Mr. Ellis’s
arrival, there were probably four or five men to one woman;[2909] in
Maupiti, where the disproportion between the sexes among adults was
at the rate of three men to two women;[2910] and in Easter Island,
where, according to the estimates of Cook and La Pérouse, the men
were twice as numerous as the women.[2911] In the Sandwich Islands,
Nukahiva, and some islands belonging to the Solomon Group, the male
sex predominated;[2912] and among the Maoris, according to a census
taken in the year 1881, there were 24,370 men and 19,729 women.[2913]
In Makin Island, of the Kingsmill Group, on the other hand, Wood
represented the women as outnumbering the men.[2914] The same was to a
very great extent the case in Tukopia;[2915] and d’Albertis says that
in Naiabui, a village in New Guinea with 300 inhabitants, “there are
more women than men by about a third.”[2916] Both sexes are nearly
equally represented at Port Moresby,[2917] and according to Marsden,
in Sumatra.[2918] In Sarawak the women are less numerous than the
men.[2919]

In Ceylon a considerable disparity is exhibited by the returns.
According to Pridham, it is found in the greatest degree among the
Sinhalese, among whom the surplus of men averages twelve per cent.,
but it is also observable in the case of the Malabar population in
the northern province, where the surplus of men averages six per
cent.[2920] Robert Orme states that, in India, the number of women
exceeds that of men;[2921] but this is certainly not the case in every
part of the country. In a census of the North-West Provinces, taken
during the year 1866, the proportions between the sexes were found to
be 100 men to 86·6 women, and, in the Panjab, even 100 to 81·8.[2922]
In some districts of the Himalayas there is a surplus of males, in
others of females.[2923] In Kashmir, the proportion of men to women
is as three to one.[2924] In the Buddhist country of Ladakh, says Sir
A. Cunningham, “it will be observed that the females outnumber the
males, while the reverse is the case in the Mussulman districts along
the Indus.”[2925] In Malwa, in Central India, the number of women
surpasses the number of men,[2926] and the same, according to Sir John
Bowring, is to a great extent the case in China.[2927] The Todas of
the Neilgherry Hills, on the other hand, amounted in the year 1867,
according to Mr. Breeks, to 455 males and 249 females of all ages,
whilst Mr. Marshall some few years ago found the Toda males of all
ages bear the proportion to females of all ages of 100 to 75.[2928]
Among the Mongols, as we are informed by Prejevalsky, “the women
are far less numerous than the men;”[2929] and the same is said to
have been the case with the Massagetæ, and to be the case still in
Kamchatka.[2930]

As for the peoples of Africa, I have found two cases only of an excess
of men, the one among the population of Galega, to the north-east of
Madagascar, the other among the Quissama tribe in Angola.[2931] The
reverse seems decidedly to be the rule. Thus, from Morocco Dr. Churcher
writes to me that “there appears to be a striking disproportion,
though there is no such thing as statistics in this land.” In Ma
Bung, in the Timannee country, Major Laing counted three women to one
man.[2932] A census taken in Lagos in 1872 showed among the population
of African origin, 27,774 men and 32,353 women.[2933] Among the Negroes
of the Gold Coast, according to Bosman; in Latúka, according to Emin
Pasha; among the Waguha of West Tanganyika, according to Mr. A. J.
Swann; among the Wa-taïta, according to Mr. Joseph Thomson, women
predominate.[2934] Mr. Cousins is inclined to think that the same is
the case with the Cis-Natalian Kafirs, “as there are few bachelors,
and the majority of men have more than one wife.”[2935] In Uganda, says
the Rev. C. T. Wilson, “the female population is largely in excess of
the male, the proportion being about three and a half to one.”[2936]

In European countries, the number of men and of women from fifteen to
twenty years of age is generally almost the same; but in an earlier
period of life there are more men than women, and, in a later, more
women than men.[2937]

This disparity in the numbers of the sexes is due to various causes.
The preponderance of women depends to a great extent upon the higher
mortality of men. Dr. Sutherland found that the average age of 109
Eskimo was nearly 22 years—that of the females 24·5, that of the males
19·3 years.[2938] The men pass most of their time at sea, in snow and
rain, heat and cold, and many of them are drowned. The result of this
troublesome and dangerous life is that few of them attain the age of
fifty, whereas many women reach the age of seventy or even eighty.
This, according to Dr. King, is the reason why, among this people,
there are generally fewer men than women.[2939] Mr. Bancroft states
that, among the Ingaliks near the mouth of the Yukon, some of the
women reach sixty, while the men rarely attain more than forty-five
years.[2940] In Europe, the death-rate is higher among men than among
women, partly because of the greater dangers they are exposed to. Among
many savage and barbarous peoples, however, the greater mortality of
the male population depends chiefly upon the destructive influence of
war.[2941] “As all nations of Indians in their natural condition,”
says Mr. Catlin, “are unceasingly at war with the tribes that are
about them, ... their warriors are killed off to that extent, that in
many instances two, or sometimes three women to a man are found in a
tribe.”[2942] According to Ellis, it is supposed by the Missionaries
in Madagascar that, in consequence of the destructive ravages of war,
in some of the provinces there are among the free portion of the
inhabitants five, and in other three, women to one man, whilst the
proportion of the sexes seems to be equal at birth.[2943] But I am
inclined to think that this cause operates principally at tolerably
advanced stages of civilization, and only in a smaller degree among
the rudest savages, who, devoid of any definite tribal organization,
live a wandering life, scattered in families or hordes consisting of
a few persons. Thus, with regard to the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego,
Mr. Bridges writes to me, “On several occasions when some hundreds
of natives have been gathered together, I have taken censuses of
them, and have always found the sexes equal or nearly so.... War was
unknown, though fightings were frequent, but women took part in them as
energetically as the men, and suffered equally with them—if anything,
more.” Among the Australians also, as we have seen, wars do not cause
any disproportion between the sexes.

The surplus of males is often due to female infanticide;[2944] and
among certain peoples there is another cause which must be taken into
account. Captain Lewin states that, among the Toungtha, women die at a
comparatively early age because of the constant labour which their sex
entails upon them, whereas the men live very long.[2945] And the same
is said by Mr. Kirby with regard to the Kutchin.[2946]

Moreover, there is a disproportion between the sexes at birth. Among
some peoples more boys are born, among others more girls; and the
surplus is often considerable. Mr. Ross thinks that, among the Eastern
Tinneh, “the proportion of births is rather in favour of females,”
whilst the Aht women seem to have more boys than girls.[2947] Von
Humboldt found by examining baptismal registers, that more boys than
girls were born in some communities of New Spain.[2948] The same,
according to M. Belly, is the case among the Indians of Guatemala and
Nicaragua.[2949]

In the interior of Australia, Mr. Sturt met with several smaller tribes
in which the number of girls was considerably greater than the number
of boys, though in other tribes the proportion of births is in favour
of males.[2950] Sir. G. Grey drew up a list of 222 births, and of these
93 were females, 129 males.[2951] In Tasmania, where the men were more
numerous than the women, female infanticide was very rare.[2952] The
same is the case with the Sinhalese. They hold in abhorrence the crime
of exposing children, says Dr. Davy; and it is never committed except
in some of the wildest parts of the country, and even there only when
the parents themselves are on the brink of starvation, and must either
sacrifice a part of the family or die.[2953] Haeckel assures us that
among this people there is a permanent disproportion between male and
female births, ten boys being born, on the average, to eight or nine
girls.[2954] Among the Todas, as we are informed by Mr. Marshall, the
male children under fourteen years of age bear to the female children
of the same period—ages estimated from their personal appearance—the
ratio of 100 to 80·0,[2955] though female infanticide is never
practised, having long since become extinct through the action of the
British Government.[2956] Mr. Man’s inquiries tended to show that,
among the Andamanese, there is a slight predominance of female over
male births.[2957]

Bruce observes, “From a diligent inquiry into the South and
Scripture-part of Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Syria, from Mousul (or
Nineveh) to Aleppo and Antioch, I find the proportion to be fully
two women born to one man. There is indeed, a fraction over, but
not a considerable one. From Latikea, Laodicea ad mare, down the
coast of Syria to Sidon, the number is very nearly three, or two and
three-fourths to one man. Through the Holy Land, the country called
Horan, in the Isthmus of Suez, and the parts of the Delta, unfrequented
by strangers, it is something less than three. But from Suez to the
Straits of Babelmandeb, which contains the three Arabias, the portion
is fully four women to one man, which, I have reason to believe, holds
as far as the Line, and 30° beyond it.” The manner in which Bruce
came to these conclusions he describes as follows:—“Whenever I went
into a town, village, or inhabited place, dwelt long in a mountain,
or travelled journeys with any set of people, I always made it my
business to inquire how many children they had, or their fathers, their
next neighbours, or acquaintance. This not being a captious question,
or what any one would scruple to answer, there was no interest to
deceive.... I say, therefore, that a medium of both sexes arising from
three or four hundred families indiscriminately taken, shall be the
proportion in which one differs from the other.”[2958]

This statement has been contradicted, but, so far as I know, it has not
been proved to be wholly without foundation. It is to some extent made
credible by what Dr. Churcher informs me regarding the disproportion
of the sexes among the Moors of Morocco. As the result of his own
observation, and that of a Mohammedan friend of his, he writes, “There
is certainly a disproportion also at birth.... It would be safe to say
that the female births are in the proportion of three females to one
male; this partly accounts for the great rejoicing when a son is born.
It reacts, however, in this way, that the people say, ‘Allah has given
us more women than men, hence it is evident that polygamy is of God.’”
In the Monbuttu country, according to Emin Pasha, “far more female
children are born than males.”[2959] And, regarding the disproportion
between the sexes in Uganda, Mr. Wilson says, “Careful observation
has established the fact that there are a good many more female births
than male, and, on taking the groups of children playing by the
roadside, there will always be found to be more girls than boys.”[2960]
Confronted by these definite statements, and by the fact that, in many
African countries, there is a striking excess of women, we cannot with
Süssmilch and Chervin[2961] dismiss as wholly groundless Montesquieu’s
well-known assertion that in the hot regions of the Old World more
girls are born than boys,[2962] although such disproportion certainly
does not exist in every tropical country.

In Europe, the average male births outnumber the female by about five
per cent., the still-born being excluded. But the rate varies in the
different countries. Thus, in Russian Poland, only 101 boys are born
to 100 girls, whilst, in Roumania and Greece, the proportion is 111 to
100.[2963] The excess of male over female births is less when they are
illegitimate than when legitimate.[2964]

       *       *       *       *       *

Ever since Aristotle’s days inquirers have sought to discover the
causes which determine the sex of the offspring; but no conclusion
commanding general assent has yet been arrived at. The law of Hofacker
and Sadler, according to which more boys are born if the husband
is older than the wife, more girls if the wife is older than the
husband, has attracted the greatest number of adherents.[2965] But
Noirot and Breslau have lately come to the opposite result, and, from
the data of Norwegian statistics, Berner has shown that the law is
untenable.[2966] Dr. Goehlert has modified it so far that he holds the
sex to be influenced, not by the relative, but by the absolute ages
of the parents.[2967] But W. Stieda has found from the registers of
births in Alsace-Lorraine, that neither the relative nor the absolute
ages of the parents exercise this sort of influence.[2968] Again,
Platter, in a paper in ‘Statistische Monatsschrift’ (Vienna) for 1875,
concludes from the examination of thirty million births that the less
the difference in the age of the parents the greater is the probability
of boys being born.[2969]

It has, further, been suggested that polygyny leads to the birth
of a greater proportion of female infants.[2970] Dr. J. Campbell,
however, who carefully attended to this subject in the harems of Siam,
concludes that the proportion of male to female births is the same
as from monogamous unions.[2971] It has also been maintained, in a
paper read before the “Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland” by Mr. John Sanderson, that, among the Kafirs resident
in Natal and the adjoining countries, there was no surplus of female
births in polygynous families.[2972] The mass of facts collected by
Mr. Sanderson is, however, too small to warrant any positive general
deductions, and the like must be said of the information on the subject
which Mr. Cousins and Mr. Eyles have sent me from the same part of
South Africa. According to M. Remy and Mr. Hyde, on the other hand, the
censuses of the Mormons show a great excess of female births.[2973]
But it is impossible to believe that polygynous intercourse _per se_
can cause such an excess. Hardly any animal, as Mr. Darwin remarks,
has been rendered so highly polygynous as English race-horses;
nevertheless, their male and female offspring are almost exactly equal
in number.[2974]

Of all the theories relating to this subject, the one set forth by
Dr. Düsing[2975] is by far the most important. According to him, the
characters of animals and plants which influence the formation of
sex are due to natural selection. In every species, the proportion
between the sexes has a tendency to keep constant, but the organisms
are so well adapted to the conditions of life that, under anomalous
circumstances, they produce more individuals of that sex of which
there is the greatest need. When nourishment is abundant, strengthened
reproduction is an advantage to the species, whereas the reverse is
the case when nourishment is scarce. Hence—the power of multiplication
depending chiefly upon the number of females—organisms, when unusually
well nourished, produce comparatively more female offspring; in the
opposite case, more male. Dr. Düsing and, before him, Dr. Ploss,[2976]
have adduced several remarkable facts which seem to indicate that such
a connection between abundance and the production of females, and
between scarcity and the production of males, actually exists. It is,
for example, a common opinion among furriers that rich regions give
more female furs, poor regions more male.[2977] It is an established
fact that male births are in greater excess in country districts,
the population of which is often badly fed, than in towns, where the
conditions of life are shown to be, as a rule, more luxurious.[2978] A
similar excess is found among poor people as compared with the well-off
classes.[2979] Especially remarkable is Dr. Ploss’s statement that in
highlands comparatively more boys are born than in lowlands. He found
that, in Saxony, in the years 1847-1849, the proportion between male
and female births was 105·9 to 100 in the region not exceeding 500
Paris feet above the level of the sea; 107·3 to 100, at a height of
between 1,001 and 1,500 feet; and 107·8 to 100, at a height of between
1,501 and 2,000.[2980]

The evidence adduced by Dr. Ploss and Dr. Düsing is certainly not
strong enough to permit us to regard their inference otherwise than as
an hypothesis. But it is an hypothesis in which there seems to be some
truth. There are ethnological facts which fully harmonize with it.

According to the census made by the collectors of districts in 1814,
the whole population of the old English possessions in Ceylon formed
a grand total of 475,883 souls, the males outnumbering the females
by 27,193. Above the age of puberty there were 156,447 males, and
142,453 females; below that age, 95,091 males, and 81,892 females.
Davy, who thinks that the census is not far from the truth, remarks,
“The disproportion appears to be greatest in the poorest parts of the
country, where the population is thinnest, and it is most difficult
to support life; and smallest where there is least want. Indeed, in
some of the fishing villages, where there is abundance of food, the
number of females rather exceeds that of the males. May it not be a
wise provision of provident Nature to promote, by extreme poverty, the
generation of males rather than of females?”[2981]

Very remarkable is the striking coincidence of polyandry with the
great poverty of the countries in which it prevails. It seems to be
beyond doubt that this practice, as a rule, is due to scarcity of
women. This is the view taken by most of the authorities to whom we
owe our knowledge of polyandrous peoples.[2982] And this disproportion
between the sexes cannot, at least in many instances, be explained
as a result of female infanticide. It was formerly said that the
excess of men among the Todas was owing to the fact that all the
girls beyond a certain number were destroyed in the cradle; but later
investigations, as we have seen, show that the excess depends upon a
striking disproportion between male and female births. Dr. Seemann
states that, among those Eskimo tribes who practise polyandry, and
among whom men are more numerous than women, female infanticide seems
to be unknown.[2983] With regard to the inhabitants of the Jounsar
district of the Himalayas, Mr. Dunlop says, “Wherever the practice of
polyandry exists, there is a striking discrepance in the proportions of
the sexes among young children as well as adults; thus, in a village
where I have found upwards of four hundred boys, there were only one
hundred and twenty girls, yet the temptations to female infanticide,
owing to expensive marriages and extravagant dowers which exist among
the Rajputs of the plains, are not found in the hills where the
marriages are comparatively inexpensive, and where the wife, instead
of bringing a large dowry, is usually purchased for a considerable
sum from her parents. In the Garhwal Hills, moreover, where polygamy
is prevalent, there is a surplus of female children.... I am inclined
to give more weight to Nature’s adaptability to national habit, than
to the possibility of infanticide being the cause of the discrepance
found in Jounsar.”[2984] Female infants are killed only where they
are a burden to the family or community to which they belong. But it
will be shown subsequently that this is by no means the case with the
inhabitants of the Himalayas. Hence it seems almost probable that,
among the polyandrous peoples of these regions, as among the Todas and
Sinhalese, more boys are born than girls.

It has been said that Tibetan polyandry depends upon the scarcity of
women in a marriageable state, and that this scarcity is due to the
Lama nunneries absorbing so many of the girls.[2985] But Koeppen clears
the religion of Tibet of any responsibility for polyandry, showing
that the practice existed in the country before the introduction
of Buddhism.[2986] Mr. Baber states the very remarkable fact that
“polygamy obtains in valleys, while polyandry prevails in the
uplands.”[2987] According to Mr. Rockhill, “female infanticide is not
practised in Tibet, except among the women married to Chinese;”[2988]
and Grosier and Du Halde expressly assert that more males than females
are born there.[2989]

Much stress must be laid on the fact that polyandry prevails chiefly
in poor countries. “Polyandry,” says Lieutenant Cunningham, “appears
to be essential in a country in which the quantity of cultivable land
is limited, and in which pastures are not extensive, in which there
are but few facilities for carrying on commerce, and in which there
is no mineral wealth readily made available.”[2990] “Il est connu,”
says M. Vinson, “que sur la côte de Malabar la polyandrie a été
établie pour obvier à la pénurie des subsistances.”[2991] The Santals
live in a country a great part of which is poor and sterile.[2992]
Regarding the Kunawari, Miss Gordon Cumming remarks, “There is a
curious distinction in the social customs of the people in the upper
and lower part of this valley. Below Wangtu it is said that polygamy
prevails, as elsewhere; every man buying his wives from their parents
for a given number of rupees.... Farther up the valley, however, where
the people are very poor, and the tiny ridges of cultivation will not
support large families, polyandry is common.”[2993] Speaking of the
Botis of Ladakh, Sir A. Cunningham asserts that polyandry “was a most
politic measure for a poor country which does not produce sufficient
food for its inhabitants.”[2994] Mr. Bellew holds the same view with
regard to polyandry in Lammayru in Ladakh:—“The population is kept
down to a proportion which the country is capable of supporting. For
the only parts of it which are habitable are the narrow valleys through
which its rivers flow, and the little nooks in the mountains which
are watered by their torrent tributaries.”[2995] According to Mr.
Wilson, even one of the Moravian missionaries defended the polyandry
of the Tibetans “as good for the heathen of so sterile a country,”
since superabundant population in an unfertile country, would be a
great calamity and produce “eternal warfare or eternal want.”[2996]
A similar opinion is pronounced by Koeppen, Turner, de Ujfalvy, and
Wilson.[2997]

It is commonly asserted that this coincidence of polyandry with poverty
of material resources depends upon the intention of the people to check
an increase of population, or upon the fact that the men are not rich
enough to support or buy wives for themselves. But the accuracy of
these assumptions is very doubtful. Among no polyandrous people, except
the Tibetans with their nunneries do we know of a class of unmarried
women. Moreover, even if a woman is sometimes a burden to her husband
in a tribe that lives by hunting, her position is very different among
a pastoral or agricultural people. In the Himalayas, as Mr. Fraser
remarks, women are useful in the fields and in domestic labours, and
fully earn their own subsistence.[2998] Again, Turner, who had many
opportunities of seeing Western Tibet, asserts that polyandry there is
not confined to the lower ranks alone, but is frequently found in the
most opulent families,—a statement with which Mr. Wilson agrees.[2999]
In Ceylon, as we have seen, it prevails chiefly among the wealthier
classes.[3000] And in the villages of the Kotegarh district in the
Himalayas, according to Dr. Stulpnagel, most of the cases of polyandry
are found among well-to-do peoples. “It is the poor,” he says, “who
prefer polygamy, on account of the value of the women as household
drudges.”[3001] All these facts are certainly in favour of Dr. Düsing’s
theory; and Dr. Floss’s statement as to the excess of male births in
the highlands of Saxony becomes very important when we consider that
polyandry chiefly occurs among mountaineers—in South Africa, as we have
seen, as well as in Asia.

Dr. Düsing has, moreover, inferred that incest is less common in
proportion as the number of males is great. The more males, he says,
the farther off they have to go from their birthplace to find mates.
Incest is injurious to the species; hence incestuous unions have a
tendency to produce an excess of male offspring.[3002] Thus, according
to Dr. Nagel, certain plants, when self-fertilized, produce an excess
of male flowers. According to Dr. Goehlert’s statistical investigation,
in the case of horses, the more the parent animals differ in colour,
the more the female foals outnumber the male.[3003] Among the Jews,
many of whom marry cousins, there is a remarkable excess of male
births. In country districts where, as we have seen, comparatively
more boys are born than in towns, marriage more frequently takes place
between kinsfolk. It is for a similar reason, says Dr. Düsing, that
illegitimate unions show a tendency to produce female births.[3004]

The evidence given by Dr. Düsing for the correctness of his deduction
is, then, exceedingly scanty—if, indeed, it can be called evidence.
Nevertheless, I think his main conclusion holds good. Independently
of his reasoning, I had come to exactly the same result in a purely
inductive way. There is some ground for believing that mixture of
race produces an excess of female births. In his work on the ‘Tribes
of California,’ Mr. Powers observes, “It is a curious fact, which
has frequently come under my observation, and has been abundantly
confirmed by the pioneers, that among half-breed children a decided
majority are girls.... Often I have seen whole families of half-breed
girls, but never one composed entirely of boys, and seldom one wherein
they were more numerous.”[3005] When I mentioned this statement to a
gentleman who had spent many years in British Columbia and other parts
of North America, he replied that he himself had made exactly the same
observation. Mr. Starkweather has found that, according to the United
States statistical tables of the sex of mulattoes born in the Southern
States, there is an excess of from 12 to 15 per cent. of female mulatto
children, whilst, taking the whole population together, the male births
show an excess of 5 per cent.[3006] In Central America, according to
Colonel Galindo, “an extraordinary excess is observable in the births
of white and Ladino females over those of the males, the former being
in proportion to the latter as six, or at least as five, to four: among
the Indians the births of males and females are about equal.”[3007] Mr.
Stephens asserts that, among the Ladinos of Yucatan, the proportion is
even as two to one.[3008] Taken in connection with the fact mentioned
by Mr. Squier, that the whites in Central America are as one to eight
in comparison with the mixed population,[3009] these statements
accord well with the following observation of M. Belly as regards
Nicaragua:—“Ce qui me paraît être le fait général,” he says, “c’est
que dans les villes où l’élément blanc domine, il se procrée en effet
plus de filles que de garçons.... Mais dans les campagnes et partout
où la race Indienne l’emporte, c’est le contraire qui se produit,
et dès lors la prépondérance du sexe masculin se maintient par la
prépondérance de l’élément indigène. Le même phénomène avait déjà été
observé au Mexique.”[3010]

Concerning the proportion of the sexes at birth among the mixed races
of South America, I have unfortunately no definite statements at my
disposal. But Mr. J. S. Roberton informs me, from Chañaral in Chili,
that in that country, with its numerous mongrels, more females are born
than males. According to the list of the population of the capitaina
of São Paulo, in the year 1815, given by v. Spix and v. Martius—a list
which includes more than 200,000 persons,—the proportion between women
and men is, among the mulattoes, 114·65 to 100; among the whites,
109·3 to 100; among the blacks, 100 to 129.[3011] But this last
proportion is of no consequence, as we have no account of the number
of negro slaves annually imported into the capitaina. Sir R. F. Burton
found, from the census returns of 1859 for the town of São João d’El
Rei, where there is a large intermixture of the white race with the
coloured women, an excess of nearly 50 per cent. of women as compared
with men.[3012] A census of the population in the Province of Rio,
taken in the year 1844, also shows a considerable excess of women, not
only, however, among the mixed population, but among the Indian and
negro creoles as well;[3013] and M. de Castelnau was astonished at the
disproportionately large number of females in Goyaz.[3014]

In the northern parts of the United States, according to Kohl, female
children predominate in the families of the cross-breeds arising from
the intercourse of Frenchmen with Indian women.[3015] This statement
is very much like Graf v. Görtz’s, that the families of the offspring
of Dutchmen and Malay women in Java (Lipplapps) consist chiefly of
daughters.[3016] A census taken in the eighteenth century, given by
Süssmilch, proves also that among these mongrels there is a great
excess of women over men.[3017] From Stanley Pool in Congo, Dr. Sims
writes to me, “It is the subject of general remark here, that the
half-caste children are generally girls; out of ten I can count, two
only are boys.” At the same time he states that, among the native
Bateke people, no disproportion between the sexes is observable. Mr.
Cousins informs me that, in the western province of Cis-Natalian
Kafirland, in the “Karoo” district from Caledon up to Mossel Bay,
there is a half-caste or mixed race called “Bruin Menschen,” generally
known as bastards, among whom more females than males are born. Dr.
Felkin found that, among the foreign women imported to Uganda, the
excess of females in the first births was enormous, _viz._, 510 females
to 100 males, as compared with 102 females to 100 males in first births
from pure Waganda women; whilst in subsequent pregnancies of these
imported women the ratio was 137 females to 100 males. As a matter of
fact, in the families of the poorer classes of Uganda, who “do all
in their power to marry pure Waganda women,” the sexes are as evenly
balanced as in Europe, whereas this is certainly not the case among
the children of chiefs and wealthy men who have large harems supplied
mainly with foreign wives. “I found,” says Dr. Felkin, “that of the
women captured by the slave-raiders in Central Africa, and brought down
to the East Coast, either near Zanzibar or through the Soudan to the
Red Sea, those who had been impregnated on the way usually produced
female children. Hence the Soudan slave-dealers, instead of having only
one slave to sell, have a woman and a female child.”[3018] Dr. Felkin
suggests, as an explanation of this excess of female births, that the
temporarily superior parent produces the opposite sex; but the facts
stated seem strongly to corroborate the theory that intermixture of
race is in favour of female births. Very remarkable are two statements
in the Talmud, that mixed marriages produce only girls.[3019] Mr.
Jacobs informs me that his collection of Jewish statistics includes
details of 118 mixed marriages; of these 28 are sterile, and in the
remainder there are 145 female children and 122 male—that is, 118·82 to
100 males.

We must not, of course, take for granted that what applies to certain
races of men holds good for all of them; but it should be observed that
the cases mentioned refer to mongrels of very different kinds. It is
indeed scarcely probable that anything else than the crossing can be
the cause of this excess of females, as facts tend to show that unions
between related individuals or, generally, between individuals who are
very like each other, produce a comparatively great number of male
offspring.

In all the in-and-in bred stocks of the Bates herd at Kirklevington,
according to Mr. Bell, the number of bull calves was constantly very
far in excess of the heifers.[3020] Of the in-and-in bred Warlaby
branch of short-horns, Mr. Carr says that it “appears to have a most
destructive propensity to breed bulls.”[3021] Dr. Goehlert’s statement
as regards horses, just referred to, is corroborated by Crampe’s
investigations, which included more than two thousand different cases,
all tending to prove that female foals predominate in proportion as the
parent animals differ in colour.[3022]

We have seen that the Todas of the Neilgherry Hills are probably the
most in-and-in bred people of whom anything is known, and we have
also seen how, among them, the disproportion between male and female
births is strikingly in favour of the males. Among the Badagas, a
neighbouring people, who, like the Todas, have numerous subdivisions
of caste, each of which differs in some social or ceremonial
custom,[3023] and all of which, probably, are endogamous, there is also
a considerable surplus of men.[3024] Now it is very remarkable that
in another tribe inhabiting the same hill ranges, the Kotars, who do
not intermarry with the inhabitants of their own village, but always
seek a wife from another “kotagiri,” women are not so scarce as among
the Todas and the Badagas.[3025] Among the endogamous Maoris, the
men outnumber the women. So also among the Sinhalese, who consider
marriage between the father’s sister’s son and the mother’s brother’s
daughter the most proper union. Among the polyandrous Arabs mentioned
by Strabo, marriage between cousins was the rule. The polyandrous
mountaineer of South Africa, in almost every case, marries a daughter
of his father’s brother.[3026] And with the Jews, among whom cousin
marriages occur perhaps three times as often as among the surrounding
populations,[3027] the proportion of births is probably more in favour
of the males than among the non-Jewish population of Europe.[3028]
All these facts, taken together, seem to render it probable that
the degree of differentiation in the sexual elements of the parents
exercises some influence upon the sex of the offspring, so that, when
the differentiation is unusually great, the births are in favour of
females; when it is unusually small, in favour of males.

We certainly cannot, from the numerical proportion of the sexes,
especially at birth, draw any inference as to the form of marriage
characteristic of the species. Among birds living in a state of nature,
polyandry is almost unheard of, though, according to Dr. Brehm, the
males are generally more numerous than the females.[3029] As for
man, there are several non-polyandrous peoples among whom the men
are considerably in excess of the women; whilst among other peoples
polygyny is forbidden, though the women are in excess of the men.
Nevertheless, the form of marriage depends to a great extent upon
the proportion between the male and female population. Polyandry, as
already said, is due chiefly to a surplus of men, though it prevails
only where the circumstances are otherwise in favour of it. And, as
regards polygyny, I cannot agree with M. Chervin that it is quite
independent of the proportion between the sexes.[3030] It has been
observed that, in India, polyandry occurs in those parts of the country
where the males outnumber the females, polygyny in those where the
reverse is the case.[3031] Indeed, in countries unaffected by European
civilization, polygyny seems to prevail wherever women form the
majority.

Thus the causes which determine the proportion of the sexes exercise
some influence also upon the form of marriage. Among the Eskimo, for
instance, who, according to Armstrong, take more than one wife when
the women are sufficiently numerous,[3032] polygyny results chiefly
from the dangerous life the men have to lead in order to gain their
subsistence. Among the Indians of North America, it is, to a large
extent, due to the wars which destroy many of the male population. In
certain countries it seems to be furthered by physiological conditions
leading to an excess of female births. As for polyandry, we have some
reason to believe that it is due, on the one hand, to poor conditions
of life, on the other to close intermarrying. As a matter of fact, the
chief polyandrous peoples either live in sterile mountain regions, or
are endogamous in a very high degree.

       *       *       *       *       *

There are several reasons why a man may desire to possess more than
one wife. First, monogamy requires from him periodical continence. He
has to live apart from his wife, not only for a certain time every
month,[3033] but, among many peoples, during her pregnancy also.[3034]
Among the Shawanese, for instance, “as soon as a wife is announced to
be in a state of pregnancy, the matrimonial rights are suspended, and
continency preserved with a religious and mystical scrupulosity.”[3035]
This suspension of matrimonial rights is usually continued till a
considerable time after child-birth. Among the Northern Indians, a
mother has to remain in a small tent placed at a little distance from
the others during a month or five weeks;[3036] and similar customs
are found among many other peoples.[3037] Very commonly, in a state
of savage and barbarous life, the husband must not cohabit with his
wife till the child is weaned.[3038] And this prohibition is all the
more severe, as the suckling-time generally lasts for two, three,
four years, or even more. In Sierra Leone, it was looked upon as a
crime of the most heinous nature if a wife cohabited with her husband
before the child was able to run alone.[3039] Among the Makonde, in
Eastern Africa, says Mr. Joseph Thomson, “when a woman bears a child,
she lives completely apart from her husband till the child is able to
speak, as otherwise it is believed that harm, if not death, would come
to the infant.”[3040] In Fiji, “the relatives of a woman take it as a
public insult if any child should be born before the customary three or
four years have elapsed.”[3041] This long suckling-time is due chiefly
to want of soft food and animal milk.[3042] But when milk can be
obtained,[3043] and even when the people have domesticated animals able
to supply them with it,[3044] this kind of food is often avoided. The
Chinese, who are a Tartar people, and must have descended at one time
from the “Land of Grass,” entirely eschew the use of milk.[3045]

Professor Bastian suggests that it is on hygienic grounds, though
almost instinctively, that a man abstains from cohabitation with his
wife during her pregnancy, and as long as she suckles her child.[3046]
But the reason seems rather to be of a religious character. Diseases
are generally attributed by savages to the influence of some evil
spirit.[3047] Among many peoples the attainment of the age of puberty
is marked by most superstitious ceremonies.[3048] A woman, during the
time of menstruation, is looked upon with a mystic detestation.[3049]
It is therefore quite in accordance with primitive ideas that the
appearance of a new being should be connected in some way with
supernatural agencies. Among the Ashantees, according to Mr. Reade,
“when conception becomes apparent, the girl goes through a ceremony
of abuse, and is pelted down to the sea, where she is cleansed. She is
then set aside; charms are bound on her wrists, spells are muttered
over her, and, by a wise sanitary regulation, her husband is not
allowed to cohabit with her from that time until she has finished
nursing her child.”[3050] A woman in child-bed is very commonly
considered unclean.[3051] In China, a man of the upper classes does not
speak to his wife within the first month after the birth of a child,
and no visitor will enter the house where she lives.[3052] According to
early Aryan traditions, as v. Żmigrodzki remarks, a witch and a woman
in child-bed are persons so intimately connected, that it is impossible
to make any distinction between them.[3053]

One of the chief causes of polygyny is the attraction which female
youth and beauty exercise upon man. Several instances have already
been mentioned of a fresh wife being taken when the first wife grows
old. Indeed, when a man, soon after he has attained manhood, marries
a woman of similar age—not to speak of such countries as China and
Corea, where the first wife is generally a woman from three to eight
years older than her husband[3054]—he will still be a man in the prime
of life, when the youthful beauty of his wife has passed away for
ever. This is especially the case among peoples at the lower stages of
civilization, among whom, as a rule, women get old much sooner than in
more advanced communities.

Thus in California, according to Mr. Powers, women are rather handsome
in their free and untoiling youth, but after twenty-five or thirty they
break down under their heavy burdens and become ugly.[3055] Among the
Mandans, the beauty of the women vanishes soon after marriage.[3056]
The Kutchin women get “coarse and ugly as they grow old, owing to
hard labour and bad treatment.”[3057] Patagonian women are said to
lose their youth at a very early age, “from exposure and hard work;”
and among the Warraus, according to Schomburgk, “when the woman has
reached her twentieth year, the flower of her life is gone.”[3058]
In New Zealand, Tahiti, Hawaii, and other islands of the South Sea,
the beauty of women soon decays—“the result,” says Mr. Angas, “of
hard labour in some cases, and in others of early intercourse with
the opposite sex, combined with their mode of living, which rapidly
destroys their youthful appearance.”[3059]

“Women of fifty in Europe,” Stavorinus observes, “look younger and
fresher than those of thirty in Batavia.”[3060] At two and twenty,
Dyak beauty “has already begun to fade, and the subsequent decay is
rapid.”[3061] Among the Manipuris and Garos, the women, pretty when
young, soon become “hags”;[3062] and this is true also of the Aino
women in Yesso, partly, it is said, because of the exposed life they
lead as children, partly because of the early age at which they marry
and become mothers, and partly because of the hard life they continue
to lead afterwards.[3063]

In Africa female beauty fades quickly. The Egyptian women, from the age
of about fourteen to that of eighteen or twenty, are generally models
of loveliness in body and limbs, but, when they reach maturity, their
attractions do not long survive.[3064] In Eastern Africa, according
to Sir R. F. Burton, the beauty of women is less perishable than in
India and Arabia; but even there charms are on the wane at thirty, and,
when old age comes on, the women are no exceptions to “the hideous
decrepitude of the East.”[3065] Arab girls in the Sahara preserve
only till about their sixteenth year that youthful freshness which
the women of the north still possess in the late spring of their
life;[3066] and, among the Ba-kwileh, women have no trace of beauty
after twenty-five.[3067] Speaking of the Wolofs, Mr. Reade remarks that
the girls are very pretty with their soft and glossy black skin, but,
“when the first jet of youth is passed, the skin turns to a dirty
yellow and creases like old leather; their eyes sink into the skull,
and the breasts hang down like the udder of a cow, or shrivel up like a
bladder that has burst.”[3068] Among the Damaras, Ovambo, and Kafirs,
women, soon after maturity, begin to wither, as we are told, on account
of hard labour;[3069] and the Bushman women, it is said, soon become
sterile from the same cause.[3070] Among the Fulah, it is rare for a
woman older than twenty to become a mother; and in Unyoro Emin Pasha
never saw a woman above twenty-five with babies.[3071]

Early intercourse with the opposite sex is adduced by several writers
as the cause of the short prime of savage women. But I am disposed to
think that physical exertion has a much greater influence. Even from a
physiological point of view hard labour seems to shorten female youth.
Statistics show that, among the poorer women of Berlin, menstruation
ceases at a rather earlier age than among the well-off classes.[3072]
It has been suggested that in hot countries women lose their beauty
much sooner than in colder regions,[3073] whereas men are not affected
in the same way by climate. But, so far as I know, we are still in want
of exact information on this point.

A further cause of polygyny is man’s taste for variety. Merolla da
Sorrento asserts that the Negroes of Angola, who used to exchange their
wives with each other for a certain time, excused themselves, when
reproved, on the ground that “they were not able to eat always of the
same dish.”[3074] And in Egypt, according to Mr. Lane, “fickle passion
is the most evident and common motive both to polygamy and repeated
divorces.”[3075]

Motives due to man’s passions are not, however, the only causes of
polygyny. We must also take into account his desire for offspring,
wealth, and authority.

The barrenness of a wife is a very common reason for the choice of
another partner. Among the Greenlanders, for instance, who considered
it a great disgrace for a man to have no children, particularly no
sons, a husband generally took a second wife, if the first one could
not satisfy his desire for offspring.[3076] Among the Botis of Ladakh,
says Lieutenant Cunningham, “should a wife prove barren, a second can
be chosen, or should she have daughters only, a second can be chosen
similarly.”[3077] In the Mutsa tribe of Indo-China, polygyny is allowed
only if the wife is sterile;[3078] and, among the Patuah or Juanga,
the Eskimo at Prince Regent’s Bay, and several other peoples, already
referred to, a man scarcely ever takes a second wife if the first wife
gives him children.[3079] Among the Tuski, “if a man’s wife bears only
girls, he takes another until he obtains a boy, but no more.”[3080]
In China and Tonquin, and among the Munda Kols of Chota Nagpore, it
sometimes happens that the barren wife herself advises her husband to
take a fresh partner,[3081] as Rachel gave Jacob Bilhah.[3082]

The polygyny of the ancient Hindus seems to have been due chiefly to
the fact that men dreaded the idea of dying childless, and M. Le Play
observes that even now in the East the desire for offspring is one of
the principal causes of polygyny.[3083] Dr. Gray makes the same remark
as to the Chinese,[3084] Herr Andree as to the Jews.[3085] In Egypt,
says Mr. Lane, “a man having a wife who has the misfortune to be
barren, and being too much attached to her to divorce her, is sometimes
induced to take a second wife, merely in the hope of obtaining
offspring.”[3086]

The more wives, the more children; and the more children, the
greater power. Man in a savage and barbarous state is proud of a
large progeny, and he who has most kinsfolk is most honoured and
feared.[3087] Regarding certain Indians of North America, among whom
the dignity of chief was elective, Heriot remarks that “the choice
usually fell upon him who had the most numerous offspring, and who
was therefore considered as the person most deeply interested in the
welfare of the tribe.”[3088] Among the Chippewas, says Mr. Keating,
“the pride and honour of parents depend upon the extent of their
family.”[3089] Speaking of African polygyny, Sir R. F. Burton observes
that the “culture of the marriage tie is necessary among savages and
barbarians, where, unlike Europe, a man’s relations and connections are
his only friends; besides which, a multitude of wives ministers to his
pride and influence, state and pleasure.”[3090] Bosman tells us of a
viceroy tributary to the negro king of Fida, who, assisted only by his
sons and grandsons with their slaves, repulsed a powerful enemy who
came against him. This viceroy, with his sons and grandsons, could make
out the number of two thousand descendants, not reckoning daughters or
any that were dead.[3091] Moreover, in a state of nature, next to a
man’s wives, the real servant, the only one to be counted upon, is the
child.[3092]

A husband’s desire for children often leads to polygyny in countries
where the fecundity of women is at a low rate. More than a hundred
years ago, Dr. Hewit observed that women are naturally less prolific
among rude than among polished nations.[3093] This assertion, though
not true universally,[3094] is probably true in the main. “It
is a very rare occurrence for an Indian woman,” says Mr. Catlin,
“to be ‘blessed’ with more than four or five children during her
life; and, generally speaking, they seem contented with two or
three.”[3095] This statement is confirmed by the evidence of several
other authorities;[3096] and it holds good not only for the North
American Indians, but, upon the whole, for a great many uncivilized
peoples.[3097] Some writers ascribe this slight degree of prolificness
to hard labour,[3098] or to unfavourable conditions of life in
general.[3099] That it is partly due to the long period of suckling is
highly probable, not only because a woman less easily becomes pregnant
during the time of lactation, but also on account of the continence
in which she often has to live during that period. The mortality of
children is very great among savages,[3100] and this, co-operating with
other causes to keep the family small, makes polygyny seem to many
peoples absolutely necessary. Speaking of the Equatorial Africans, Mr.
Reade says, “Propagation is a perfect struggle; polygamy becomes a law
of nature; and even with the aid of this institution, so favourable to
reproduction, there are fewer children than wives.”[3101]

A man’s fortune is increased by a multitude of wives not only through
their children, but through their labour. An Eastern Central African,
says Mr. Macdonald, finds no difficulty in supporting even hundreds of
wives. “The more wives he has, the richer he is. It is his wives that
maintain him. They do all his ploughing, milling, cooking, &c. They
may be viewed as superior servants who combine all the capacities of
male servants and female servants in Britain—who do all his work and
ask no wages.”[3102] Manual labour among savages is undertaken chiefly
by women; and, as there are no day-labourers or persons who will work
for hire, it becomes necessary for any one who requires many servants
to have many wives. Mr. Wood remarks that, when an Indian can purchase
four or five wives, their labour in the field is worth even more to
the household than his exertions in hunting.[3103] “The object of
the Kutchin,” says Mr. Kirby, “is to have a greater number of poor
creatures whom he can use as beasts of burden for hauling his wood,
carrying his meat, and performing the drudgery of his camp.”[3104] A
Modok defends his having several wives on the plea that he requires
one to keep house, another to hunt, another to dig roots.[3105] In the
Solomon Islands in New Guinea, at the Gold Coast, and in other places
where the women cultivate the ground, a plurality of wives implies a
rich supply of food;[3106] whilst, among the Tartars, according to
Marco Polo, wives were of use to their husbands as traders.[3107]

A multitude of wives increases a man’s authority, not only because it
increases his fortune and the number of his children, or because it
makes him able to be liberal and keep open doors for foreigners and
guests,[3108] but also because it presupposes a certain superiority
in personal capabilities, wealth, or rank. Statements such as “a
man’s greatness is ever proportionate to the number of his wives,” or
“polygamy is held to be the test of his wealth and consequence,” are
very frequently met with in books of travels. Thus the Apache “who can
support or keep, or attract by his power to keep, the greatest number
of women, is the man who is deemed entitled to the greatest amount of
honour and respect.”[3109]

However desirable polygyny may be from man’s point of view, it is,
as we have seen, 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. The proportion between the sexes partly accounts for this. But
there are other causes of no less importance.

In ethnographical descriptions it is very often stated that a man
takes as many wives as he is able to maintain. Where the amount of
female labour is limited, where life is supported by hunting, where
agriculture is unknown, and no accumulated property worth mentioning
exists, it may be extremely difficult for a man to keep a plurality of
wives. Among the Patagonians, for instance, it is chiefly those who
possess some property who take more than one wife.[3110] Regarding
the Tuski, Mr. Hooper states that “each man has as many wives as
he can afford to keep, the question of food being the greatest
consideration.”[3111] In Oonalashka, according to v. Langsdorf, a
man who had many wives, if his means decreased, sent first one, then
another back to their parents.[3112]

Again, where female labour is of considerable value, the necessity
of paying the purchase-sum for a wife very often makes the poorer
people content with monogamy. Thus among the Zulus, Mr. Eyles writes,
many men have but one wife because cattle have to be paid for women.
Among the Gonds and Korkús, according to Mr. Forsyth, “polygamy
is not forbidden, but, women being costly chattels, it is rarely
practised.”[3113] Among the Bechuanas, says Andersson, there is no
limit, but his means of purchase, to the number of wives a man may
possess.[3114] And the same is observed with reference to a great many
other peoples, especially in Africa, where the woman-trade is at its
height. Polygyny is, moreover, checked to some extent by the man’s
obligation to serve for his wife for a certain number of years, and
even more by his having to settle down with his father-in-law for the
whole of his life.

So far as the woman is allowed to choose, she prefers, other things
being equal, the man who is best able to support her, or the man of the
greatest wealth or highest position. Naturally, therefore, wherever
polygyny prevails, it is the principal men—whether they owe their
position to birth, skill, or acquired wealth—who have the largest
number of wives; or it may be that they alone have more than one wife.
Speaking of the Ainos of Yesso, Commander H. C. St. John says that a
successful or expert hunter or fisher sometimes keeps two wives; and,
if a woman finds her husband an unsuccessful Nimrod, she abandons
him.[3115] Among the Aleuts, “the number of wives was not limited,
except that the best hunters had the greatest number.”[3116] Among the
Kutchin, “polygamy is practised generally in proportion to the rank
and wealth of the man;”[3117] and, among the Brazilian aborigines and
the Araucanians, polygyny occurs only or chiefly among rich men and
chiefs.[3118] Touching the Equatorial Africans, Mr. Reade remarks,
“The bush-man can generally afford but one wife, who must find him
his daily bread.... But the rich man can indulge in the institutions
of polygamy and domestic slavery.”[3119] In Dahomey, as we are told,
“the king has thousands of wives, the nobles hundreds, others tens;
while the soldier is unable to support one.”[3120] In the New Hebrides,
polygyny prevails especially among the chiefs; in Naiabui of New
Guinea, “the head men only have more than two or three wives;” and, in
South Australia, “the old men secure the greatest number.”[3121]

Thus polygyny has come to be associated with greatness, and is
therefore, as Mr. Spencer remarks, thought praiseworthy, while
monogamy, as associated with poverty, is thought mean.[3122] Indeed,
plurality of wives has everywhere tended to become a more or less
definite class distinction, the luxury being permitted, among some
peoples, only to chiefs or nobles.

One of the most important of the influences which determine the form of
marriage is the position of women, or rather the respect in which they
are held by men. For polygyny implies a violation of woman’s feelings.

Several statements tend to show that jealousy and rivalry do not
always disturb the peace in polygynous families. It sometimes happens
that the first wife herself brings her husband a fresh wife or a
concubine, or advises him to take one, when she becomes old herself,
or if she proves barren, or has a suckling child, or for some other
reason.[3123] In Equatorial Africa, according to Mr. Reade, the women
are the stoutest supporters of polygyny:—“If a man marries,” he says,
“and his wife thinks that he can afford another spouse, she pesters
him to marry again, and calls him ‘a stingy fellow’ if he declines to
do so.”[3124] Speaking of the Makalolo women, Livingstone observes,
“On hearing that a man in England could marry but one wife, several
ladies exclaimed that they would not like to live in such a country:
they could not imagine how English ladies could relish our custom, for,
in their way of thinking, every man of respectability should have a
number of wives, as a proof of his wealth. Similar ideas prevail all
down the Zambesi.”[3125] Among the Californian Modok also, according
to the Hon. A. B. Meacham, the women are opposed to any change in the
polygynous habits of the men.[3126] But such statements may easily
be misinterpreted. Often the wives live peacefully together only in
consequence of the strict discipline of the husband.[3127] They put up
with polygyny, thanks to long custom; they even approve of it where
it procures them advantages. The consideration of the whole family,
and especially of the first wife, is increased by every new marriage
the husband concludes.[3128] Where the wife is her husband’s slave,
polygyny implies a greater division of labour. This is the reason
why, among the Apaches, the women do not object to it; why, among the
Bagobos of the Philippines, they rejoice at the arrival of a new wife;
why, in the Mohammedan East, they themselves encourage the husband to
marry more wives.[3129] Among the Arabs of Upper Egypt, says Baker,
one of the conditions of accepting a suitor is, that a female slave
is to be provided for the special use of the wife, although the
slaves of the establishment occupy, at the same time, the position of
concubines.[3130] Von Weber tells us of a Kafir woman who, on account
of her heavy labour, passionately urged her husband to take another
wife.[3131] Nevertheless, polygyny is an offence against the feelings
of women, not only among highly civilized peoples, but even among the
rudest savages. For jealousy is not exclusively a masculine passion,
although it is generally more powerful in men than in women.[3132]

The Greenlanders have a saying that “whales, musk-oxen, and reindeer
deserted the country because the women were jealous at the conduct of
their husbands.”[3133] Regarding the Northern Indians, Hearne says,
“The men are in general very jealous of their wives, and I make no
doubt but the same spirit reigns among the women, but they are kept
so much in awe of their husbands, that the liberty of thinking is the
greatest privilege they enjoy.”[3134] Franklin tells us of an Indian
woman who committed suicide by hanging herself, in a fit of jealousy;
and another woman threw herself into the Mississippi with her child,
when her husband took a new wife.[3135] As regards the Dacotahs, Mr.
Prescott says that “polygamy is the cause of a great deal of their
miseries and troubles. The women, most of them, abhor the practice,
but are overruled by the men. Some of the women commit suicide on this
account.”[3136] The natives of Guiana, according to the Rev. W. H.
Brett, live in comfort, as long as the man is content with one wife,
but, when he takes another, “the natural feelings of woman rebel at
such cruel treatment, and jealousy and unhappiness have, in repeated
instances, led to suicide.”[3137] Among the Tamanacs, says v. Humboldt,
“the husband calls the second and third wife the ‘companions’ of
the first; and the first treats these ‘companions’ as rivals and
‘enemies’ (‘ipucjatoje’).”[3138] Among the Charruas, it often happens
that a woman abandons her husband if he has a plurality of wives, as
soon as she is able to find another man who will take her as his only
wife.[3139] And, when a Fuegian has as many as four women, his hut is
every day transformed into a field of battle, and many a young and
pretty wife must even atone with her life for the precedence given her
by the common husband.[3140]

In the islands of the Pacific similar scenes occur. The missionary
Williams’s wife once asked a Fiji woman who was _minus_ her nose, “How
is it that so many of your women are without a nose?” “It is due to
a plurality of wives,” was the answer; “jealousy causes hatred, and
then the stronger tries to cut or bite off the nose of the one she
hates.”[3141] In Tukopia, many a wife who believed another woman to be
preferred by the husband committed suicide.[3142] Among the Australian
aborigines, the old wives are extremely jealous of their younger
rivals, so that “a new woman would always be beaten by the other wife,
and a good deal would depend on the fighting powers of the former
whether she kept her position or not.”[3143] Among the Narrinyeri,
according to the Rev. A. Meyer, the several wives of one man very
seldom agree well with each other; they are continually quarrelling,
each endeavouring to be the favourite.[3144] “The black women,” says
Herr Lumholtz, “are also capable of being jealous.”[3145]

Among the Sea Dyaks, according to Sir Spenser St. John, the wife is
much more jealous of her husband than he is of her.[3146] In China,
many women dislike the idea of getting married, as they fear that,
should their husbands become polygynists, there would remain for them
a life of unhappiness. Hence, some become Buddhist or Taouist nuns,
and others prefer death by suicide to marriage.[3147] Mr. Balfour
asserts that, among the Mohammedans and ruling Hindu races who permit
and practise polygyny, it causes much intriguing and disquiet in
homes.[3148] According to Mr. Tod, it “is the fertile source of evil,
moral as well as physical, in the East.”[3149] The same view is taken
by Pischon and d’Escayrac de Lauture with regard to the polygyny of
the Mohammedans.[3150] In Persia, says Dr. Polak, a married woman
cannot feel a greater pain than if her husband takes a fresh wife, whom
he prefers to her; then she is quite disconsolate.[3151] In Egypt,
quarrels between the various women belonging to the same man are very
frequent, and often the wife will not even allow her female slave or
slaves to appear unveiled in the presence of her husband.[3152] In
the description, in the Book of Proverbs, of domestic happiness, it is
assumed that the husband has only one wife;[3153] and, in the latter
part of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ there are hymns in which wives curse their
fellow-wives.[3154]

The Abyssinian women are described as very jealous; and in the
polygynous families of the Eastern Africans, Zulus, Basutos, &c.,
quarrels frequently arise.[3155] The Hova word for polygyny is
derived from the root “ràfy,” which means “an adversary.” “So
invariably,” says the Rev. J. Sibree, “has the taking of more wives
than one shown itself to be a fruitful cause of enmity and strife in
a household, that this word, which means ‘the making an adversary,’
is the term always applied to it.... The different wives are always
trying to get an advantage over each other, and to wheedle their
husband out of his property; constant quarrels and jealousy are the
result, and polygamy becomes inevitably the causing of strife, ‘the
making an adversary.’”[3156] Statements of this kind cannot but shake
our confidence in the optimistic assertions of Dr. Le Bon and other
defenders of polygyny.[3157]

In order to prevent quarrels and fights between the wives, the husband
frequently gives each of them a separate house. It is probably in
part for the same reason that, among several peoples, wives are
usually chosen from one family. In general, says Domenech, when
an Indian wishes to have many wives, he chooses before all others,
if he can, sisters, because he thinks he can thus secure more
domestic peace.[3158] This is true of many of the North American
aborigines;[3159] a man who marries the eldest daughter of a family
secures in many cases the right to marry all her sisters as soon as
they are old enough to become his wives.[3160] The same practice is
said to prevail in Madagascar,[3161] and, combined with polyandry,
among certain peoples of India. But it is obvious that the evils of
polygyny are not removed by such arrangements.

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 generally considered the only proper form of
marriage. Among monogamous savage or barbarous races the position of
women is comparatively good; and the one phenomenon must be regarded
as partly the cause, partly the effect of the other. The purely
monogamous Iroquois, to quote Schoolcraft, are “the only tribes in
America, north and south, so far as we have any accounts, who gave
to woman a conservative power in their political deliberations. The
Iroquois matrons had their representative in the public councils;
and they exercised a negative, or what we call a veto power, in the
important question of the declaration of war. They had the right also
to interpose in bringing about a peace.”[3162] Moreover, they had
considerable privileges in the family.[3163] Among the Nicaraguans—a
people almost wholly monogamous,—the husbands are said to have been
so much under the control of their wives that they were obliged to do
the housework, while the women attended to the trading.[3164] Among
the Zapotecs and other nations inhabiting the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,
who do not permit polygyny, “gentleness, affection, and frugality
characterize the marital relations.”[3165] In New Hanover[3166] and
among the Dyaks,[3167] the wife seems to have a kind of authority;
and among the Minahassers, according to Dr. Hickson, “the woman is,
and probably has been for many generations, on a footing of equality
with her husband.”[3168] Mr. Man states that, in the Andaman Islands,
“the consideration and respect with which women are treated might
with advantage be emulated by certain classes in our own land.”[3169]
The Pádam wives are treated by their husbands with a regard that seems
singular in so rude a race. “But I have seen,” says Colonel Dalton,
“other races as rude who in this respect are an example to more
civilized people. It is because with these rude people the inclination
of the persons most interested in the marriage is consulted, and
polygamy is not practised.”[3170] The Munda Kols of Chota Nagpore
call a wife “the mistress of the house,” and she takes up a position
similar to that of a married woman in Europe.[3171] The Santal
women, who enjoy the advantage of reigning alone in the husband’s
wigwam, according to Mr. E. G. Man, hold a much higher _status_ in
the family circle than their less fortunate sisters in most Eastern
countries.[3172] The Kandhs, Bodo, and Dhimáls treat their wives
and daughters with confidence and kindness, and consult them in all
domestic concerns.[3173] Among the monogamous Moors of the Western
Soudan, the women exercise a considerable influence on the men, who
take the greatest pains to pay them homage.[3174] The Touareg wives’
authority is so great that, although Islam permits polygyny, the men
are forced to live in monogamy.[3175] Among the monogamous Tedâ, the
women hold a very high position in the family.[3176] As for European
monogamy, there can be no doubt that it owes its origin chiefly to the
consideration of men for the feelings of women.

The form of marriage is, further, influenced by the quality of the
passions which unites the sexes. When love depends entirely on external
attractions, 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.

It remains for us to note the true monogamous instinct, the absorbing
passion for one, as a powerful obstacle to polygyny. “The sociable
interest,” Professor Bain remarks, “is by its nature diffused: even
the maternal feeling admits of plurality of objects; revenge does
not desire to have but one victim; the love of domination needs many
subjects; but the greatest intensity of love limits the regards to
one.”[3177] The beloved person acquires, in the imagination of the
lover, an immeasurable superiority over all others. “The beginnings of
a special affection,” the same psychologist says, “turn upon a small
difference of liking; but such differences are easily exaggerated; the
feeling and the estimate acting and re-acting, till the distinction
becomes altogether transcendent.”[3178] This absorbing passion for one
is not confined to the members of civilized societies. It is found
also among savage peoples, and even among some of the lower animals.
Hermann Müller, Brehm, and other good observers have proved that
it is experienced by birds; and Mr. Darwin found it among certain
domesticated mammals.[3179] The love-bird rarely survives the death
of its companion, even when supplied with a fresh and suitable
mate.[3180] M. Houzeau states, on the authority of Frédéric Cuvier,
“Lorsque l’un des ouistitis (_Harpale jacchus_) du Jardin des Plantes
de Paris vint à mourir l’époux survivant fut inconsolable. Il caressa
longtemps le cadavre de sa compagne; et quand à la fin il fut convaincu
de la triste réalité, il se mit les mains sur les yeux, et resta sans
bouger et sans prendre de nourriture, jusqu’à ce qu’il eût lui-même
succombé.”[3181]

Among the Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon, says
Dr. Gibbs, “a strong sensual attachment undoubtedly often exists,
which leads to marriage, as instances are not rare of young women
destroying themselves on the death of a lover.”[3182] The like is said
of other Indian tribes, in which suicide from unsuccessful love has
sometimes occurred even among men.[3183] Colonel Dalton represents the
Pahária lads and lasses as forming very romantic attachments; “if
separated only for an hour,” he says, “they are miserable.”[3184]
Davis tells us of a negro who, after vain attempts to redeem his
sweetheart from slavery, became a slave himself rather than be
separated from her.[3185] In Tahiti, unsuccessful suitors have been
known to commit suicide;[3186] and even the rude Australian girl sings
in a strain of romantic affliction—

  “I never shall see my darling again.”[3187]

As a man, under certain circumstances, desires many wives, so a woman
may have several reasons for desiring a plurality of husbands. But the
jealousy of man does not readily suffer any rivals, and, as he is the
stronger, his will is decisive. Hence, where polyandry occurs, it is
only exceptionally a result of the woman’s wishes.

Various causes have been adduced for this revolting practice.
The difficulty of raising the sum for a wife, and the expense of
maintaining women may perhaps in part account for it.[3188] Regarding
polyandry in Kunawar, the Rev. W. Rebsch says that the cause assigned
is not poverty, but a desire to keep the common patrimony from being
distributed among a number of brothers.[3189] Some writers believe
that polyandry subserves the useful end of preventing the woman from
being exposed to danger and difficulty, when she is left alone in her
remote home during the prolonged absences of her lord.[3190] According
to the Sinhalese, the practice originated in the so-called feudal
times, when the enforced attendance of the people on the king and the
higher chiefs would have led to the ruin of the rice lands, had not
some interested party been left to look after the tillage. But Sir
Emerson Tennent remarks that polyandry is much more ancient than the
system thus indicated: it is shown to have existed at a period long
antecedent to “feudalism.”[3191] To whatever other causes the practice
may be attributed, the chief immediate cause is, no doubt, a numerical
disproportion between the sexes.




CHAPTER XXII

THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

(_Concluded_)


As to the history of the forms of human marriage, two inferences
regarding monogamy and polygyny may be made with absolute certainty:
monogamy, always the predominant form of marriage, has been more
prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization than at somewhat higher
stages; whilst, at a still higher stage, polygyny has again, to a great
extent, yielded to monogamy.

As already said, wars, often greatly disturbing the proportion of
the sexes among peoples with a highly developed tribal organization,
exercise a much smaller influence in that respect in societies of a
ruder type. As in such societies all men are nearly equal, and, to
quote Mr. Wallace, “each man scrupulously respects the rights of
his fellow, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes
place,”[3192] no great scope is left for polygynous habits.

Plurality of wives has comparatively few attractions for the men of
rude communities, where life is supported chiefly by hunting, and
female labour is of slight value. In societies of a higher kind, the
case is different. True, in such societies a man has to buy his wife,
and women are often costly chattels; but this obstacle to polygyny
is more than counterbalanced by the accumulation of wealth and the
distinction of classes.

Nothing, indeed, is more favourable to polygyny than social
differentiation. “In its highest and regulated form,” Mr. Morgan
justly observes, “it presupposes a considerable advance of society,
together with the development of superior and inferior classes, and of
some kinds of wealth.”[3193] Speaking of the Iroquois, Colden long ago
remarked that, “in any nation where all are on a par as to riches and
power, plurality of wives cannot well be introduced.”[3194] According
to Waitz, the reason why polygyny is very rare among the Hottentots
is, that they do not know of any disparity in rank and wealth.[3195]
The Rock Veddahs have no class distinction, and, though each party
among them has a headman—the most energetic senior of the tribe,—he
exercises scarcely any authority.[3196] Almost the same may be said of
most of the monogamous savage peoples whom we have mentioned. Thus,
among the Pádams, all, except slaves, are equal in rank;[3197] and of
the Kukis it is said that all eat and drink together, and that “one
man is as good as another.”[3198] This is true of the Chittagong Hill
tribes in general, who enjoy a perfect social equality, their nomadic
life precluding any great accumulation of wealth.[3199] Among the
Hill Dyaks, as Mr. Spencer observes, chiefs are unable to enforce
genuine subordination; the headman of each Bodo and Dhimál village has
but nominal authority; and the governor of a Pueblo town is annually
elected.[3200] In Tana, where the authority of a chief does not seem
to extend a gunshot beyond his own dwelling, few chiefs have more than
three wives, and most of them have only one or two.[3201] On the other
hand, throughout Africa, polygyny and great class distinctions occur
simultaneously. We may therefore safely conclude that polygyny became
more prevalent in proportion as differentiation increased with the
progress of civilization.

It is a notable fact that the higher savages and barbarians indulge in
this practice to a greater extent than the very lowest races. These,
with few exceptions, are either strictly monogamous, or but little
addicted to polygyny. The lowest forest tribes in Brazil and the
interior of Borneo are monogamous. Among the Veddahs and Andamanese,
monogamy is as rigidly insisted upon as anywhere in Europe. According
to Captain Lewin, the monogamous Toungtha are “unamenable to the
lures of civilization,” and he thinks it will be found difficult, if
not impossible, to wean them from their savage life.[3202] The Mrús
are despised as wild men by the polygynous Khyoungtha;[3203] and the
Californians, who, according to Mr. Powers, were far less addicted to
polygyny than the Atlantic Indians, are “a humble and a lowly race,
... one of the lowest on earth.”[3204]

Certain peoples who were originally monogamous are known to have
adopted polygyny under the influence of a higher civilization. Thus,
according to Professor Vámbéry, there is not a single indication
that polygyny was an institution of the primitive Turco-Tartars,
and even now it is almost unknown among the nomadic peoples of that
race.[3205] Dr. Mason and Mr. Smeaton state that, among the Karens,
it is occasionally practised only by those who are brought much in
contact with the Burmese.[3206] Among the Hindus, according to Mr.
Dutt, polygyny seems to have grown in the latter part of the Vedic age,
as there are scarcely any allusions to it in the earlier hymns.[3207]
Goguet observes that “fables which can be traced back to the earliest
times give us no instance of any man’s having more than one lawful
wife.”[3208] Although the majority of the heroes in the writings of
Kalidasa are described as polygynists,[3209] the principal divinities
whom the Hindus acknowledge are represented as married to but one
legitimate wife.[3210] The higher position so generally granted to the
_first_ married wife in polygynous families seems to indicate in most
cases a transition from monogamous to polygynous habits, and not _vice
versa_, as has often been suggested.[3211]

Monogamy is the more likely to have prevailed almost exclusively among
our earliest human ancestors, since it does so among the man-like apes.
Mr. Darwin certainly mentions the Gorilla as a polygamist;[3212] 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.”[3213]

We may thus take for granted that civilization up to a certain point is
favourable to polygyny; but it is equally certain that in its higher
forms it leads to monogamy.

One of the chief advantages of civilization is the decrease of
wars. The death-rate of men has consequently become 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
civilized man apart from his wife during her pregnancy and whilst 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 civilization has made female beauty more durable. The
desire for offspring as we have seen, has become 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 not now his
only friends, and his wealth and power do not depend upon the number
of his wives and children. A wife has ceased to be a mere labourer,
and for manual labour we have to a great extent substituted the work
of domesticated animals and the use of implements and machines.[3214]
Polygyny has thus, in many ways, become less desirable for the
civilized man than it was for his barbarian and savage ancestors. And
other causes have co-operated to produce the same result.

When the feelings of women are held in due respect, monogamy will
necessarily be the only recognized form of marriage. In no way does
the progress of mankind show itself more clearly than in the increased
acknowledgment of women’s rights, and the causes which, at lower stages
of development, may make polygyny desired by women themselves, do not
exist in highly civilized societies. The refined feeling of love,
depending chiefly upon mutual sympathy and upon appreciation of mental
qualities, is scarcely compatible with polygynous habits; and the
passion for one has gradually become more absorbing.

Will monogamy be the only recognized form of marriage in the future?
This question has been answered in different ways. According to Mr.
Spencer, “the monogamic form of the sexual relation is manifestly
the ultimate form; and any changes to be anticipated must be in the
direction of completion and extension of it.”[3215] Dr. Le Bon, on the
other hand, thinks that European laws will, in the future, legalize
polygyny;[3216] and M. Letourneau remarks that, although we may now
look upon monogamy as superior to any other form of marriage yet
known, “we need not consider it the Ultima Thule in the evolution of
connubial ceremonies.”[3217] But we may without hesitation assert that,
if mankind advance in the same direction as hitherto; if, consequently,
the causes to which monogamy in the most progressive societies owes
its origin continue to operate with constantly growing force; if,
especially, altruism increases, and the feeling of love becomes more
refined, and more exclusively directed to one,—the laws of monogamy can
never be changed, but must be followed much more strictly than they are
now.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. McLennan suggests that, in early times, polyandry was the rule
and monogamy and polygyny exceptions. According to his view, the
only marriage law in which female kinship could have originated was
polyandry—polyandry of “the ruder sort,” in which the husbands are
not kinsmen. And it is, he says, impossible not to believe that the
Levirate—that is, the practice of marrying a dead brother’s widow—is
derived from polyandry.[3218] The fallacy of the first inference, which
assumes the system of “kinship through females only” to depend upon
uncertainty as to fathers, has already been shown. The second inference
will be found to be equally erroneous.

The Levirate is undoubtedly a wide-spread custom;[3219] and, if it
could be proved to be a survival of polyandry, we should be compelled
to conclude that this form of marriage was at one time very common.
Where women are regarded as property, they are, of course, inherited
like other possessions.[3220] In many cases the brother, or, in
default of a brother, the nearest male relation, is expressly stated
to be _entitled_ to have the widow; and, if he does not marry her, he
has nevertheless, the guardianship over her, and may give her away
or sell her to some other man.[3221] But there are several peoples
who consider the Levirate a duty rather than a right.[3222] Among
the Thlinkets, for example, when a husband dies, his brother or his
sister’s son must marry the widow, and the neglect of this obligation
has occasioned bloody feuds.[3223] The law requiring a man to take care
of a sister-in-law is analogous to other duties devolving on kinsfolk,
such as the vendetta, &c. Mr. McLennan lays stress on the fact that it
is the deceased husband’s _brother_ who inherits his widow. “How came
the right of succession,” he says, “to open, as in the ruder cases,
to the brother in preference to the son of the deceased? We repeat
that the only explanation that can be given of this is, that the law
of succession was derived from polyandry.”[3224] But among many of
the peoples who have the custom of the Levirate, sons either inherit
nothing or are preceded by brothers in succession.[3225] Among the
Santals, for instance, “when the elder brother dies, the next younger
inherits the widow, children, and all the property.”[3226] Among a few
peoples, the widow together with the other property of the dead man
goes either to his brother or to his sister’s son.[3227] But it is
more natural, where succession runs in the female line, that the widow
should be married by the brother than by the nephew, because, as a
rule, she is much older than the nephew, and he, in many cases, is too
young to marry and to maintain her properly.

Even when a son inherits the other property of his father, it is easy
to understand why he does not inherit the widow. To inherit her is,
generally speaking, to marry her. But nowhere is a son allowed to
marry his own mother; hence it is natural, at least where monogamy
prevails, that the right of succession in this case should belong to
the brother. In polygynous families, on the other hand, it often
happens that the eldest son, or all the sons, inherit the father’s
widows, the mother being in each case excepted.[3228] Among the
Bakalai, a tribe in Equatorial Africa, widows are permitted to marry
the son of their deceased husband, and, if there be no son, they may
live with the deceased husband’s brother.[3229] As regards the Negroes
of Benin, Bosman states that, if the mother of the eldest son, the only
heir, be alive, he allows her a proper maintenance, but his father’s
other widows, especially those who have not had children, the son
takes home, if he likes them, and uses as his own; but if the deceased
leaves no children, the brother inherits all his property.[3230] Among
the Mishmis, the heir obtains the wives, with the exception of his
own mother, who goes to the next male relation.[3231] Concerning the
Kafirs of Natal, Mr. Shooter observes that, “when a man dies, those
wives who have not left the kraal remain with the eldest son. If they
wish to marry again, they must go to one of their late husband’s
brothers.”[3232] The rules of succession are thus modified according
to circumstances, and they are not uniform even among the same people.
It frequently happens that the brother succeeds to the chieftainship,
whilst the son inherits the property of the dead man[3233]—no doubt
because the brother, being older and more experienced, is generally
better fitted for command than the son.[3234]

Mr. McLennan calls attention to the fact that, among certain peoples,
the children begotten by the brother are accounted the children of
the brother deceased.[3235] “It is obvious,” he says, “that it
could more easily be feigned that the children belonged to the brother
deceased, if already, at a prior stage, the children of the brotherhood
had been accounted the children of the eldest brother, _i.e._, if we
suppose the obligation to be a relic of polyandry.”[3236] But this
explanation is very far-fetched. As Dr. Starcke justly observes, a
man may, from a juridical point of view, be the father of a child,
though he is not so in fact.[3237] In New Guinea, says M. Bink, “à
la mort du père, c’est l’oncle (frère du père) qui se charge de la
tutelle; si l’enfant devient orphelin, il reconnaît son oncle comme son
père.”[3238] In Samoa, the brother of a deceased husband considered
himself entitled to have his brother’s wife, and to be regarded by
the orphan children as their father.[3239] And, among the Kafirs of
Natal, the children of a deceased man’s widow born in marriage with
his brother, belong to his son.[3240] Quite in accordance with these
facts, the children of a widow may be considered to belong to her
former husband. Indeed, where death without posterity is looked upon as
a horrible calamity, the ownership of the children is a thing of the
utmost importance for the dead man. It is only when the deceased has no
offspring that the Jewish, Hindu, and Malagasy laws prescribe that the
brother shall “raise up seed” to him.

Mr. McLennan has thus failed in his attempt to prove that polyandry has
formed a general stage in the development of marriage institutions; and
we may almost with certainty infer that it has always been exceptional.
We have already pointed out the groundlessness of Mr. McLennan’s
suggestion that in all, or nearly all, the primitive hordes there was
a want of balance between the sexes, the men being in the majority
on account of female infanticide.[3241] Moreover, though polyandry
is due to an excess of men, it would be a mistake to conclude that
an excess of men always causes polyandry. This practice presupposes
an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy—a peculiarity of all
peoples among whom polyandry occurs. The Eskimo are described as a
race with extraordinarily weak passions.[3242] Among the Sinhalese,
says Dr. Davy, jealousy is not very troublesome among the men, and
the infidelity of a woman is generally easily forgiven.[3243] The
people of Ladakh are a mild, timid, and indolent race.[3244] The Kulu
husbands “sont très peu jaloux.”[3245] The same is said by Mr. Fraser
with regard to the people of Sirmore. The women are “entirely at the
service of such as will pay for their favours, without feeling the
slightest sense of shame or crime in a practice from which they are not
discouraged by early education, example, or even the dread of their
lords, who only require a part of the profit.”[3246] The Tibetans
are represented as very little addicted to jealousy,[3247] being, as
Mr. Wilson remarks, a race of a peculiarly placid and unpassionate
temperament.[3248] But such a lack of jealousy, as we have seen, is a
rare exception in the human race, and utterly unlikely to have been
universal at any time.

Polyandry seems, indeed, to presuppose a certain amount of
civilization. We have no trustworthy account of its occurrence among
the lowest savage races. Mr. Bridges writes that the Yahgans of Tierra
del Fuego consider it utterly abominable. With regard to the Veddahs,
Mr. Bailey states, “Polyandry is unknown among them. The practice
is alluded to with genuine disgust. I asked a Veddah once what the
consequence would be if one of their women were to live with two
husbands, and the unaffected vehemence with which he raised his axe,
and said, ‘A blow would settle it,’ showed conclusively to my mind the
natural repugnance with which they regard the national custom of their
Kandyan neighbours.”[3249] These neighbours are much superior to the
Veddahs in civilization; and the other peoples practising polyandry
have left the lowest stages of development far behind them. The Eskimo
are a rather advanced race, and so are the polyandrous nations of
the Asiatic continent. Speaking of the people of Sirmore, Mr. Fraser
observes, “It is remarkable that a people so degraded in morals, and
many of whose customs are of so revolting a nature, should in other
respects evince a much higher advancement in civilization than we
discover among other nations, whose manners are more engaging, and
whose moral character ranks infinitely higher. Their persons are better
clad and more decent; their approach more polite and unembarrassed;
and their address is better than that of most of the inhabitants of
the remote Highlands of Scotland; ... and their houses, in point of
construction, comfort and internal cleanliness, are beyond comparison
superior to Scottish Highland dwellings.”[3250] On the arrival of the
Spaniards, the polyandrous inhabitants of Lancerote were distinguished
from the other Canarians, who were strictly monogamous, by marks of
greater civilization.[3251]

We have seen that in polyandrous families the husbands are generally
brothers, and that the eldest brother, at least in many cases, has the
superiority, the younger husbands having almost the position, if the
term may be used, of male concubines. It is a fair conclusion that, in
such instances, polyandry was originally an expression of fraternal
benevolence on the part of the eldest brother, who gave his younger
brothers a share in his wife, if, on account of the scarcity of women,
they would otherwise have had to live unmarried. If additional wives
were afterwards acquired, they would naturally be considered the common
property of all the brothers. In this way the group-marriage of the
Toda type seems to have been evolved.




CHAPTER XXIII

THE DURATION OF HUMAN MARRIAGE


The time during which marriage lasts, varies very considerably among
different species. According to Dr. Brehm, most birds pair for
life,[3252] while among the mammals, with the exception of man and
perhaps the anthropomorphous apes, the same male and female scarcely
ever live together longer than a year.[3253] In human marriage every
degree of duration is met with—from unions which, though legally
recognized as marriages, do not endure long enough to deserve to be so
called, to others which are dissolved only by death.

There are a few remarkable instances of peoples among whom separation
is said to be entirely unknown. In the Andaman Islands, according to
Mr. Man, “no incompatibility of temper or other cause is allowed to
dissolve the union.”[3254] The same is said of certain Papuans of New
Guinea,[3255] and of several tribes of the Indian Archipelago who
have remained in their native state, and continue to follow ancient
custom.[3256] The Veddahs of Ceylon have a proverb that “death alone
separates husband and wife;” and Mr. Bailey assures us that they
faithfully act on this principle.[3257]

As a general rule, however, human marriage is not necessarily
contracted for life. The Indians of North America dissolve their
unions as readily as they enter into them. The Wyandots had, it
is said, marriages upon trial, which were binding for a few days
only.[3258] In Greenland, husband and wife sometimes separate after
living together for half a year.[3259] Among the Creeks, “marriage
is considered only as a temporary convenience, not binding on the
parties more than one year,” the consequence being that “a large
portion of the old and middle-aged men, by frequently changing, have
had many different wives, and their children, scattered around the
country, are unknown to them.”[3260] Speaking of the Botocudos, Mr.
Keane remarks that their marriages “are all of a purely temporary
nature, contracted without formalities of any sort, dissolved on the
slightest pretext, or without any pretext, merely through love of
change or caprice.”[3261] In Ruk, it frequently happens that newly
married husbands repudiate their wives;[3262] and, in the Pelew and
Kingsmill Groups, and among the aborigines of Northern Queensland,
divorces are of common occurrence.[3263] “Tasmanian lords,” says Dr.
Milligan, “had no difficulty, and made no scruple, about a succession
of wives.”[3264] Again, in Samoa, “if the marriage had been contracted
merely for the sake of the property and festivities of the occasion,
the wife was not likely to be more than a few days, or weeks, with her
husband.”[3265] In several of the Islands of the Indian Archipelago,
“in the regular marriages the parties are always betrothed to each
other for a longer or shorter time, sometimes not for more than a month
and at others for a period of years.”[3266] Among the Dyaks, there
are few middle-aged men who have not had several wives, and instances
have been known of young women of seventeen or eighteen who had already
lived with three or four husbands.[3267] Among the Yendalines in
Indo-China, it is rare for any woman to arrive at middle age without
having a family by two or more husbands.[3268] The Maldivians, as we
are informed by Mr. Rosset, are so fond of change that many a man
marries and divorces the same woman three or four times in the course
of his life.[3269] Among the Sinhalese, according to Knox, “both men
and women have frequently to marry four or five times before they can
settle down contented;”[3270] and Father Bourien says of the Mantras of
the interior of the Malay Peninsula, that it is not uncommon to meet
individuals who have married even forty or fifty different times.[3271]
Among the Munda Kols, Khasias, Tartars,[3272] and most Mohammedan
peoples,[3273] divorces are very frequent. According to Dr. van der
Berg, an even more fatal influence is exercised on family life in
the East by this laxity of the marriage tie than by polygyny.[3274]
Burckhardt knew Bedouins forty-five years old who had had more than
fifty wives.[3275] A “Sighe” wife in Persia is taken in marriage for
a certain legally stipulated period, which may vary from one hour to
ninety-nine years.[3276] In Cairo, according to Mr. Lane, there are not
many persons who have not divorced one wife, if they have been married
for a long time; and many men in Egypt have in the course of two years
married as many as twenty, thirty, or more wives; whilst there are
women, not far advanced in age, who have been wives to a dozen or
more men successively. Mr. Lane has even heard of men who have been in
the habit of marrying a new wife almost every month.[3277] In Morocco,
Dr. Churcher writes to me, a terrible state of things springs from the
ease with which divorce is obtained; a man repudiates his wife on the
slightest provocation and marries again. “One of the servants here,”
he continues, “is reported to have had nineteen wives already, though
he is still only middle-aged.” Indeed, among the Moors of the Sahara,
according to Mr. Reade, it is considered “low” for a couple to live
too long together, and “the leaders of fashion are those who have
been the oftenest divorced.”[3278] Lobo tells us that, in Abyssinia,
marriage was usually entered upon for a term of years;[3279] and,
among the Somals, separation is exceedingly common.[3280] Many negro
peoples marry upon trial or for a fixed time.[3281] Among the Negroes
of Bondo, a man may so often send away his wife and take a new one that
it is difficult to know who is the father of the children born.[3282]
Regarding the ancient Persians, Professor Rawlinson observes that the
easiness of divorce among the Magians was in accordance with Eranian
notions on the subject of marriage—“notions far less strict than those
which have commonly prevailed among civilized nations.”[3283] Among the
Greeks, especially the Athenians,[3284] and among the Teutons,[3285]
divorce often occurred; and in Rome, at the close of the Republic
and the commencement of the Empire, it prevailed to a frightful
extent.[3286]

Among uncivilized races, as a rule, and among many advanced peoples, a
man may divorce his wife whenever he likes. The Aleuts used to exchange
their wives for food and clothes.[3287] In Tonga, a husband divorces
his wife by simply telling her that she may go.[3288] Among the Hovas
of Madagascar, until the spread of Christianity, marriage was compared
to a knot so lightly tied that it could be undone with the slightest
possible touch.[3289] In Yucatan, a man might divorce his wife for the
merest trifle, even though he had children by her.[3290] Among the
ancient Hebrews,[3291] Greeks,[3292] Romans,[3293] and Germans,[3294]
dislike was considered a sufficient reason for divorce, which was
regarded as merely a private act.

Nevertheless, among a great many peoples, although a husband may
divorce his wife, he does so only under certain exceptional conditions,
marriage, as a rule, being concluded for life.[3295] The Greenlanders
seldom repudiate wives who have had children.[3296] Among the
Californian Wintun, according to Mr. Powers, it is very uncommon for
a man to expel his wife. “In a moment of passion he may strike her
dead, or ... ignominiously slink away with another, but the idea of
divorcing and sending away a wife does not occur to him.”[3297] Among
the Naudowessies, divorce is so rare that Carver had no opportunity
of learning how it is accomplished.[3298] Speaking of several tribes
on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, Harmon remarks that
separation between husband and wife is seldom permanent, the parties,
after a few days’ absence from one another, generally having an
inclination to come together again.[3299] The Iroquois, in ancient
times, regarded separation as discreditable to both man and woman,
hence it was not frequently practised.[3300] If an Uaupé takes a new
wife, the elder one is never turned away, but remains the mistress of
the house.[3301] Among the Charruas and Patagonians, marriage lasts,
as a rule, during the whole of life, if there are children.[3302]
And, concerning the Yahgans, Mr. Bridges writes that there have been
many instances amongst them of husband and wife living together until
separated by death. The same is the case in Lifu, as I am informed
by Mr. Radfield. In Tonga, according to Mariner, more than half of
the number of married women were parted from their husbands only by
death.[3303] Among the Maoris[3304] and the Solomon Islanders,[3305]
and in New Guinea,[3306] divorce is exceptional; and, even in
Tahiti, the birth of children generally prevented the dissolution of
marriage.[3307] In many of the islands of the Indian Archipelago,
divorce may, by law or custom, be readily obtained, but Mr. Crawfurd
says that it is very rarely sued for.[3308] The Garos, according to
Colonel Dalton, “will not hastily make engagements, because, when they
do make them, they intend to keep them.”[3309] Among the Karens, Dr.
Bunker writes, separations, save by death, are rare. Mr. Ingham informs
me that, among the Bakongo, there are plenty of instances of husband
and wife living together till death. Archdeacon Hodgson states the
same regarding the Eastern Central Africans, Mr. Swann regarding the
Waguha, Mr. Eyles regarding the Zulus. Among the Cis-Natalian Kafirs,
according to Mr. Cousins, marriage, in the majority of instances, is
contracted for life.[3310] In the early days of Hebrew history, says
Ewald, it was only in exceptional cases that husbands made an evil use
of the right to divorce a wife.[3311] Among the Greeks of the Homeric
age, divorce seems to have been almost unknown, though it afterwards
became an everyday event in Greece;[3312] and in Rome, in the earliest
times, it was probably very little used.[3313]

Among many peoples custom or law has limited the husband’s power to
dispose of his wife, permitting divorce only under certain conditions.
Thus, among the Kukis, “if a woman has a son by her husband, the
marriage is indissoluble,” though, if they do not agree, and have
no son, the husband can cast off his wife and take another.[3314]
The Red Karens in Indo-China allow divorce if there are no children;
“but should there be one child, the parents are not permitted to
separate.”[3315] In the tribes of Western Victoria, described by Mr.
Dawson, a man can divorce a childless wife for serious misconduct,
but in every case the charge against her must first be laid before
the chiefs of his own and his wife’s tribes, and their consent to
her punishment obtained. If the wife has children, she cannot be
divorced.[3316] Among the Santals and the Tipperahs, divorce can be
effected only with the consent of the husband’s clansmen, or a jury of
village elders.[3317] Several tribes of the Indian Archipelago do not
allow a man to repudiate his wife, except in case of adultery;[3318]
and certain negro peoples have a similar rule, so far as the chief
or first wife is concerned.[3319] Among the Hottentots, according to
Kolben, a man may divorce his wife only “upon showing such cause as
shall be satisfactory to the men of the kraal where they live.”[3320]
Mr. Casalis states that, among the Basutos, “sterility is the
only cause of divorce which is not subject to litigation;”[3321]
and, according to Toda custom, the separation of married couples
does not seem to be lightly tolerated.[3322] Among certain lower
races the consent of the wife appears generally to be necessary for
separation.[3323]

Civilized nations, more commonly than savages, consider marriage a
union which must not be dissolved by the husband except for certain
reasons stipulated by law. Among the Aztecs, it was looked upon as a
tie binding for life, and divorce was always discouraged both by the
magistrates and the community. The husband could repudiate even his
concubines only for just cause and with the sanction of the courts, and
the chief wife only for malevolence, dirtiness, or sterility.[3324]
In Nicaragua, the sole offence for which a wife could be divorced
was adultery.[3325] The Chinese code enumerates seven just causes of
divorce—barrenness, lasciviousness, inattention to parents-in-law,
loquacity, thievishness, ill-temper, and inveterate infirmity,—and
a husband, except for one of these reasons, may not put away his
wife on pain of receiving eighty blows.[3326] But these pretexts for
divorce are very elastic. In one of the old Chinese books we read,
“When a woman has any quality that is not good, it is but just and
reasonable to turn her out of doors.... Among the ancients a wife was
turned away if she allowed the house to be full of smoke, or if she
frightened the dog with her disagreeable noise.”[3327] Nevertheless,
according to Mr. Medhurst, divorce is rare in China.[3328] In Japan
a man might repudiate his wife for the same reasons as in China.
But Professor Rein remarks that the Japanese seldom made use of
this privilege, especially if there were children, as education and
custom required that, in such cases, the wife should be treated with
kindness and consideration.[3329] In Arabia, Mohammed regulated the
law of divorce. “In the absence of serious reasons,” says Ibrâhîm
Halebî, “no Mussulman can justify divorce in the eyes either of
religion or the law. If he abandon his wife or put her away from
simple caprice, he draws down upon himself the divine anger, for ‘the
curse of God,’ said the Prophet, 'rests on him who repudiates his wife
capriciously.’”[3330] Practically, however, a Mohammedan may, whenever
he pleases, without assigning any reason, say to his wife, “Thou art
divorced,” and she must return to her parents or friends.[3331]

According to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ a wife “who drinks spirituous
liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased, mischievous, or
wasteful, may at any time be superseded by another wife. A barren
wife may be superseded in the eighth year; one whose children all
die, in the tenth; one who bears only daughters, in the eleventh; but
one who is quarrelsome, without delay.”[3332] At present, in Southern
India, divorce is common among many of the lower castes; but it is
not practised at all among the Brahmans and Kshatriyas, or among the
higher classes of Śudras.[3333] In Rome under the Christian Emperors,
the husband’s right to put away his wife was restricted by imperial
constitutions, which pointed out what were considered just causes of
divorce.[3334] The dogma of the indissoluble nature of marriage, early
vindicated by many Fathers in accordance with the injunction, “What
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” came into full
force only by degrees. The Council of Trent definitely suppressed the
last traces of divorce as a legal practice[3335]—a decree which has
exercised a powerful influence on the legislation of Roman Catholic
nations. In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, a husband can demand a judicial
separation, a divorce a _mensâ et thoro_, but the marriage contract
cannot be dissolved; in France divorce was reintroduced by the law of
27th July, 1884. In all Protestant countries divorce is allowed. In
every one of them a man may be divorced from a wife who has committed
adultery, but the other legal grounds on which a divorce, in most
of them, may be obtained, vary in different States. According to
the Prussian ‘Landrecht,’ the list includes, among other causes,
drunkenness and a disorderly life, insanity lasting longer than a
year, and the mutual consent of the husband and wife, if they have no
children;[3336] in Norway and Denmark, mutual consent, if the parties
have been judicially separated for three years previously;[3337] in
Austria, aversion proved to be invincible through several preceding
divorces from bed and board.[3338] The French law recognizes as causes
of divorce, besides adultery, “excès, sévices, injures graves,” as
also “condamnation à une peine afflictive et infamante.”[3339]

Marriage may be dissolved not only by the man but by the woman.
In Madagascar, says Mr. Sibree, although “the power of divorce is
legally in the husband’s hand, a wife can practically divorce herself
in several cases.[3340] The like holds true for many of the lower
races;[3341] whilst, among others, custom or law seems to permit a
wife to separate at least under certain conditions.[3342] Among the
Inland Columbians, according to Mr. Bancroft, “either party may
dissolve the marriage at will.”[3343] If a Bonak wife gets up and
leaves the man, he has no claim ever after on her.[3344] Among the
Navajos, when a woman marries, “she becomes free, and may leave her
husband for sufficient cause.”[3345] Regarding the Guanas, Azara
states, “Le divorce est libre aux deux sexes, comme tout le reste, et
les femmes y sont très-portées.”[3346] In the Sandwich Islands, “a man
and woman live together as long as they please, and may, at any time,
separate, and make choice of other partners.”[3347] In Tahiti, parts
of New Guinea, and in the Marianne Group, the marriage tie may, it is
said, be dissolved whenever either of the parties desires it.[3348]
In some of the smaller islands of the Indian Archipelago, a wife can
sue for divorce if her husband ill-treats her, if he is unfaithful, or
for other reasons.[3349] Among the Shans, “should the husband take
to drinking, or otherwise misconducting himself, the woman has the
right to turn him adrift, and to retain all the goods and money of the
partnership.”[3350] In Burma, if one of the parties is unwilling to
separate, “the other is free to go, provided all property except the
clothes in wear is left behind;” and a wife can demand a divorce for
ill-treatment, or if her husband cannot properly maintain her.[3351]
Among the Irulas of the Neilgherries, the option of remaining in union,
or of separating, rests principally with the woman.[3352] According to
Kandh custom, a wife can return to her father’s house within six months
after the marriage, on the articles which had been paid for her being
restored; and, if childless, she can at any time quit her husband. “In
no case,” says Sir W. W. Hunter, “can the husband forcibly reclaim
her, but a wife separated on any grounds whatsoever from her husband
cannot marry again.”[3353] In Eastern Central Africa, divorce may be
effected if the husband neglects to sew his wife’s clothes, or if the
partners do not please each other.[3354] And, among the Garenganze,
according to Mr. Arnot, a wife “may leave her husband at any time, if
she cares to do so.”[3355]

Passing to more advanced nations, we find that, among the ancient
Mexicans, the wife, as well as the husband, might sue for
separation.[3356] In Guatemala, she could leave him on grounds as
slight as those on which he could leave her.[3357] In China, on the
other hand, a woman cannot obtain legal separation; and the same was
the case in Japan till the year 1873.[3358] According to the Talmudic
Law, the wife is authorized to demand a divorce if the husband refuses
to perform his conjugal duty, if he continues to lead a disorderly
life after marriage, if he proves impotent during ten years, if he
suffers from an insupportable disease, or if he leaves the country
for ever.[3359] According to Mohammedan legislation, divorce may, in
certain cases, take place at the instance of the wife, and, if cruelly
treated or neglected by her husband, she has the right of demanding
a divorce by authority of justice.[3360] The ancient Hindus[3361]
and Teutons[3362] allowed a wife to separate from her husband only
in certain exceptional cases. According to Gallic laws, a wife could
quit her husband without losing her _dos_, “si leprosus sit vir; si
habeat fetidum anhelatum, et si cum ea concumbere non possit.”[3363]
Among the Saxons and Danes in England, marriage might be dissolved
at the pleasure of either party, the wife, however, being obliged to
return the price paid for her, if she deserted the husband without
his consent.[3364] At Athens, a woman could demand a divorce if she
was ill-treated by her husband, in which case she had merely to
announce her wish before the ἄρχων.[3365] Rossbach thinks that, in
Rome, a marriage with _manus_ could be dissolved by the husband only,
a marriage without _manus_ by the wife’s father also.[3366] But Lord
Mackenzie observes that, whatever effect _conventio in manum_ may
have had in ancient times, it did not, in the age of Gaius, limit the
wife’s freedom to seek divorce.[3367] 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.[3368]

       *       *       *       *       *

The causes by which duration of human marriage is influenced are, on
the whole, the same as those which determine the form of marriage.

Man’s appetite for youth and beauty often induces him to repudiate
a wife who has grown old and ugly. According to Cook, it was much
more common for a Tahitian to cast off the first wife and take a more
youthful partner than to live with both.[3369] Among the Aleuts, when
a wife “ceases to possess attractions or value in the eyes of her
proprietor, she is sent back to her friends.”[3370] A Malay, in many
cases, turns away his wife as soon as she becomes ugly from hard work
and maternal cares.[3371] In Switzerland, marriage is much oftener
dissolved through divorce when the wife is the husband’s senior, than
when the reverse is the case.[3372]

Dr. Béringer-Féraud observes that the Moors in the region of the
Senegal “divorcent avec une facilité extrême, non seulement sous le
prétexte le plus futile, mais souvent, et même uniquement, pour le
plaisir de changer.”[3373] According to v. Oettingen, the statistics of
divorce and remarriage in Europe prove that the taste for variety is
often the chief cause of the dissolution of marriage.[3374]

As the desire for offspring is a frequent cause of divorce,[3375]
so the birth of children is generally the best guarantee for the
continuance of the marriage tie. Speaking of some Indian tribes of
North America, Schoolcraft says, “The best protection to married
females arises from the ties of children, which, by bringing into play
the strong natural affections of the heart, appeal at once to that
principle in man’s original organization which is the strongest.”[3376]

Where women are regarded almost as beasts of burden, it often happens
that a wife who is a bad worker is divorced. The Dyak husbands “coolly
dismiss their helpmates when too lazy or too weak to work, and select
partners better qualified to undergo the toils of life.”[3377] Among
the Sinhalese, according to Mr. Bailey, sickness is perhaps the
most common reason why a husband repudiates his wife. The heartless
desertion of a sick wife, he says, is “the worst trait in the Kandyan
character, and the cool and unconcerned manner in which they themselves
allude to it, shows that it is as common as it is cruel.”[3378]

However desirable separation, in many cases, may be for the husband,
there are various circumstances which tend to prevent him from
recklessly repudiating his wife. In many instances divorce implies for
the man a loss of fortune. Though not, as a rule,[3379] obliged to
provide the divorced wife with the full means of subsistence, he must,
as already mentioned, usually give her what she brought with her into
the house, and, among several peoples, a certain proportion—often the
half—of the common wealth.[3380] Among the Karens, if a man leaves
his wife, the rule is that the house and all the property belong to
her, nothing being his but what he takes with him.[3381] Among the
Manipuris, according to Colonel Dalton, a wife who is put away without
fault on her part, takes all the personal property of the husband,
except one drinking cup and the cloth round his loins.[3382] Similar
rules prevail among the Galela, and in the Marianne Group.[3383] As
to the ancient Teutons, M. Glasson observes, “Les lois barbares
voulaient d’ailleurs que, sauf le cas d’adultère, la femme répudiée eût
son existence assurée. Le mari devait lui laisser la maison et tout ce
qu’elle contenait; il était même obligé de lui abandonner l’équivalent
du _mundium_ et de payer une amende au fisc s’il répudiait sa femme
sans aucun motif sérieux.”[3384]

The practice of purchasing wives forms a very important obstacle
to frequent repudiation.[3385] If the wife proves barren, or is
unfaithful, or otherwise affords sufficient cause of divorce, the
husband generally receives back what he has paid for her;[3386] but,
if he repudiates her without satisfactory grounds, the purchase sum
is usually forfeited.[3387] “Cases of divorce are very frequent,”
says Mr. Casalis, “where the price of the wife is of small value.
Among the Basutos, where it is of considerable amount, the dissolution
of marriage is attended with much difficulty.”[3388] And Dr. Finsch
ascribes the frequency of divorce in Ponapé to the fact that
wife-purchase does not exist there.[3389]

Moreover, when he divorces his wife, a man very often loses his
children at the same time. Among several peoples they remain the
property of the father.[3390] Among others, they are taken in some
cases by the man, in others by the woman.[3391] In Samoa, the young
children followed the mother, the more advanced the father;[3392]
whilst, among the Sinhalese, boys are taken by the latter, girls by the
former.[3393] But among many uncivilized peoples, all the children,
if young, follow the mother,[3394] as Colden says, “according to the
natural course of all animals.”[3395]

Another factor which has much influence upon the stability of marriage,
is the position held by women. When some regard is paid to their
feelings, a husband does not, of course, put his wife away for trivial
reasons, divorce meaning for her, in many cases, misery and distress.
Dr. Churcher informs me from Morocco that “the divorced woman too
often goes to swell the ranks of the prostitutes.” And the same is the
case in China and among the Arabs of the Sahara.[3396]

When a man and woman unite with one another from love, there is, of
course, more security that the marriage contract will be lasting. The
Mantras, says Father Bourien, “frequently marry without previously
knowing one another, and live together without loving. Is it, then,
astonishing that they part without regret, and that divorce is frequent
among them?”[3397] The facility of Mohammedan divorce, as Mr. Bosworth
Smith remarks, is the necessary consequence of the separation of the
sexes. “A man would never embark in the hazardous lottery of Eastern
marriage, if he had not the escape of divorce from the woman whom he
has never seen, and who may be in every way uncongenial to him.”[3398]
A union with a first cousin, among Mohammedans, is generally lasting,
because early associations may have led to an attachment at a tender
age.[3399] Separation is especially rare when the uniting passion is
not merely of a sensual nature, but involves mutual sympathy depending
upon mental qualities.

Many of the factors which influence the duration of marriage, so far as
it depends upon the will of the husband, operate also in cases where
marriage may be dissolved by the wife. But the woman’s subordinate
position and her inability to support herself, makes separation more
difficult for her than for the man.[3400] Moreover, if the woman claims
a divorce, the purchase-sum paid for her has to be returned,[3401] and
she may even, in certain cases, forfeit her dowry and whatever property
she brought with her at marriage.[3402] If she must lose her children
also, she will naturally shrink from the idea of separation.

Since the causes which influence the duration of marriage are, to
so great an extent, the same as those which influence the form of
marriage, so far as monogamy and polygyny are concerned, we might
expect strict monogamy to be associated with stability of marriage,
and extensive polygyny with instability. But this is only partly the
case. When monogamy is chiefly due to the man’s inability to support
many wives, or when he secures no economical advantage by a plurality
of wives, he tries in many cases to make up for the inconveniences of
monogamy by a frequent change of mate. Mr. Bickmore thinks that the
reason why polygyny is not more generally practised by the Mohammedan
Malays is to be found in the facility with which divorce is obtained
and a new marriage contracted.[3403] And the Arabs of Asia and the
Moors of the Western Sahara, according to Burckhardt and Chavanne,
indemnify themselves through a succession of wives for their monogamous
habits.[3404] Considering, further, that the proportion between the
sexes, and the monogamous instinct which man in early times probably
shared with others of the higher primates, have affected the forms
of human marriage, but scarcely at all its duration, we may infer
that the development of the latter, at least at the lower stages of
civilization, has been somewhat different from that of the former.

As has already been pointed out, it is extremely probable that, among
primitive men, the union of the sexes lasted till after the birth of
the offspring. We have also perhaps some reason to believe that the
connection lasted for years. Lieutenant de Crespigny met Orang-utan
families consisting of male, female, and two young ones, and v.
Koppenfels saw similar groups of the Gorilla; but whether the male
was the father of both the young ones, it is of course impossible to
decide. In any case, there is abundant evidence that marriage has, upon
the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has
risen to higher degrees of cultivation, and that a certain amount of
civilization is an essential condition of the formation of life-long
unions.

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 greater consideration for women, a higher development of the
paternal feeling, better forethought for the children’s welfare, and
a more refined love-passion have gradually made it stronger, until
it has become, in many cases, almost indissoluble. A husband in the
most advanced societies is no longer permitted to repudiate his wife
whenever he likes; a wife cannot, without more ado, divorce herself
from her husband. Marriage has become a contract the keeping of which
is superintended by the State, and which may be dissolved only under
certain stipulated conditions.

Although there can be no doubt that the psychical causes which have
strengthened the marriage tie tend to become more potent, we must
not conclude that divorce will in future be less frequent and more
restricted by the laws than it is now in European countries. It must
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 harmonizing
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.




CHAPTER XXIV

SUMMARY


Our investigation has now come to an end. The development of human
marriage in all its aspects has been examined, according to the method
suggested in the introductory chapter. Many of the conclusions are more
or less hypothetical, but not a few, I think, are necessary deductions
from trustworthy evidence. As they are based on a great accumulation of
facts, it may be well to present a general view of the argument as a
whole.

We defined marriage as a more or less durable connection between
male and female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till
after the birth of the offspring. It is found among many of the lower
animals, it occurs as a rule among the anthropomorphous apes, and it
is universal among mankind. It is closely connected with parental
duties: the immediate care of the children belongs chiefly to the
mother, whilst the father is the protector and guardian of the family.
Being a necessary requirement for the existence of certain species,
it obviously owes its origin to an instinct developed through the
powerful influence of natural selection. If, as seems probable, there
was a human pairing season in early times, the continued excitement of
the sexual instinct cannot have played a part in the origin of human
marriage—assuming that the institution existed among primitive men.
And it is highly probable that it did exist, as the marriage of the
Primates seems to be due to the small number of young and the long
period of infancy. Later on, when mankind became chiefly carnivorous,
the assistance of an adult male became still more necessary for the
subsistence of the children, as the chase everywhere devolves on the
man. The suggestion that, in olden times, the natural guardian of the
children was not the father, but the maternal uncle, has no foundation
in fact; neither has the hypothesis that all the males of the tribe
indiscriminately were their guardians. All the evidence we possess
tends to show that among our earliest human ancestors the family, not
the tribe, formed the nucleus of every social group, and, in many
cases, was itself perhaps the only social group. The man-like apes are
not gregarious, and the solitary life they generally lead is almost
certainly due chiefly to the difficulty they experience in getting
sufficient quantities of food. We may infer that our fruit-eating human
or half-human ancestors were not more gregarious than they. Afterwards,
when man passed beyond his frugivorous stage, he continued, as a rule,
this solitary kind of life, as gregariousness is a disadvantage to all
large animals who live chiefly on flesh. Even now there are savage
peoples of the lowest type who live rather in separate families than in
tribes, and facts indicate that the chief reason for this is want of
sufficient food. The sociability of man, therefore, sprang in the main
from progressive intellectual and material civilization, whilst the tie
that kept together husband and wife, parents and children, was, if not
the only, at least the principal factor in the earliest forms of man’s
social life. Human marriage, in all probability, is an inheritance from
some ape-like progenitor.

Most anthropologists who have written on prehistoric customs believe,
indeed, that man lived originally in a state of promiscuity or
“communal marriage”; but we have found that this hypothesis is
essentially unscientific. The evidence given for it consists of notices
of some savage nations said to live promiscuously, and of some curious
customs which are assumed to be survivals from a time when marriage
did not exist. Many of the assertions made as to peoples living in
promiscuous intercourse have, however, been shown to be erroneous, and
the accuracy of the others is at least open to question. But even if
some of the statements were true, it would be a mistake to infer that
these quite exceptional cases represent a stage of development through
which all mankind have passed; and it is certainly not among the lowest
peoples that sexual relations most nearly approach to promiscuity.
Equally unwarranted is the inference of a primitive condition of
“communal marriage” from the fact that in some parts of the world the
sexes may cohabit freely before marriage. There are numerous savage
and barbarous peoples among whom sexual intercourse out of wedlock is
of rare occurrence, unchastity on the part of the woman being looked
upon as a disgrace or a crime. Contact with a “higher culture” has
proved pernicious to the morality of savage peoples; and we have some
reason to believe that irregular connections between the sexes have, on
the whole, exhibited a tendency to increase along with the progress of
civilization. Moreover, free sexual intercourse previous to marriage
is quite different from promiscuity, which involves a suppression of
individual inclinations. The most general form of it is prostitution,
which is rare among peoples living in a state of nature, untouched
by foreign influence. Customs which have been interpreted as acts of
expiation for individual marriage—a sort of religious prostitution
found in the East; the _jus primae noctis_ granted to the friends of
the bridegroom, or to all the guests at a marriage, or to a particular
person, a chief or a priest; and the practice of lending wives to
visitors—may be far more satisfactorily explained otherwise. This is
true also of the fact that, among certain peoples, courtesans are held
in greater estimation than women married to a single husband. Mr.
Morgan’s view—that the former prevalence of “marriage in a group” and
promiscuity are proved by the “classificatory system of relationship”
in force among many peoples—presupposes that the nomenclature was
founded on blood-relationship, as near as the parentage of individuals
could be known. But it can scarcely be doubted that the terms for
relationships were originally mere terms of address, given chiefly
with reference to sex and age, as also to the external, or social,
relationship in which the speaker stood to the person whom he or she
addressed. It has been suggested that the system of “kinship through
females only”— implying, chiefly, that children are named after their
mothers, not after their fathers, and that property and rank succeed
exclusively in the female line—is due to the uncertain paternity which
resulted from early promiscuity. But the ties of blood have exercised a
far less direct influence on this system than is generally assumed. We
have seen that there may be several reasons for naming children after
the mother rather than after the father, apart from any consideration
of relationship. The custom in accordance with which, among many
peoples, a man, on marrying, goes to live with his wife in the house of
her father deserves special notice in this connection. It is probable
that the causes which make children take their mother’s name have also
directly influenced the rules of succession, but the power of the name
itself seems to have been of even higher importance. Moreover, so
far as we know, there is no general coincidence of what we consider
moral and immoral habits with the prevalence of the male and female
line among existing savages; and among various peoples the male line
prevails, although paternity is often actually uncertain on account of
their polyandrous marriage customs. Avowed recognition of kinship in
the female line only, by no means implies an unconsciousness of male
kinship. Finally, there are many rude peoples who exhibit no traces at
all of a system of “kinship through females only.” Thus the facts put
forward in support of the hypothesis of promiscuity do not entitle us
to assume that promiscuity has ever been the prevailing form of sexual
relations even among a single people, whilst the hypothesis is opposed
to all the correct ideas we are able to form with regard to the early
state of man. Promiscuous intercourse between the sexes tends to a
pathological condition very unfavourable to fecundity; and the almost
universal prevalence of jealousy among peoples unaffected by foreign
influence, as well as among the lower mammals, makes it most unlikely
that promiscuity ever prevailed at any stage of human development. As
we have seen, the idea that a woman belongs exclusively to one man
is so deeply rooted among various peoples that it has led to several
revolting practices.

In the chapter on ‘Marriage and Celibacy’ we noted that the single
state is comparatively rare among savage and barbarous races, who,
as a rule, marry earlier than civilized men. A celibate is, indeed,
looked upon almost as an unnatural being. Very much the same was the
case with the ancient civilized nations both of the Old World and the
New, as is still the case in the East. In modern civilization, on
the other hand, there are several factors—partly economical, partly
psychical—unfavourable to marriage. As a consequence, the proportion of
unmarried people has been gradually increasing in Europe, and the age
at which people marry has risen. A curious kind of celibacy, met with
among various peoples at different stages, is the enforced celibacy of
persons devoted to religion. This evidently depends upon the notion
that sexual intercourse is impure—a notion which seems to have grown
up originally from the instinctive feeling against intercourse between
members of the same family or household.

In the courtship of almost all animal species the male plays the most
active part, and has generally to fight with other males for the
possession of the female. The same was no doubt the case with our early
human ancestors, and this mode of courtship survives even now among
some of the lower races. Much more commonly, however, courtship means
on the part of the man a prolonged making of love; and the woman is far
from being completely passive. We have seen how savage men and women in
various ways endeavour to make themselves attractive to the opposite
sex:—by ornamenting, mutilating, painting, and tattooing themselves.
That these practices essentially subserve this end appears chiefly from
the fact that the time selected for them is the age of puberty. It
seems also probable that clothing, at least in a great many cases, was
originally adopted for a similar reason, and that the feeling of shame,
far from being the original cause of man’s covering his nakedness, is,
on the contrary, a result of this custom.

Whilst the men are generally the courters, the women may in many,
perhaps most, cases accept or refuse their proposals at pleasure.
Though a daughter among the lower races is regarded as an object of
property, and is in many instances betrothed in her earliest youth,
women are not, as a rule, married without having any voice of their
own in the matter. Among existing savages their liberty of selection
is very considerable, and under more primitive conditions—when every
grown-up individual earned his or her own living, when there was,
strictly speaking, no labour, and when a daughter consequently was
neither a slave nor an object of trade—woman was doubtless even more
free in that respect than she is now among most of the lower races.
At a latter stage the case was different. Among peoples who have
reached a relatively high degree of civilization the father’s power,
in connection with a more fully developed system of ancestor-worship,
has invariably become more extensive, more absolute. Not only the
full-grown daughter, but the full-grown son, who among savages enjoys
perfect independence, stands so much in awe of the father that, among
many of these peoples, no marriage is concluded without his consent. We
have given some account of this strengthened paternal authority among
various nations; we have found that it has formed only a transitional
stage in the history of human institutions; and we have indicated the
stages of its gradual decline.

The important subject of sexual selection has necessarily claimed a
good deal of attention. In an introductory chapter we pointed out the
contradiction between Mr. Darwin’s theories of natural and sexual
selection, and endeavoured to show that the sexual selection of the
lower animals is entirely subordinate to the great law of the survival
of the fittest. From the way in which the sexual colours, odours, and
sounds of animals are distributed among different species, we drew the
conclusion that, though they are always to a certain extent hurtful to
the species, they are upon the whole advantageous, inasmuch as they
make it easier for the sexes to find each other; whereas if we accept
Mr. Darwin’s theory, we are compelled to suppose that the inexplicable
æsthetic sense on which his hypothesis is founded, has been developed
in the way most dangerous to the species. We also found that there are
facts incompatible with Mr. Darwin’s explanation of the connection
between love and beauty in mankind, and of the origin of the different
human races. There is an ideal of beauty common to the whole human
race; but this ideal is a mere abstraction, as general similarities
in taste are accompanied by specific differences. Men and women find
beauty in the full development of the visible characteristics belonging
to the human organism in general; of those peculiar to the sex; of
those peculiar to the race. As a certain kind of constitution is best
suited for certain conditions of life, and the racial type is on the
whole that which best harmonizes with the external relations in which
the respective peoples live, we may infer that the full development
of racial characters indicates health, that a deviation from them
indicates disease. Physical beauty is therefore in every respect the
outward manifestation of physical perfection, and the development of
the instinct which prefers beauty to ugliness, healthiness to disease,
is evidently within the power of natural selection. According to Mr.
Darwin, racial differences are due to the different standards of
beauty, whereas, according to the theory indicated in this book, the
different standards of beauty are due to racial differences. We have
seen that the racial peculiarities stand in some connection with the
external circumstances in which the various races live. But, as we
do not know that acquired characters are transmitted from parent to
offspring, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the differences are the
inherited effects of conditions of life to which previous generations
have been subject. It seems most probable that they are due to natural
selection, which has preserved and intensified such congenital
variations as were most in accordance with the conditions under which
the various races lived.

Under the head of the ‘Law of Similarity’ we dealt with the powerful
instinct which, as a rule, keeps animals from pairing with individuals
belonging to another species, and found the origin of this aversion
in the infertility of first crosses and hybrids. No such instinct can
be said to keep the various human races apart from one another; and
it is not known that the diversities even between the races which
least resemble each other are not so great but that, under favourable
conditions, a mixed race may be produced. Closely akin to the horror
of bestiality is the horror of incest, which, almost without exception,
is a characteristic of the races of men, though the degrees within
which intercourse is forbidden vary in an extraordinary degree. It is
nearly universally abominated between parents and children, generally
between brothers and sisters, often between cousins, and, among a
great many peoples uninfluenced by modern civilization, between all
the members of the tribe or clan. We criticized the theories set forth
by various writers as to the origin of such prohibitions. To each of
these theories there are special objections; and all of them presuppose
that men avoid incestuous marriages only because they are taught to
do so. As a matter of fact, the home is kept pure from incestuous
intercourse neither by laws, nor by customs, nor by education, but by
an instinct which under normal circumstances makes sexual love between
the nearest kin a psychical impossibility. Of course there is no innate
aversion to marriage with near relations; but there is an innate
aversion to marriage between persons living very closely together from
early youth, and, as such persons are in most cases related, this
feeling displays itself chiefly as a horror of intercourse between
near kin. The existence of an innate aversion of this kind is proved,
not only by common experience, but by an abundance of ethnographical
facts which show that it is not in the first place by degrees of
consanguinity, but by close living together, that prohibitory laws
against intermarriage are determined. Thus many peoples have a rule of
local exogamy, which is quite independent of kinship. The extent to
which, among various nations, relatives are not allowed to intermarry,
is obviously nearly connected with their close living together. There
is so strong a coincidence (as statistical data prove) between exogamy
and the “classificatory system of relationship”—which system springs,
to a great extent, from the close living together of considerable
numbers of kinsfolk—that they must, in fact, be regarded as two sides
of one institution. Prohibitions of incest are very often more or
less one-sided, applying more extensively either to the kinsfolk on
the father’s side or to those on the mother’s, according as descent
is reckoned through men or women; and we have seen that the line of
descent is intimately connected with local relationships. In a large
number of cases, however, prohibitions of intermarriage are only
indirectly influenced by the close living together. Aversion to the
intermarriage of persons who live in intimate connection with each
other has provoked prohibitions of the intermarriage of relations; and,
as kinship is traced by means of a system of names, the name comes to
be considered identical with relationship. Generally speaking, the
feeling that two persons are intimately connected in some way or other
may, through an association of ideas, give rise to the notion that
intercourse between them is incestuous. There are exceptions to the
rule that close living together inspires an aversion to intermarriage.
But most of the recorded instances of intermarriage of brother and
sister refer to royal families, and are brought about simply by pride
of birth. Incestuous unions may also take place on account of extreme
isolation, and certain instances of such connection are evidently the
results of vitiated instincts. Marriage between a half-brother and a
half-sister, however, is not necessarily contrary to the principle here
laid down, as polygyny breaks up each family into as many sub-families
as there are wives who have children. The question arose:—Why is a
feeling of disgust associated with the idea of marriage between persons
who have lived in a long-continued, intimate relationship from a period
of life at which the action of desire is naturally out of the question?
We found an answer in the evil effects resulting from consanguineous
marriages. It seems to be necessary for the welfare of the species
that the sexual elements which unite shall be somewhat different from,
as it is necessary that they shall be in some way similar to, one
another. The injurious results of self-fertilization among plants and
of close interbreeding among animals appear to prove the existence of
such a law, and it is impossible to believe that it does not apply
to man also. We stated several facts pointing in this direction,
and found reason to believe that consanguineous marriages are much
more injurious in savage regions, where the struggle for existence
is often very severe, than they have proved to be in civilized
society. We also observed that no evidence which can stand the test of
scientific investigation has hitherto been adduced against the view
that consanguineous marriages, in some way or other, are more or less
detrimental to the species. Through natural selection an instinct must
have been developed, powerful enough, as a rule, to prevent injurious
unions. This instinct displays itself simply as an aversion on the part
of individuals to union with others with whom they have lived, but as
these are for the most part blood-relations, the result is the survival
of the fittest.

We proceeded to consider sexual selection as influenced by affection,
sympathy, and calculation. We found that love has only slowly become
the refined feeling it is in the minds of cultivated persons in modern
times, although conjugal affection is far from being unknown, even
among very rude savages. The endogamous rules which prevent different
races, nations, or tribes, hereditary castes, classes, and adherents
of different religions from intermarrying are due to want of sympathy,
and have gradually lost their importance according as altruism and
religious toleration have increased, and civilization has diminished
the barriers which separate different nations and the various classes
of society.

As regards the mode of contracting marriage, we inferred—from the
universality of the horror of incest, and from the difficulty a savage
man has in procuring a wife in a friendly manner without making up
for the loss he inflicts on her father—that marriage by capture must
have been very common at that stage of social development when family
ties had become stronger, and man lived in small groups of nearly
related persons, but when the idea of barter had scarcely presented
itself to his mind. We saw that marriage by capture was succeeded by
marriage by purchase, as barter in general has followed upon robbery.
Again, at a later stage, some feeling of shame was attached to the
idea of selling a daughter, and marriage by purchase was abandoned.
Its gradual disappearance took place in two different ways. On the one
hand, the purchase became a symbol, appearing as a sham sale in the
marriage ceremonies or as an exchange of presents; on the other hand,
the purchase-sum was transformed into the morning gift and the dotal
portion, a part—afterwards the whole—being given to the bride either
directly by the bridegroom or by her father. These transformations
of marriage by purchase have taken place, not only in the history of
the great civilized nations, but among several peoples who are still
in a savage or semi-civilized state. As a rule, however, the marriage
portion plays no important part in savage life, being chiefly due
to a feeling of respect and sympathy for the weaker sex, which, on
the whole, is characteristic of a higher civilization. Very often it
is intended to be a settlement for the wife in case the marriage be
dissolved through the husband’s death or otherwise, although it may
have the meaning of a return gift, or it may imply that the wife as
well as the husband is expected to contribute to the expenses of the
joint household.

Having noted the growth of marriage ceremonies and religious rites,
we passed to the forms of human marriage. Polygyny was permitted by
most of the ancient peoples within the historic period, and is at
present permitted by several civilized nations and by the majority
of savage tribes. Yet, among not a few savage and barbarous races it
is almost unknown, or even prohibited; and almost everywhere it is
confined to the smaller part of the people, the vast majority being
monogamous. Moreover, where polygyny occurs, it is modified, as a
rule, in two ways that tend towards monogamy: through the higher
position granted to one of the wives, generally the first married,
and through the favour constantly shown by the husband to the wife
he likes best. Among certain peoples polyandry occurs, and, like
polygyny, is modified in a monogamous direction, the first husband
usually being the chief husband. Among the causes by which the forms
of marriage are influenced, the numerical proportion between the
sexes plays an important part. In some countries there are more men
than women, in others more women than men. This disproportion is due
to various causes, such as female infanticide, war, and disparity in
the number of the sexes at birth. There are facts which seem to show
that in rough mountainous countries more boys are born than girls,
and that consanguineous marriages produce a considerable excess
of male births. If this be so, it can hardly be a mere coincidence
that polyandry occurs chiefly among mountaineers and peoples who are
endogamous in a very high degree. As for polygyny, there are several
reasons why a man may desire to possess more than one wife. Among
many peoples the husband has to live apart from his wife during her
pregnancy, and as long as she suckles her child. Female youth and
beauty have for men a powerful attraction, and among peoples at the
lower stages of civilization women generally become old much sooner
than in more advanced communities. The liking of men for variety is
also a potent factor; and to have many wives is to have many labourers.
The barrenness of a wife is another very common reason for the choice
of a new partner, as desire for offspring, for various reasons, is
universal in mankind. In a savage and barbarous state a man’s power and
wealth are proportionate to the number of his offspring. Nevertheless,
however desirable polygyny may be from the man’s point of view, it
is prohibited among many peoples, and among most of the others it is
exceptional. 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. Polygyny implies a violation of the feelings of women; hence,
where due respect is paid to these, monogamy is considered the only
proper form of marriage. The refined passion of love, which depends
not only on external attractions, but on sympathy arising from mental
qualities, forms a tie between husband and wife which lasts for life;
and the true monogamous instinct, the absorbing passion for one, is a
powerful obstacle to polygynous habits. It is certain that polygyny
has been less prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization—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; where there is no accumulation of wealth and no
distinction of class—than it is at somewhat higher stages; and it seems
probable that monogamy prevailed almost exclusively among our earliest
human ancestors. But, though civilization up to a certain point is
favourable to polygyny, its higher forms invariably and necessarily
lead to monogamy. We have noted that polygyny has, in many ways, become
less desirable for the civilized man than it was for his barbarian and
savage ancestors, and that other causes have co-operated to produce
the same result. Again, polyandry, being due to an excess of men and
presupposing an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy, must at
all times have been exceptional; there is no solid evidence for the
theory that in early times it was the rule. On the contrary, this form
of marriage seems to require a certain degree of civilization. It was
probably, in most cases, an expression of fraternal benevolence on the
part of the eldest brother, and, if additional wives were afterwards
acquired, it led to group marriages of the Toda type.

As a general rule, human marriage is not necessarily contracted for
life, and among most uncivilized and many advanced peoples, a man
may divorce his wife whenever he likes. Nevertheless, divorce is an
exception among a great many races, even among races of the lowest
type; and numerous nations consider, or have considered, marriage a
union which must not be dissolved by the husband, except for certain
reasons stipulated by custom or law. We also noted instances in which
the wife may separate from her husband. The causes by which the
duration of human marriage is influenced are, on the whole, but not
exactly the same as those which determine the form of marriage; and,
though monogamy frequently coexists with great stability of marriage,
this is scarcely the case in the rudest condition of man. Marriage,
generally speaking, has become more durable in proportion as the human
race has advanced.

Marriage has thus been subject to evolution in various ways, though
the course of evolution has not been always the same. The dominant
tendency of this process at its later stages has been the extension of
the wife’s rights. A wife is no longer the husband’s property; and,
according to modern ideas, marriage is, or should be, a contract on
the footing of perfect equality between the sexes. The history of
human marriage is the history of a relation in which women have been
gradually triumphing over the passions, the prejudices, and the selfish
interests of men.




AUTHORITIES QUOTED.[3405]


 Abercromby (John), ‘Marriage Customs of the Mordvins;’ in
 ‘Folk-Lore,’ vol. i. London, 1890.

 ‘Äbo Tidningar.’ Äbo.

 ‘Academy (The).’ London.

 Acosta (Joseph de), ‘The Natural and Moral History of the Indies.’
 Trans. ed. by C. R. Markham. 2 vols. London, 1880.

 Adair (James), ‘The History of the American Indians.’ London, 1775.

 Adam (W.), ‘Consanguinity in Marriage;’ in ‘The Fortnightly Review,’
 vols. ii.-iii. London, 1865-66.

 Agassiz (L. J. R.), ‘An Essay on Classification.’ London, 1859.

 —— ‘A Journey in Brazil.’ Boston, 1868.

 Ahlqvist (A.). ‘Die Kulturwörter der westfinnischen Sprachen.’
 Helsingfors, 1875.

 —— ‘Unter Wogulen und Ostjaken;’ in ‘Acta Societatis Scientiarum
 Fennicæ,’ vol. xiv. Helsingfors, 1885.

 Albertis (L. M. d'), ‘New Guinea.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1880.

 Alcedo (A. de), ‘The Geographical and Historical Dictionary of
 America and the West Indies.’ Trans. ed. by G. A. Thompson. 5 vols.
 London, 1812-15.

 Allen (Grant), ‘Falling in Love, with other Essays.’ London, 1889.

 Amír’ Alí (M. Sayyid), ‘The Personal Law of the Mahommedans.’ London,
 1880.

 ‘Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland.’ 4 vols. Dublin and London,
 1865-79.

 Anderson (John), ‘Mandalay to Momien.’ London, 1876.

 Anderson (John W.), ‘Notes of Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia.’
 London, 1880.

 Andersson (C. J.), ‘Lake Ngami.’ London 1856.

 —— ‘The Okavango River.’ London, 1861.

 Andree (Richard), ‘Zur Volkskunde der Juden.’ Bielefeld and Leipzig,
 1881.

 —— ‘Die Beschneidung;’ in ‘Archiv f. Anthr.,’ vol. xiii. Brunswick,
 1881.

 Angas (G. F.), ‘Polynesia.’ London [1866].

 —— ‘Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand. London,
 1850.

 Angas (G. F.), ‘South Australia Illustrated.’ London, 1847.

 ‘Anthropological Review (The).’ London.

 Apollodorus Atheniensis, ‘Βιβλωθήκη.’

 ‘Archiv für Anthropologie. Zeitschrift für Naturgeschichte und
 Urgeschichte des Menschen.’ Brunswick.

 ‘Archivio per antropologia e la etnologia.’ Ed. by Paolo Mantegazza.
 Florence.

 Aristotle, ‘Τὰ πολιτικά.’

 Armstrong (Alex.), ‘A Personal Narrative of the Discovery of the
 North-West Passage.’ London, 1857.

 Arnot (Fred.), ‘Garenganze; or, Seven Years’ Pioneer Mission Work in
 Central Africa.‘ London [1889].

 Ashe (R. P.), ‘Two Kings of Uganda.’ London, 1889.

 Ashe (Thomas), ‘Travels in America, Performed in the Year 1806.’
 London, 1809.

 ‘Asiatick Researches.’ Calcutta.

 ‘Athenæum (The).’ London.

 Atkinson (T. W.), ‘Travels in the Regions of the Upper and Lower
 Amoor.’ London, 1860.

 ‘Aus allen Weltthelien. Familienblatt für Lander und Völkerkunde.’
 Leipzig.

 ‘Ausland (Das).’ Stuttgart und Augsburg.

 Azara (F. de), ‘Voyages dans l’Amérique méridionale.’ 4 vols. Paris,
 1809.


 Baber (E. C.), ‘Travels and Researches in the Interior of China;’ in
 ‘Roy. Geo. Soc. Supplementary Papers,’ vol. i. London, 1886.

 Bachofen (J. J.) ‘Antiquarische Briefe.’ Strasburg, 1880.

 —— ‘Das Mutterrecht.’ Stuttgart, 1861.

 Baegert (Jacob), ‘An Account of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the
 Californian Peninsula.’ Trans.; in ‘Smithsonian Reports,’ 1863-64.
 Washington.

 Bailey (John), ‘An Account of the Wild Tribes of the Veddahs of
 Ceylon;’ in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S., vol. ii. London, 1863.

 Bain (Alex.), ‘The Emotions and the Will.’ London, 1880.

 Baker (S. W.), ‘The Albert N’yanza, Great Basin of the Nile, and
 Explorations of the Nile Sources.’ 2 vols. London, 1867.

 —— ‘The Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia.’ London, 1868.

 Balfour (Edward), ‘The Cyclopædia of India, and Eastern and Southern
 Asia.’ 3 vols. London, 1885.

 Bancroft (H. H.), ‘The Native Races of the Pacific States of North
 America,’ 5 vols. New York, 1875-76.

 Barrington (George), ‘The History of New South Wales.’ London, 1810.

 Barrow (John), ‘An Account of Travels into the Interior of Southern
 Africa, in the Years 1797 and 1798.’ 2 vols. London, 1801-04.

 Barth (Heinrich), ‘Reisen und Entdeckungen in Nord-und
 Central-Afrika.’ 5 vols. Gotha, 1857-58.

 —— ‘Sammlung und Bearbeitung central-afrikanischer
 Vokabularien.—Collection,‘ &c. Gotha, 1862.

 Barth (Hermann von), ‘Ost-Afrika vom Limpopo bis zum Somalilande.’
 Leipzig, 1875.

 Bastian (A.), ‘Die Culturländer des alten America.’ 2 vols. Berlin,
 1878.

 —— ‘Ethnologische Forschungen.’ 2 vols. Jena, 1871-73.

 —— ‘Inselgruppen in Oceanien.’ Berlin, 1883.

 Bastian (A.), ‘Der Mensch in der Geschichte.’ 3 vols. Leipzig, 1860.

 —— ‘Der Papua des dunkeln Inselreichs.’ Berlin, 1885.

 —— ‘Die Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde.’
 Berlin, 1872.

 —— ‘Beiträge zur Ethnologie;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. i.
 Berlin, 1869.

 —— ‘Ueber die Eheverhältnisse;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. vi.,
 Berlin, 1874.

 Batchelor (John), ‘The Ainu of Japan.’ London, 1892.

 —— ‘Notes on the Ainu;’ in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. x.
 Yokohama, 1882.

 Bates (H. W.), ‘The Naturalist on the River Amazons.’ 2 vols. London,
 1863.

 Beauregard (Ollivier), ‘En Asie; Kachmir et Tibet;’ in ‘Bull. Soc.
 d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii., vol. v. Paris, 1882.

 Bebel (August), ‘Woman in the Past, Present, and Future.’ Trans.
 London, 1885.

 Becker (W. A.), ‘Charikles.’ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1840.

 Beecham (John), ‘Ashantee and the Gold Coast.’ London, 1841.

 Beechey (F. W.), ‘Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Behring’s
 Strait.’ 2 vols. London, 1831.

 Bell (Thomas), ‘The History of Improved Short-Horn, or Durham
 Cattle.’ Newcastle, 1871.

 Bellew (H. W.), ‘Kashmir and Kashghar.’ London, 1875.

 Belly (Félix), ‘A travers l’Amérique Centrale.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1867.

 Belt (Thomas), ‘The Naturalist in Nicaragua.’ London, 1874.

 Bent (J. T.), ‘The Cyclades.’ London, 1885.

 Bérenger-Féraud, ‘Le mariage chez les Nègres Sénégambiens;’ in
 ‘Revue d’Anthropologie,’ ser. ii., vol. vi. Paris, 1883.

 Bernhöft (Franz), ‘Verwandtschaftsnamen und Eheformen der
 nordamerikanischen Volksstämme.’ Rostock, 1888.

 —— ‘Altindische Familienorganisation;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
 Rechtswiss.,’ vol. ix. Stuttgart, 1890.

 —— ‘Zur Geschichte des europäischen Familienrechts;’ in ‘Zeitschr.
 f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. viii. Berlin, 1889.

 Bertillon, ‘Mariage (hygiène matrimoniale):’ in ‘Dictionnaire
 encyclopédique des sciences médicales,’ ser. ii., vol. v. Paris, 1872.

 —— ‘Natalité (démographie);’ in ‘Dict, encycl. sci. med.,’ ser. ii.,
 vol. xi. Paris, 1875.

 Beukemann (Wilhelm), ‘Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung über die
 Vertheilung der Geburten nach Monaten.’ Göttingen, 1881.

 Bickmore (A. S.), ‘Travels in the East Indian Archipelago.’ London,
 1868.

 Block (Maurice), ‘Statistique de la France, comparée avec les autres
 États de l’Europe.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1860.

 Blumenbach (J. F.), ‘Anthropological Treatises.’ Trans, ed. by Thomas
 Bendyshe. London, 1865.

 Blumentritt (Ferd.), ‘Versuch einer Ethnographic der Philippinen.’
 Petermann’s ‘Mittheilungen,’ Ergänzungsheft, no. 67. Gotha, 1882.

 Bluntschli (J. C.), ‘Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und
 Landschaft Zürich.’ 2 vols. Zürich, 1838.

 Bock (Carl), ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo.’ London, 1881.

 —— ‘Temples and Elephants.’ London, 1884.

 Bodin (Jean), ‘De Republica.’ Ursellis, 1601.

 Bogle (George), ‘Narrative of the Mission of, to Tibet, &c. Ed. by
 C. R. Markham. London, 1876.

 Bohlen (P. von), ’ Das alte Indien.‘ 2 vols. Königsberg, 1830.

 Bombet (L. A. C.), ‘The Lives of Haydn and Mozart’ Trans. London, 1818.

 Bontier (Pierre) and Le Verrier (Jean), ‘The Canarian, or, Book of
 the Conquest and Conversion of the Canarians in the Year 1402, by
 Messire Jean de Bethencourt.’ Trans, ed. by R. H. Major, London, 1872.

 Bonvalot (Gabriel), ‘Across Thibet.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1891.

 Bonwick (James), ‘Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians.’ London.
 1870.

 —— ‘The Last of the Tasmanians.’ London, 1870.

 Borheck (A. C.), ‘Erdbeschreibung von Asien.’ 3 vols. Düsseldorf,
 1792-94.

 Bosman (W.), ‘A New Description of the Coast of Guinea.’ Trans.; in
 Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol xvi. London, 1814.

 Bouche (P.), ‘Sept ans en Afrique occidental. La Côte des Esclaves et
 Le Dahomey.’ Paris, 1885.

 Bovallius (Carl), ‘Resa i Central-Amerika, 1881-1883.’ 2 vols. Upsal,
 1887.

 Bove (Giacomo), ‘Patagonia. Terra del Fuoco. Mari Australi’ Genoa,
 1883.

 Boyle (Frederick), ‘Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo.’ London,
 1865.

 Brehm (A. E.), ‘Bird-Life.’ Trans. London, 1874.

 —— ‘Thierleben.’ 10 vols. Leipzig, 1877-80.

 Brenchley (J. L.), ‘Jottings during the Cruise of H.M.S. Curaçoa
 among the South Sea Islands in 1865. London, 1873.

 Breton (W. H.), ‘Excursions in New South Wales, Western Australia, and
 Van Dieman’s Land.’ London, 1833.

 Brett (W. H.), ‘The Indian Tribes of Guiana.’ London, 1868.

 Bridges (Thomas), ‘Manners and Customs of the Firelanders;’ in ‘A
 Voice for South America,’ vol. xiii. London, 1866.

 Broca (Paul), ‘On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo.’
 Trans, ed. by C. C. Blake. London, 1864.

 Brooke (Charles), ‘Ten Years in Sarawak.’ 2 vols. London, 1866.

 Bruce (James), ‘Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, in the
 Years 1768-1773.’ 5 vols. Edinburgh, 1790.

 Buch (Max), ‘Die Wotjäken.’ Stuttgart, 1882.

 Buchanan (Francis), ‘A Journey from Madras through the Countries of
 Mysore, Canara, and Malabar;’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages
 and Travels,’ vol viii. London, 1811.

 Buchanan (James), ‘Sketches of the History, Manners, and Customs of
 the North American Indians.’ London, 1824.

 Buchner (Max), ‘Kamerun.’ Leipzig, 1887. ‘Bulletin de la Société
 de Géographie.’ Paris. ‘Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de
 Paris.’

 Burchell (W. J.), ‘Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa.’ 2
 vols. London, 1822-24.

 Burckhardt (J. L.), ‘Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys.’ London, 1830.

 Burdach (C. F.), ‘Die Physiologie als Erfahrungswissenschaft.’ 6
 vols. Leipzig, 1832-40.

 Burton (R. F.), ‘Abeokuta and the Camaroons Mountains.’ 2 vols.
 London, 1863.

 Burton (R. F.), ‘The City of the Saints and across the Rocky
 Mountains to California.’ London, 1861.

 —— ‘First Footsteps in East Africa.’ London, 1856.

 —— ‘The Highlands of the Brazil.’ 2 vols. London, 1869.

 —— ‘The Lake Regions of Central Africa.’ 2 vols. London, 1860.

 —— ‘A Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome.’ 2 vols. London, 1864.

 —— ‘Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Meccah and Medinah.’ London, 1879.

 —— ‘Sind Revisited.’ 2 vols. London, 1877.

 —— ‘Two Trips to Gorilla Land and the Cataracts of the Congo.’ 2
 vols. London, 1876.

 Buschmann (J. C. E.), ‘Ueber den Naturlaut;’ in ‘Philologische und
 historische Abhandlungen der Königl’. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
 Berlin, 1852.


 Caesar, ‘Commentarii de Bello Gallico.’

 Caillié (Réné), ‘Travels through Central Africa to Timbuctoo.’ 2
 vols. London, 1833.

 ‘Calcutta Review (The).’ Calcutta.

 Cameron (A. L. P.), ‘Notes on some Tribes of New South Wales;’ in
 ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol xiv. London, 1885.

 Cameron (V. L.), ‘Across Africa.’ 2 vols. London, 1877.

 Campbell (F. A.), ‘A Year in the New Hebrides, Loyalty Islands, and
 New Caledonia.’ Geelong and Melbourne [1873].

 Campbell (John), ‘A Personal Narrative of Thirteen Years’ Service
 amongst the Wild Tribes of Khondistan.‘ London, 1864.

 Camper (Petrus), ‘Kleinere Schriften die Arzneykunst und
 Naturgeschichte betreffend.’ Trans. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1784-90.

 Carpentier (Adrien), ‘Traité théoretique et pratique du divorce.’
 Paris, 1885.

 Carr (William), ‘The History of the Rise and Progress of the
 Killerby, Studley, and Warlaby Herds of Shorthorns.’ London, 1867.

 Carver (J.), ‘Travels through the Interior Parts of North America.’
 London, 1781.

 Casalis (E.), ‘The Basutos.’ London, 1861.

 Castelnau (François de), ‘Expédition dans les parties centrales de
 l’Amérique du Sud.’ 7 vols. Paris, 1850-59.

 Castrén (M. A.), ‘Nordiska resor och forskningar.’ 4 vols.
 Helsingfors, 1852-58.

 —— ‘Reseminnen;’ in ‘Helsingfors Morgonblad,’ 1843.

 Catlin (George), ‘Illustrations of the Manners, Customs, and
 Condition of the North American Indians.’ 2 vols. London, 1876.

 —— ‘Last Rambles amongst the Indians of the Rocky Mountains and the
 Andes.’ Edinburgh and London, 1877.

 Cauvet (J.), ‘De l’organisation de la famille à Athènes;’ in ‘Revue
 de législation et de jurisprudence,’ vol. xxiv. Paris, 1845.

 Chalmers (James), ‘Pioneering in New Guinea.’ London, 1887.

 Chapman (J.), ‘Travels in the Interior of South Africa.’ 2 vols.
 London, 1868.

 Chavanne (Josef), ‘Reisen und Forschungen im alten und neuen
 Kongostaate.’ Jena, 1887.

 —— ‘Die Sahara.’ Vienna, Pest, and Leipzig, 1879.

 Chervin (N.), ‘Recherches médico-philosophiques sur les causes
 physique de la polygamie dans les pays chauds.’ Paris, 1812.

 Cheyne (Andrew), ‘A Description of Islands in the Western Pacific
 Ocean.’ London, 1852.

 ‘China Review (The).’ Hongkong.

 ‘Chronicles, The Second Book of the.’

 Cicero, ‘De Legibus.’

 Clavigero (F. S.), ‘The History of Mexico.’ Trans. 2 vols. London,
 1807.

 Cnut, ‘Dômas. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen.’ Ed. by Reinhold Schmid.
 Leipzig, 1858.

 ‘Code Civil.’

 ‘Code Napoléon.’

 ‘Codex Justinianeus.’

 Codrington (R. H.), ‘The Melanesians, Studies in their Anthropology
 and Folk-Lore.’ Oxford, 1891.

 Colebrooke (H. T.),‘On the Religious Ceremonies of the Hindus;’ in
 ‘Asiatick Researches,’ vol. vii. Calcutta, 1801.

 Collins (David), ‘An Account of the English Colony in New South
 Wales.’ 2 vols. London, 1798-1802.

 Colquhoun (A. R.), ‘Amongst the Shans.’ London, 1885.

 —— ‘Burma and the Burmans.’ London [1885].

 Columbus (Ferdinand), ‘The History of the Life and Actions of Admiral
 Christopher Colon.’ Trans.; in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and
 Travels,’ vol. xii. London, 1812.

 Cook (James), ‘A Journal of a Voyage round the World ... in the Years
 1768-1771.’ London, 1771.

 —— ‘A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean ... in the Years 1776-1780.’ 3
 vols. London, 1785.

 Cooper (T. T.), ‘The Mishmee Hills.’ London, 1873.

 Coxe (William), ‘Account of the Russian Discoveries between Asia and
 America.’ London, 1804.

 Cranz (David),‘The History of Greenland.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1820.

 Crawfurd (John),‘History of the Indian Archipelago.’ 3 vols.
 Edinburgh, 1820.

 —— ‘On the Classification of the Races of Man;’ in ‘Trans. Ethn.
 Soc.,’ N.S., vol. i. London, 1861.

 Crespigny (C. de), ‘On Northern Borneo;’ in ‘Proceed. Roy. Geo.
 Soc.’ vol. xvi. London, 1872.

 Cumming (C. F. Gordon),‘In the Himalayas and on the Indian Plains.’
 London, 1884.

 Cunningham (Alex.),‘Ladák.’ London, 1854.

 Cunningham (J. D.),‘A History of the Sikhs.’ London, 1849.

 —— ‘Notes on Moorcroft’s Travels in Ladakh,’ &c.; in ‘Jour. As. Soc.
 Bengal,’ vol. xiii. pt. i. Calcutta, 1844.

 Curr (E. M.), ‘The Australian Race.’ 4 vols. Melbourne and London,
 1886-87.


 Dahl (L. V.), ‘Bidrag til Kundskab om de Sindssyge i Norge.’
 Christiana, 1859.

 Dall (W. H.), ‘Alaska and its Resources.’ London, 1870.

 Dalton (E. T.), ‘Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal.’ Calcutta, 1872.

 Danks (Benj.),‘Marriage Customs of the New Britain Group;’ in ‘Jour.
 Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. London, 1889.

 Dargun (L.), ‘Mutterrecht und Raubehe und ihre Reste im germanischen
 Recht und Leben.’ Breslau, 1883.

 Darwin (Charles),‘The Descent of Man.’ 2 vols. London, 1888.

 —— ‘The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable
 Kingdom.’ London, 1876.

 Darwin (Charles), ‘Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural
 History of the Various Countries Visited by Beagle.’ London, 1839.

 —— ‘On the Origin of Species.’ 2 vols. London, 1888.

 —— ‘The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.’ 2 vols.
 London, 1868.

 Darwin (Francis), ‘The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.’ 3 vols.
 London, 1887.

 Darwin (G. H.), ‘Marriages between First Cousins in England and
 their Effects;’ in ‘The Fortnightly Review,’ new series, vol. xviii.
 London, 1875.

 —— ‘Marriages between First Cousins in England and their Effects;’ in
 ‘Jour. Statist. Soc.,’ vol. xxxviii. London, 1875.

 —— ‘Note on the Marriages of First Cousins;’ in ‘Jour. Statist.
 Soc.,’ vol. xxxviii. London, 1875.

 Davids (T. W. Rhys), ‘Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion
 as illustrated by some points in the History of Buddhism.’ The Hibbert
 Lectures, 1881. London, 1881.

 Davis (W. W. H.), ‘El Gringo; or, New Mexico and her People.’ New
 York, 1857.

 Davy (John), ‘An Account of the Interior of Ceylon.’ London, 1821.

 Dawson (James), ‘Australian Aborigines.’ Melbourne, Sydney, and
 Adelaide, 1881.

 Deecke (W.), ‘Die deutschen Verwandtschaftsnamen.’ Weimar, 1870.

 ‘Deuteronomy.’

 ‘Deutsche Rundschau für Geographie und Statistik.’ Vienna, Pest, and
 Leipzig.

 Devay (Francis), ‘Du danger des mariages consanguins au point de vue
 sanitaire.’ Paris and Lyon, 1857.

 Diderot (D.) and d’Alembert (J. Le Rond d'), ‘Encyclopédie.’ 28 vols.
 Geneva, 1772-76.

 Dieffenbach (Ernest), ‘Travels in New Zealand.’ 2 vols. London, 1843.

 Diodorus Siculus, ‘Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική.’

 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ‘Ρωμαϊκή ἀρχαιολογία.’

 Dixon (G.), ‘A Voyage Round the World.’ London, 1789.

 Dixon (J. M.), ‘The Tsuishikari Ainos;’ in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’
 vol. xi. pt. i. Yokohama, 1883.

 Dobrizhoffer (M.), ‘An Account of the Abipones.’ Trans. 3 vols.
 London, 1822.

 Domenech (Em.), ‘Seven Years’ Residence in the Great Deserts of North
 America.‘ 2 vols. London, 1860.

 Draper (J. W.), ‘History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.’ 2
 vols. London, 1864.

 Drury (Robert), ‘Adventures during Fifteen Years’ Captivity on the
 Island of Madagascar.‘ London, 1807.

 Düben (G. von), ‘Om Lappland och Lapparne.’ Stockholm, 1873.

 Duboc (J.), ‘Die Psychologie der Liebe.’ Hanover, 1874.

 Dubois (J. A.), ‘A Description of the Character, Manners, and Customs
 of the People of India.’ Trans. ed. by G. U.  Pope. Madras, 1862.

 Du Chaillu (P. B.), ‘Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial
 Africa.’ London, 1861.

 —— ‘A Journey to Ashango-Land.’ London, 1867.

 Duesing (Carl), ‘Die Regulierung des Geschlechtsverhältnisses bei der
 Vermehrung der Menschen, Tiere und Pflanzen.’ Jena, 1884.

 Du Halde (J. B.), ‘Description de l’Empire de la Chine et de la
 Tartarie Chinoise.’ 4 vols. The Hague, 1736.

 Dumont d’Urville (J. S. C. ), ‘Voyage de découvertes de la corvette
 l’Astrolabe.’ 15 vols. Paris, 1830-34.

 —— ‘Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l’Océanie.’ 23 vols. Paris, 1841-54.

 Duncan (John), ‘Travels in Western Africa, in 1845 and 1846.’ 2 vols.
 London, 1847.

 Dunlop (R. H. W. ), ‘Hunting in the Himalaya.’ London, 1860.

 ‘Duodecim Tabularum Fragmenta.’

 Dutt (R. C.), ‘Hindu Civilisation of the Brahmana Period;’ in ‘The
 Calcutta Review,’ vols. lxxxv.-lxxxvi. Calcutta, 1887-88.

 —— ‘The Social Life of the Hindus in the Rig-Veda Period;’ in ‘The
 Calcutta Review,’ vol. lxxxv. Calcutta, 1887.

 Duvernoy (G. L.), ‘Propagation;’ in ‘Dictionnaire universel
 d’histoire naturelle,’ vol. x. Paris, 1847.


 Earl (G. W.), ‘Papuans.’ London, 1853.

 Ebers (Georg), ‘Aegypten und die Bücher Moses’s.’ Leipzig, 1868.

 —— ‘Durch Gosen zum Sinai.’ Leipzig, 1872.

 ‘Edda, the Younger.’ Trans. by R. B.  Anderson. Chicago, 1880.

 ‘Edinburgh Medical Journal.’ Edinburgh.

 Edwards (H. Milne), ‘Leçons sur la physiologie et l’anatomie comparée
 de l’homme et des animaux.’ 8 vols. Paris, 1857-63.

 Egede (Hans), ‘A Description of Greenland.’ Trans. London, 1745.

 Eichhorn (K. F.), ‘Deutsche Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte.’ 4 vols.
 Göttingen, 1834-36.

 —— ‘Einleitung in das deutsche Privatrecht.’ Göttingen, 1825.

 Elliott (H. W.), ‘Report on the Seal Islands of Alaska;’ in ‘Tenth
 Census of the United States.’ Washington, 1884.

 Ellis (A. B.), ‘The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of West
 Africa.’ London, 1887.

 Ellis (William), ‘History of Madagascar.’ 2 vols. London, 1838.

 —— ‘Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii.’ London, 1826.

 —— ‘Polynesian Researches.’ 4 vols. London, 1859.

 ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa.’ Trans. London, 1888.

 Endemann (K.), ‘Mittheilungen über die Sotho-Neger;’ in ‘Zeitschr.
 f. Ethnol.,’ vol. vi. Berlin, 1864.

 Engels (Fr.), ‘Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des
 Staats.’ Hottingen-Zürich, 1884.

 Erman (A.), ‘Ethnographische Wahrnehmungen und Erfahrungen an den
 Küsten des Berings-Meeres;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii.
 Berlin, 1871.

 Erskine (J. E.), ‘Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of the
 Western Pacific.’ London, 1853.

 Escayrac de Lauture (d'), ‘Die afrikanische Wüste.’ Trans. Leipzig,
 1867.

 Eschwege (W. C. von), ‘Journal von Brasilien.’ 2 vols. Weimar, 1818.

 Espinas (A.), ‘Des sociétés animales.’ Paris, 1878.

 Euripides, ‘Μήδεια.’

 Ewald (G. H. A.  von), ‘The Antiquities of Israel.’ Trans. by H. S. 
 Solly. London, 1876.

 Ewers (J. Ph. G.), ‘Das älteste Recht der Russen in seiner
 geschichtlichen Entwickelung.’ Dorpat and Hamburg, 1826.

 ‘Exodus.’

 Eyre (E. J.), ‘Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central
 Australia.’ 2 vols. London, 1845.

 Falkner (Thomas), ‘A Description of Patagonia, and the adjoining
 Parts of South America.’ Hereford, 1774.

 Farrer (J. A.), ‘Primitive Manners and Customs.’ London, 1879.

 Fawcett (Fred.), ‘On the Saoras (or Savaras);’ in ‘The Journal of
 the Anthropological Society of Bombay.’ vol. i. Bombay, 1888.

 Finch (H. T.), ‘Romantic Love and Personal Beauty.’ 2 vols. London,
 1887.

 Finsch (Otto), ‘Neu-Guinea und seine Bewohner.’ Bremen, 1865.

 —— ‘Reise nach West-Siberien im Jahr 1876.’ Berlin, 1879.

 —— ‘Ueber die Bewohner von Ponapé;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol.
 xii. Berlin, 1880.

 Fischer, ‘Memoir of Sylhet, Kachar, and the Adjacent Districts;’ in
 ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. ix. pt. ii. Calcutta, 1840.

 Fiske (John), ‘Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy.’ 2 vols. London, 1874.

 Fison (L.) and Howitt (A. W.), ‘Kamilaroi and Kurnai.’ Melbourne and
 Sydney, 1880.

 ‘Folk-Lore. A Quarterly Review of Myth, Tradition, Institution and
 Custom.’ London.

 ‘Folk-Lore Journal (The).’ London.

 Forbes (C. J. F.  S.), ‘British Burma and its People.’ London, 1878.

 Forbes (F. E.), ‘Dahomey and the Dahomans.’ 2 vols. London, 1851.

 Forbes (H. O.), ‘A Naturalist’s Wanderings in the Eastern
 Archipelago.’ London, 1885.

 Foreman (John), ‘The Philippine Islands.’ London, 1890.

 Forster (G.), ‘A Voyage Round the World.’ 2 vols. London, 1777.

 Forsyth (J.), ‘The Highlands of Central India.’ London, 1871.

 ‘Fortnightly Review (The).’ London.

 Frankel (Z.), ‘Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmudischen Eherechts.’
 Leipzig, 1860.

 Franklin (John), ‘Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar
 Sea.’ London, 1823.

 —— ‘Narrative of a Second Expedition to the Shores of the Polar Sea.’
 London, 1828.

 Fraser (J. B.), ‘Journal of a Tour through Part of the Snowy Range of
 the Himālā Mountains.’ London, 1820.

 Frazer (J. G.), ‘Totemism.’ Edinburgh, 1887.

 Freycinet (Louis de), ‘Voyage autour du monde.’ 9 vols. Paris,
 1824-1844.

 Friedberg (Emil), ‘Das Recht der Eheschliessung in seiner
 geschichtlichen Entwicklung.’ Leipzig, 1865.

 Friedrichs (Karl), ‘Ueber den Ursprung des Matriarchats;’ in
 ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. viii. Stuttgart, 1889.

 Fries (Th. M.), ‘Grönland, dess natur och innevånare.’ Upsal, 1872.

 Fritsch (G.), ‘Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrika’s.’ Breslau, 1872.

 Fulton (John), ‘The Laws of Marriage.’ New York, 1883.

 Fustel de Coulanges (N. D.), ‘The Ancient City.’ Trans. by W. Small.
 Boston, 1874.

 Fytche (A.), ‘Burma Past and Present.’ 2 vols. London, 1878.


 Gabelentz (H. C. von der), ‘Die melanesischen Sprachen.’ 2 vols.
 Leipzig, 1861-73.

 Gaius, ‘Institutiones.’

 Galton (Francis), ‘Hereditary Genius.’ London, 1869.

 —— ‘The Narrative of an Explorer in Tropical South Africa.’ London,
 1853.

 —— ‘Natural Inheritance.’ London, 1889.

 Gans (E.), ‘Das Erbrecht in weltgeschichtlicher Entwickelung.’ 4
 vols. Berlin, Stuttgart, and Tübingen, 1824-35.

 Ganzenmüller (Konrad), ‘Tibet.’ Stuttgart, 1878.

 Garcilasso de la Vega, ‘First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the
 Yncas.’ Trans. ed. by C. R.  Markham. 2 vols. London, 1869-71.

 Gason (Samuel), ‘The Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe
 of Australian Aborigines;’ in Wood’s ‘The Native Tribes of South
 Australia.’

 Gaya (Louis de), ‘Marriage Ceremonies.’ Trans. London, 1704.

 Geiger (Wilhelm), ‘Civilization of the Eastern Irānians in Ancient
 Times.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1885-86.

 Geijer (E. G.), ‘Samlade skrifter.’ 8 vols. Stockholm, 1873-75.

 ‘Genesis.’

 Geoffroy St.-Hilaire (I.), ‘Histoire générale et particulière des
 anomalies de l’organisation chez l’homme et les animaux.’ 3 vols.
 Paris, 1832-37.

 —— ‘Histoire naturelle générale des règnes organiques.’ 3 vols. Paris
 1854-62.

 Georgi (J. G.), ‘Beschreibung aller Nationen des russischen Reichs.’
 St. Petersburg, 1776.

 Gerland (Georg), ‘Über das Aussterben der Naturvölker.’ Leipzig, 1868.

 Gibbon (Edward), ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
 Empire.’ 2 vols. London [1822-85].

 Gibbs (George), ‘Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern
 Oregon;’ in ‘U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky
 Mountain Region:—Contributions to North American Ethnology,‘ vol. i.
 Washington, 1877.

 Gieseler (J. C. L. ), ‘Text-Book of Ecclesiastical History.’ Trans. by
 F. Cunningham. 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1836.

 Gill (W. W.), ‘Life in the Southern Isles.’ London [1876].

 —— ‘Myths and Songs from the South Pacific.’ London, 1876.

 Ginoulhiac (Ch.), ‘Histoire du régime dotal.’ Paris, 1842.

 Giraud-Teulon (A.), ‘La Mère chez certains peuples de l’antiquité.’
 Paris, 1867.

 —— ‘Les origines de la famille.’ Geneva, 1874.

 —— ‘Les origines du mariage et de la famille.’ Geneva and Paris, 1884.

 Gisborne (Lionel), ‘The Isthmus of Darien in 1852.’ London, 1853.

 Glas (George), ‘The History of the Discovery and Conquest of the
 Canary Islands.’ Trans. from a Spanish Manuscript by G. G. ; in
 Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xvi. London,
 1814.

 Glasson (Ernest), ‘Le mariage civil et le divorce.’ Paris, 1880.

 ‘Globus. Illustrirte Zeitschrift für Länder-und Völkerkunde.’
 Brunswick.

 Gobineau (A. D.), ‘The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races.’
 Trans. ed. by H. Hotz. Philadelphia, 1856.

 Godron (D. A.), ‘De l’espèce et des races dans les êtres organisés.’
 2 vols. Paris, 1859.

 Goehlert (V.), ‘Die Geschlechtsverschiedenheit der Kinder in den
 Ehen;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xiii. Berlin, 1881.

 Goertz (Carl von), ‘Reise um die Welt in den Jahren 1844-1847.’ 3
 vols. Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1852-54.

 Goguet (A. Y.), ‘The Origin of Laws, Arts, and Sciences.’ Trans. 3
 vols. Edinburgh, 1761.

 Goncourt (Edmond and Jules de), ‘La Femme au dix-huitième siècle.’
 Paris, 1862.

 Gottlund (C. A.), ‘Otava eli suomalaisia huvituksia.’ Stockholm, 1829.

 Gould (John), ‘Handbook to the Birds of Australia.’ 2 vols. London,
 1865.

 Gray (J. H.), ‘China: a History of the Laws, Manners, and Customs of
 the People.’ 2 vols. London, 1878.

 Grey (George), ‘Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
 North-West and Western Australia.’ 2 vols. London, 1841.

 Griffis (W. E.), ‘The Mikado’s Empire.’ New York, 1883.

 Griffith (William), ‘Journals of Travels in Assam, Burma, Bootan,
 Afghanistan and the Neighbouring Countries.’ Calcutta, 1847.

 Grimm (Jacob), ‘Deutsche Rechts Alterthümer.’ Göttingen, 1828.

 Grote (George), ‘History of Greece.’ 10 vols. London, 1872.

 Gruenhagen (A.), ‘Lehrbuch der Physiologie.’ 3 vols. Hamburg and
 Leipzig, 1885-87.

 Gubernatis (A. de), ‘Storia comparata degli usi nuziali in Italia e
 presso gli altri popoli indo-europei.’ Milan, 1878.

 Guenther (A. C. L.  G.), ‘An Introduction to the Study of Fishes.’
 Edinburgh, 1880.

 Guillemard (F. H. H. ), ‘The Cruise of the _Marchesa_ to Kamschatka
 and New Guinea.’ London, 1889.

 Guizot (F.), ‘The History of Civilization.’ Trans. by W. Hazlitt. 3
 vols. London, 1846.

 Gumilla (José), ‘Histoire naturelle, civile, et géographique de
 l’Orenoque.’ Trans. 3 vols. Avignon, 1758.

 Gumplowicz (L.), ‘Grundriss der Sociologie.’ Vienna, 1885.


 Haas (E.), ‘Die Heirathsgebräuche der alten Inder;’ in Alb. Weber,
 ‘Indische Studien,’ vol. v. Berlin, 1862.

 Haeckel (Ernst), ‘Generelle Morphologie der Organismen.’ 2 vols.
 Berlin, 1866.

 —— ‘Indische Reisebriefe.’ Berlin, 1884.

 Hale (Horatio), ‘The Klamath Nation;’ in ‘Science: A Weekly
 Newspaper of all the Arts and Sciences,’ vol. xix. New York, 1892.

 Hall (C. F.), ‘Arctic Researches and Life among the Esquimaux.’ New
 York, 1865.

 Hallam (Henry), ‘View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages.’
 2 vols. Paris, 1840.

 Hamilton (Alex.), ‘A New Account of the East Indies;’ in Pinkerton,
 ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. viii. London, 1811.

 Hanotau (A.) and Letourneux (A.), ‘La Kabylie et les coutumes
 Kabyles.’ 3 vols. Paris, 1873.

 Hardisty (W. L.), ‘The Loucheux Indians;’ in ‘Smithsonian Report,’
 1866. Washington.

 Harkness (H.), ‘A Description of a Singular Aboriginal Race
 Inhabiting the Neilgherry Hills.’ London, 1832.

 Harmon (D. W.), ‘A Journal of Voyages and Travels in the Interior of
 North America.’ Andover, 1820.

 Hartmann (E. von), ‘Philosophy of the Unconscious.’ Trans. by W. C. 
 Coupland. 3 vols. London, 1884.

 Hartmann (Robert), ‘Die menschenähnlichen Affen.’ Leipzig, 1883.

 Hartshorne (B. F.), ‘The Weddas;’ in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol.
 viii. Bombay, 1879.

 Haushofer (Max), ‘Lehr-und Handbuch der Statistik.’ Vienna, 1882.

 Hawkesworth (John), ‘An Account of Voyages in the Southern
 Hemisphere.’ 3 vols. London, 1773.

 Haxthausen (A. von), ‘The Russian Empire.’ Trans. 2 vols. London,
 1856.

 —— ‘Transcaucasia.’ Trans. London, 1854.

 Haycraft (J. B.), ‘On some Physiological Results of Temperature
 Variations;’ in ‘Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,’
 vol. xxix. Edinburgh, 1880.

 Hearn (W. E.), ‘The Aryan Household.’ London and Melbourne, 1879.

 Hearne (S.), ‘A Journey from Prince of Wales’s Fort to the Northern
 Ocean.’ Dublin, 1796.

 Heikel (A. O.), ‘Strapatser och etnografiska forskningar;’ in
 ‘Helsingfors Dagblad,’ 1881.

 Hellwald (F. von), ‘Die menschliche Familie.’ Leipzig, 1889.

 Hensen (V.), ‘Die Physiologie der Zeugung;’ in L. Hermann, ‘Handbuch
 der Physiologie,’ vol. vi., pt. II. Leipzig, 1881.

 Heriot (George), ‘Travels through the Canadas.’ London, 1807.

 Hermann (K. F.), ‘Lehrbuch der griechischen Privatalterthümer.’ Ed.
 by H. Blümmer. Freiburg im B. and Tübingen, 1882.

 Herodotus, ‘Ἱστοριῶν λόγοι θ’.’

 Herrera (Antonio de), ‘The General History of ... the West Indies.’
 Trans. 6 vols. London, 1825-26.

 Herzog (J. J.), ‘Abriss der gesammten Kirchengeschichte.’ 3 vols.
 Erlangen, 1876-82.

 —— Plitt (G. L.), and Hauck (Alb.), ‘A Religious Encyclopædia.’
 Trans. ed. by Philip Schaff. 3 vols. New York, 1882-83.

 Hickson (S. J.), ‘A Naturalist in North Celebes.’ London, 1889.

 Hildebrandt (J. M.), ‘Ethnographische Notizen über Wakamba und ihre
 Nachbaren;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x. Berlin, 1878.

 Hodgson (B. H.), ‘On the Origin, &c., of the Kócch, Bodo, and Dhimál
 People;’ in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xviii., pt. ii. Calcutta,
 1850.

 Hodgson (C. P.), ‘Reminiscences of Australia.’ London, 1846.

 Hofacker and Notter (F.), ‘Ueber Eigenschaften, welche sich bei
 Menschen und Thieren von den Aeltern auf die Nachkommen vererben.’
 Tübingen, 1827.

 Holden (W. C.), ‘The Past and Future of the Kaffir Races.’ London
 [1866].

 Holm (G.), ‘Ethnologisk Skizze af Angmagsalikerne;’ in ‘Meddelelser
 om Grönland,’ vol. x. Copenhagen, 1888.

 Holmberg (H. J.), ‘Ethnographische Skizzen über die Völker des
 russischen Amerika;’ in ‘Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ,’ vol.
 iv. Helsingfors, 1856.

 Holtzendorff (Franz von), ‘Encyclopädie der Rechtswissenschaft.’ 2
 parts. Leipzig, 1873-76.

 Holub (E.), ‘Seven Years in South Africa.’ 2 vols. Trans. London,
 1881.

 Homer, ‘The Iliad.’

 ‘Homer’s Odyssey. Books xxi.-xxiv.’ Ed. by S. G.  Hamilton. London,
 1883.

 Hooker (J. D.), ‘Himalayan Journals.’ 2 vols. London, 1855.

 Hooper (W. H.), ‘Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski.’ London,
 1853.

 ‘Hosea, The Book of.’

 Houzeau (J. C.), ‘Études sur les facultés mentales des animaux
 comparées à celles de l’homme.’ 2 vols. Mons, 1872.

 Howitt (A. W.), ‘Australian Group Relations;’ in ‘Smithsonian
 Report,’ 1883. Washington.

 Huc (E. R.), ‘Travels in Tartary, Thibet and China, during the Years
 1844-1846.’ Trans. 2 vols. London [1852].

 Huebschmann (H.), ‘Ueber die persische Verwandtenheirath;’ in
 ‘Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft,’ vol.
 xliii. Leipzig, 1889.

 Humboldt (A. von), ‘Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial
 Regions of the New Continent.’ Trans. 7 vols. London, 1814-1829.

 —— ‘Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain.’ Trans. 2 vols.
 London, 1811.

 Hume (D.), ‘Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary.’ Ed. by T. H. 
 Green and T. H.  Grose. 2 vols. London, 1875.

 Hunter (John), ‘An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port
 Jackson and Norfolk Island,’ &c. London, 1793.

 Hunter (W. W.), ‘The Annals of Rural Bengal.’ 3 vols. London,
 1868-1872.

 —— ‘A Comparative Dictionary of the Non-Aryan Languages of India and
 High Asia.’ London, 1868.

 Huth (A. H.), ‘The Marriage of Near Kin Considered with respect to
 the Laws of Nations,’ &c. London, 1887. (First edition, 1875.)

 Huxley (T. H.), ‘Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature.’ London, 1863.

 Hyades (P.), ‘Ethnographie des Fuégiens;’ in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’
 ser. iii., vol. x. Paris. 1887.

 —— and Deniker (J.), ‘Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn, 1882-1883.
 Tome vii. Anthropologie, Ethnographie.’ Paris, 1891.

 Im Thurn (E. F.), ‘Among the Indians of Guiana.’ London, 1883.

 ‘Indian Antiquary (The), a Journal of Oriental Research.’ Bombay.

 Isaeus, ‘Περὶ τοῦ Ἀπολλοδώρου κλήρου.’

 —— ‘περὶ τοῦ Πυῤῥου κλήρου.’


 Jacobs (Friedrich), ‘Vermischte Schriften.’ 8 vols. Gotha and
 Leipzig, 1823-44.

 Jacobs (Joseph), ‘Studies in Jewish Statistics.’ London, 1891.

 —— ‘On the Racial Characteristics of Modern Jews;’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
 Inst.,’ vol. xv. London, 1886.

 Jagor (F.), ‘Reisen in den Philippinen.’ Berlin, 1873.

 Jamieson (G.), ‘Translations from the General Code of Laws of the
 Chinese Empire; vii.—Marriage Laws;‘ in ‘The China Review,’ vol. x.
 Hongkong, 1881-82.

 Janke (H.), ‘Die willkürliche Hervorbringung des Geschlechts bei
 Mensch und Hausthieren.’ Berlin and Leipzig, 1887.

 Jellinghaus (Th.), ‘Sagen, Sitten und Gebräuche der Munda-Kolhs in
 Chota Nagpore;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. Berlin, 1871.

 Joest (Wilh.), ‘Tätowiren, Narbenzeichnen und Körperbemalen.’ Berlin,
 1887.

 Johnston (H. H.), ‘The Kilima-njaro Expedition.’ London, 1886.

 —— ‘The River Congo.’ London, 1884.

 Johnstone (J. C.), ‘Maoria.’ London, 1874.

 Jolly (J.), ‘Ueber die rechtliche Stellung der Frauen bei den alten
 Indern;’ in ‘Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und
 historischen Classe der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München,’ 1876.
 Munich.

 Jones (Owen), ‘The Grammar of Ornament.’ London [1865].

 Jones (S.), ‘The Kutchin Tribes;’ in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1866.
 Washington.

 Josephus, ‘Ἰουδαῖκῆς ἁλωσεώς λόγοι ζ.’

 ‘Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
 Ireland (The).’ London.

 —— of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.’ Calcutta.

 —— Asiatique.’ Paris.

 —— of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.’ Colombo.

 —— of the Ethnological Society of London.’

 —— & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales.’ Sydney and
 London.

 —— of the Royal Geographical Society of London.’

 —— of the Statistical Society.‘ London.

 Juan (George) and Ulloa (A. de), ‘A Voyage to South America.’ Trans.;
 in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xiv. London,
 1813.

 ‘Judges, The Book of.’

 Justinian, ‘Institutiones.’


 Kaegi (Adolf), ‘The Rigveda: the Oldest Literature of the Indians.’
 Trans. Boston, 1886.

 ‘Kalevala.’ ‘Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia,‘ vol.
 xlviii. Helsingfors, 1870.

 'Kalevala (The), the Epic Poem of Finland.’ Trans. by J. M.  Crawford.
 2 vols. New York, 1888.

 Kames (Henry Home), ‘Sketches of the History of Man.’ 3 vols.
 Edinburgh, 1813.

 Kane (E. K.), ‘Arctic Explorations.’ 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1856.

 Kant (I.), ‘Die Metaphysik der Sitten.’ 2 vols. Königsberg, 1798-1803.

 ‘Kanteletar taikka Suomen Kansan vanhoja lauluja ja virsiä.’
 Helsingfors, 1864.

 Katscher (Leopold), ‘Bilder aus dem chinesischen Leben.’ Leipzig and
 Heidelberg, 1881.

 Kautsky (Carl), ‘Die Entstehung der Ehe und Familie;’ in ‘Kosmos,’
 vol. xii. Stuttgart, 1882.

 Kearns (J. F.), ‘Kalyán’a Shat’anku, or the Marriage Ceremonies of
 the Hindus of South India.’ Madras, 1868.

 —— ‘The Tribes of South India.’ [London, 1865?]

 Keating (W. H.), ‘Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of St.
 Peter’s River.’ 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1824.

 Kent (James), ‘Commentaries on American Law.’ Ed. by O. W.  Holmes. 4
 vols. Boston, 1873.

 Keyser (Arthur), ‘Our Cruise to New Guinea.’ London, 1885.

 King (P. Parker) and Fitz-Roy (R.), ‘Narrative of the Surveying
 Voyages of the _Adventure_ and _Beagle_.’ 3 vols. London, 1839.

 ‘Kings, The First Book of the.’

 Klaproth (H. J. von), ‘Asia Polyglotta.’ 2 parts. Paris, 1831.

 Klemm (G.), ‘Allgemeine Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit.’ 10 vols.
 Leipzig, 1843-52.

 —— ‘Die Frauen.’ 6 vols. Dresden, 1854-59.

 Knox (Robert), _Captain_, ‘An Historical Relation of the Island of
 Ceylon.’ London, 1817.

 Knox (Robert), _M.D._, ‘The Races of Men.’ London, 1850-62.

 Koenigswarter (L. J.), ‘Études historiques sur le développement de la
 société humaine.’ Paris, 1850.

 —— ‘Histoire de l’organisation de la famille en France.’ Paris, 1851.

 Koeppen (C. F.), ‘Die Religion des Buddha und ihre Entstehung.’ 2
 vols. Berlin, 1857-59.

 Kohler (J.), ‘Indisches Ehe-und Familienrecht;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
 vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. iii. Stuttgart, 1882.

 —— ‘Ueber das Recht der Australneger;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
 Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vii. Stuttgart, 1887.

 —— ‘Ueber das Recht der Papuas auf Neu-Guinea;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
 vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vii. Stuttgart, 1887.

 —— ‘Studien über Frauengemeinschaft, Frauenraub und Frauenkauf;’ in
 ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. v. Stuttgart, 1884.

 Kolben (Peter), ‘The Present State of the Cape of Good Hope.’ Trans.
 2 vols. London, 1731.

 Koppenfels (Hugo von), ‘Meine Jagden auf Gorillas;’ in ‘Die
 Gartenlaube.’ Leipzig, 1877.

 ‘Korân (The).’ Trans. by J. M.  Rodwell. London, 1876.

 ‘Kosmos. Zeitschrift für einheitliche Weltanschauung auf Grund der
 Entwicklungslehre.’ Leipzig.

 Kotzebue (Otto von), ‘A Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea and
 Behring’s Straits.’ Trans. 3 vols. London, 1821.

 Kovalevsky (M.), ‘Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la
 famille et de la propriété.’ Stockholm, 1890.

 —— ‘Marriage among the Early Slavs;’ in ‘Folk-Lore,’ vol. i. London,
 1890.

 —— ‘Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia.’ London, 1891.

 Kraft-Ebing (R. Von), ‘Psychopathia sexualis. Eine
 klinische-forensische Studie.’ Stuttgart, 1886.

 Krapf (J. L.), ‘Travels, Researches and Missionary Labours, during an
 Eighteen Years’ Residence in Eastern Africa.‘ London, 1860.

 Krasheninnikoff (S. P.), ‘The History of Kamschatka and the Kurilski
 Islands, with the Countries Adjacent.’ Trans. by J. Grieve. London,
 1764.

 Krauss (F. S.), ‘Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven.’ Vienna, 1885.

 Kraut (W. Th.), ‘Die Vormundschaft nach den Grundsätzen des deutschen
 Rechts.’ 3 vols. Göttingen, 1835-59.

 Kretzschmar (Eduard), ‘Südafrikanische Skizzen.’ Leipzig, 1873.

 Krieger (Eduard), ‘Die Menstruation.’ Berlin, 1869.

 ‘Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und
 Rechtswissenschaft.’ Munich and Leipzig.

 Kubray (J.), ‘Ethnographische Beiträge zur Kenntniss der
 Karolinischen Inselgruppe und Nachbarschaft. Heft I.: Die socialen
 Einrichtungen der Pelauer.’ Berlin, 1885.

 Kuechler (L. W.), ‘Marriage in Japan;’ in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’
 vol. xiii. Yokohama, 1885.

 Kulischer (M.), ‘Die communale “Zeitehe” und ihre Ueberreste;‘ in
 'Archiv für Anthropologie,’ vol. xi. Brunswick, 1879.

 —— ‘Die geschlechtliche Zuchtwahl bei den Menschen in der Urzeit;’ in
 ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. viii. Berlin, 1876.

 —— ‘Intercommunale Ehe durch Raub und Kauf;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
 Ethnol.,’ vol. x. Berlin, 1878.


 Laband (Paul), ‘Die rechtliche Stellung der Frauen im altrömischen
 und germanischen Recht;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Völkerpsychologie und
 Sprachwissenschaft,’ vol. iii. Berlin, 1865.

 Labillardière (J. J. Houtou de), ‘An Account of a Voyage in Search of
 La Pérouse in the Years 1791-1793.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1800.

 Laboulaye (Edouard), ‘Histoire du droit de propriété foncière en
 Occident.’ Paris, 1839.

 —— ‘Recherches sur la condition civile et politique des femmes.’
 Paris, 1843.

 Lacassagne (A.), ‘Les tatouages.’ Paris, 1881.

 Laestadius (Petrus), ‘Ett lappfrieri;’ in ‘Svenska folkets seder.’
 Stockholm, 1846.

 Laferrière (L. F.  J. ), ‘Histoire du droit civil de Rome et du droit
 français.’ 6 vols. Paris, 1846-58.

 Lafitau (J. F.), ‘Moeurs des sauvages ameriquains comparées aux
 moeurs des premiers temps.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1724.

 Laing (A. Gordon), ‘Travels in the Timannee, Kooranko, and Soolima
 Countries in Western Africa.’ London, 1825.

 Lane (E. W.), ‘An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern
 Egyptians.’ 2 Vols. London, 1849.

 Lang (Andrew), ‘Custom and Myth.’ London, 1885.

 Langsdorf (G. H. von), ‘Voyages and Travels in Various Parts of the
 World, during the Years 1803-1807.’ 2 vols. London, 1813-14.

 Lansdell (Henry), ‘Through Siberia.’ 2 vols. London, 1881.

 Larousse (Pierre), ‘Grand dictionnaire universel du xix^e siècle.‘ 15
 vols. Paris, 1866-76. Suppléments, _in progress_.

 Latham (R. G.), ‘Descriptive Ethnology.’ 2 vols. London, 1859.

 Lawrence (W.), ‘Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural
 History of Man.’ London, 1823.

 Lea (H. C.), ‘An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the
 Christian Church.’ Boston, 1884.

 Le Bon (Gustave), ‘La civilisation des Arabes.’ Paris, 1884.

 —— ‘L’homme et les sociétés.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1881.

 Lecky (W. E.  H. ), ‘History of European Morals from Augustus to
 Charlemagne.’ 2 vols. London, 1877.

 Leguével de Lacombe (B. F.), ‘Voyage à Madagascar et aux Iles
 Comores.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1840.

 Le Mesurier (C. J.  R. ), ‘The Veddás of Ceylon;’ in ‘Jour. Roy. As.
 Soc. Ceylon Branch,’ vol. ix. Colombo, 1887.

 Leslie (David), ‘Among the Zulus and Amatongas.’ Edinburgh, 1875.

 Letourneau (Ch.), ‘L’évolution du mariage et de la famille.’ Paris,
 1888.

 —— ‘Sociology Based upon Ethnography.’ Trans. London, 1881.

 Leuckart (Rud.), ‘Zeugung;’ in Rud. Wagner, ‘Handwörterbuch der
 Physiologie,’ vol. iv. Brunswick, 1853.

 ‘Leviticus.’

 Lewin (T. H.), ‘Wild Races of South-Eastern India.’ London, 1870.

 Lewis (Hubert), ‘The Ancient Laws of Wales.’ London, 1889.

 Lewis (M.) and Clarke (W.), ‘Travels to the Source of the Missouri
 River, and across the American Continent to the Pacific Ocean.’
 London, 1814.

 ‘Lî Kî (The),’ Trans. by James Legge. ‘The Sacred Books of China,’
 vol. iv. Oxford, 1885.

 Lichtenstein (H.), ‘Travels in Southern Africa.’ Trans. 2 vols.
 London, 1812-15.

 Lichtschein (L.), ‘Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmudischer Auffassung.’
 Leipzig, 1879.

 Liebich (R.), ‘Die Zigeuner.’ Leipzig, 1863.

 Lippert (Julius), ‘Die Geschichte der Familie.’ Stuttgart, 1884.

 Lippert (Julius), ‘Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit.’ 2 vols.
 Stuttgart, 1886-87.

 Lisiansky (U.), ‘A Voyage Round the world.’ London, 1814.

 ‘Litterära Soiréer i Helsingfors under hösten 1849.’ Helsingfors,
 1849.

 Livingstone (David), ‘Missionary Travels and Researches in South
 Africa,’ London, 1857.

 Lobo (Jerome), ‘A Voyage to Abyssinia.’ Trans.; in Pinkerton,
 ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xv. London, 1814.

 Longford (J. H.), ‘A Summary of the Japanese Penal Codes;’ in
 ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. v., pt. II. Yokohama, 1877.

 Lord (J. K.), ‘The Naturalist in Vancouver Island and British
 Columbia.’ 2 vols. London, 1866.

 Lovisato (Domenico), ‘Appunti etnografici con accenni geologici
 sulla Terra del Fuoco;’ in ‘Cosmos di Guida Cora,’ vol. viii. Turin,
 1884-85.

 Low (Hugh), ‘Sarawak.’ London, 1848.

 Lubbock (John), ‘The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive
 Condition of Man.’ London, 1889.

 —— ‘Prehistoric Times.’ London, 1890.

 Lucas (Prosper), ‘Traité philosophique et physiologique de l’hérédité
 naturelle.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1847-50.

 Luettke (Moritz), ‘Der Islam und seine Völker.’ Gütersloh, 1878.

 Lumholtz (Carl), ‘Among Cannibals.’ London, 1889.

 Lyall (A. C.), ‘Asiatic Studies, Religious and Social.’ London, 1882.

 Lyon (G. F.), ‘The Private Journal during the Voyage of Discovery
 under Captain Parry.’ London, 1824.


 Macdonald (D.), ‘Oceania: Linguistic and Anthropological.’ Melbourne
 and London, 1889.

 Macdonald (Duff), ‘Africana.’ 2 vols. London, 1882.

 Macfie (M.), ‘Vancouver Island and British Columbia.’ London, 1865.

 Macgillivray (John), ‘Narrative of the Voyage of _Rattlesnake_.’ 2
 vols. London, 1852.

 Macieiowski (W. A.), ‘Slavische Rechtsgeschichte.’ Trans. 4 vols.
 Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1835-39.

 Mackenzie (Alex.), ‘Voyages from Montreal ... to the Frozen and
 Pacific Oceans.’ London, 1801.

 Mackenzie (Thomas), ‘Studies in Roman Law.’ Ed. by John Kirkpatrick.
 Edinburgh, 1886.

 Maclean (John), ‘A Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs.’ Mount Coke,
 1858.

 McLennan (J. F.), ‘The Patriarchal Theory.’ London, 1885.

 —— ‘Studies in Ancient History.’ London, 1886.

 —— ‘Exogamy and Endogamy;’ in ‘The Fortnightly Review,’ new series,
 vol. xxi. London, 1877.

 —— ‘The Levirate and Polyandry;’ in ‘The Fortnightly Review,’ new
 series, vol. xxi. London, 1887.

 Mac Mahon (A. R.), ‘Far Cathay and Farther India.’ London, 1893.

 Macnaghten (W. H.), ‘Principles of Hindu Law.’ Calcutta, 1880.

 —— ‘Principles of Muhammadan Law.’ Calcutta, 1881.

 McNair (F.), ‘Perak and the Malays.’ London, 1878.

 Macpherson (S. Ch.), ‘Memorials of Service in India.’ London, 1865.

 ‘Madras Journal of Literature and Science (The).’ Madras.

 Magnus (Olaus), ‘Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus.’ Rome, 1555.

 Maine (H. J.  S. ), ‘Ancient Law.’ London, 1885.

 —— ‘Dissertations on Early Law and Custom.’ London, 1883.

 —— ‘Lectures on the Early History of Institutions.’ London, 1875.

 Mainoff (W.), ‘Mordvankansan häätapoja.’ Trans. Helsingfors, 1883.

 Malcolm (J.), ‘Essay on the Bhills;’ in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc.,’ vol.
 i. London, 1827.

 Man (E. G.), ‘Sonthalia and the Sonthals.’ London [1867].

 Man (E. H.), ‘On the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands;’
 in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. London, 1885.

 Mannhardt (W.), ‘Wald-und Feldkulte.’ 2 vols. Berlin, 1875-77.

 Mantegazza (Paolo), ‘Anthropologisch-kulturhistorische Studien über
 die Geschlechtsverhältnisse des Menschen.’ Trans. Jena, 1888.

 —— ‘Die Hygieine der Liebe.’ Trans. Jena, 1887.

 —— ‘Physiologie du Plaisir.’ Trans. Paris, 1886.

 —— ‘Rio de la Plata e Tenerife.’ Milan, 1867.

 ‘Manu, the Laws of.’ Trans by G. Bühler. Oxford, 1886.

 Marquardt (J.) and Mommsen (Th.), ‘Handbuch der römischen
 Alterthümer.’ 7 vols. Leipzig, 1871-82.

 Marsden (W.), ‘The History of Sumatra.’ London, 1811.

 Marshall (W. E.), ‘A Phrenologist amongst the Todas.’ London, 1873.

 Martin (John), ‘An Account of the Natives of the Tonga Islands
 Compiled ... from the Communications of Mr. William Mariner.’ 2 vol.
 London, 1817.

 Martineau (James), ‘Types of Ethical Theory.’ 2 vols. Oxford, 1889.

 Martius (C. F. Ph. von), ‘Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde
 Amerika’s zumal Brasiliens.’ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1867.

 Mason (F.), ‘On Dwellings, works of Art, Laws, &c., of the Karens;’
 in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxxvii., pt. ii. Calcutta, 1868.

 Mathew (John), ‘The Australian Aborigines;’ in ‘Jour. & Proceed.
 Roy. Soc. New South Wales,’ vol. xxiii. London and Sydney, 1889.

 Matthes (B. F.), ‘Bijdragen tot de Ethnologie van Zuid-Celebes.’ The
 Hague, 1875.

 Mauch (Carl), ‘Reisen im Innern von Süd-Afrika, 1865-1872.’
 Petermann’s ‘Mittheilungen,’ Ergänzungsband viii. no. 37. Gotha, 1874.

 Mayer (J. R.), ‘Die Mechanik der Wärme.’ Stuttgart, 1874.

 Mayer (Samuel), ‘Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Römer.’ 2
 vols. Leipzig, 1862-66.

 Mayne (J. D.), ‘A Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage.’ Madras, 1888.

 Mayne (R. C.), ‘Four Years in British Columbia and Vancouver Island.’
 London, 1862.

 Mayr (Aurel), ‘Das indische Erbrecht.’ Vienna, 1873.

 Mayr (G.), Die Gesetzmässigkeit im Gesellschaftsleben.‘ Munich, 1877.

 Meade (Herbert), ‘A Ride through the disturbed Districts of New
 Zealand; together with some Account of the South Sea Islands.’ London,
 1870.

 Meares (John), ‘Voyages Made in the Years 1788 and 1789 from China to
 the North-West Coast of America.’ London, 1790.

 Medhurst (W. H.), ‘Marriage, Affinity, and Inheritance in China;’ in
 ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. Hongkong, 1855.

 Meier (M. H.  E.), and Schömann (G. F.), ‘Der attische Process.’ Ed.
 by J. H. Lipsius. Berlin, 1883-87.

 Meiners (C.), ‘Vergleichung des ältern, und neuern Russlandes.’ 2
 vols. Leipzig, 1798.

 Meinicke (C. E.), ‘Die Inseln des stillen Oceans.’ 2 vols. Leipzig,
 1875-76.

 Mela (Pomponius), ‘De Situ Orbis.’

 ‘Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris.’

 ‘Memoirs Read before the Anthropological Society of London.’

 Merolla da Sorrento (Jerome), ‘A Voyage to Congo and several other
 Countries.’ Trans.; in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and
 Travels,’ vol. xvi. London, 1814.

 Metz (F.), ‘The Tribes Inhabiting the Neilgherry Hills.’ Mangalore,
 1864.

 Meyer (H. E.  A. ), ‘Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the
 Encounter Bay Tribe;’ in Woods, ‘Native Tribes of South Australia.’

 Michaelis (J. D.), ‘Abhandlung von den Ehegesetzen Mosis.’ Göttingen,
 1768.

 —— ‘Commentaries on the Laws of Moses.’ Trans. 4 vols. London, 1814.

 Milman (H. H.), ‘History of Latin Christianity.’ 9 vols. London, 1867.

 Mitchell (Arthur), ‘Blood-Relationship in Marriage Considered in
 its Influence upon the Offspring;’ in ‘Mem. Anthr. Soc.,’ vol. ii.
 London, 1866.

 Mitchell (T. L.), ‘Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern
 Australia.’ 2 vols. London, 1839.

 Mittermaier (C. J.  A. ), ‘Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen
 Privatrechts.’ 2 vols. Regensburg, 1847.

 Modigliani (Elio), ‘Un viaggio a Nías.’ Milan, 1890.

 Mohnike (O.), ‘Die Affen auf den indischen Inseln;’ in ‘Das
 Ausland,’ 1872. Augsburg.

 Möller (P.), Pagels (G.), and Gleerup (E.), ‘Tre år i Kongo.’ 2 vols.
 Stockholm, 1887-88.

 Mommsen (Theodor), ‘The History of Rome.’ Trans. By W. P.  Dickson. 6
 vols. London, 1868-86.

 Montesquieu (Charles de Secondat de), ‘De l’esprit des loix.’ 3 vols.
 Geneva, 1753.

 Montgomery (James), ‘Journal of Voyages and Travels by the Rev.
 Daniel Tyerman and George Bennet.’ 2 vols. London, 1831.

 Moorcroft (William) and Trebeck (George), ‘Travels in the Himalayan
 Provinces of Hindustan and the Panjab.’ Ed. by H. H.  Wilson. 2 vols.
 London, 1841.

 Moore (Theofilus), ‘Marriage Customs, Modes of Courtship, and
 singular Propensities of the Various Nations of the Universe.’ London,
 1814.

 Morelet (A.), ‘Reisen in Central-Amerika.’ Trans. Jena, 1872.

 Morgan (L. H.), ‘Ancient Society.’ London, 1877.

 —— ‘Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines.’
 ‘U. S. Geograph. and Geolog. Survey of the Rocky Mountain
 Region:—Contributions to North American Ethnology,’ vol. iv.
 Washington, 1881.

 —— ‘League of the Ho-de'-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.’ Rochester, 1851.

 —— ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family.’
 'Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge,‘ vol. xvii. Washington, 1871.

 Moseley (H. N.), ‘Notes by a Naturalist on the _Challenger_.’ London,
 1879.

 —— ‘On the Inhabitants of the Admiralty Islands, &c.;’ in ‘Jour.
 Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. London, 1877.

 Mueller (C. O.), ‘The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race.’
 Trans. 2 vols. London, 1830.

 Mueller (Friedrich), ‘Allgemeine Ethnographie.’ Vienna, 1879.

 —— ‘Reise der österreichischen Fregatte Novaro um die Erde.’
 Anthropologischer Theil, pt. iii.: Ethnographie. Vienna, 1868.

 Mueller (F. Max), ‘Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas.’
 London, 1888.

 —— ‘Chips from a German Workshop.’ 4 vols. London, 1867-75.

 —— ‘Comparative Mythology;’ in ‘Oxford Essays.’ London, 1856.

 Mueller (Hermann), _Custos_, ‘Am Neste.’ Berlin [1881].

 —— _Oberlehrer_, ‘The Fertilisation of Flowers.’ Trans. London, 1883.

 Muir (John), ‘Original Sanskrit Texts.’ 5 vols. London, 1868-70.

 —— ‘Religious and Moral Sentiments metrically Rendered from Sanskrit
 Writers.’ London, 1875.

 Munzinger (W.), ‘Ostafrikanische Studien.’ Schaffhausen, 1864.

 Musters (G. C.), ‘At Home with the Patagonians.’ London, 1873.

 Mygge (Johannes), ‘Om Aegteskaber mellem Blodbeslaegtede.’
 Copenhagen, 1879.


 Nachtigal (G.), ‘Sahara und Sudan.’ 3 vols. Berlin, 1879-89.

 Nansen (Fridtjof), ‘The first Crossing of Greenland.’ Trans. 2 vols.
 London, 1890.

 ‘Nation (The): a Weekly Journal.’ New York.

 ‘Nature; a Weekly Illustrated Journal of Science.’ London.

 Navarette (M. F.), ‘An Account of the Empire of China.’ Trans.: in
 Awnsham and Churchill’s ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. i.
 London, 1704.

 Neale (F. A.), ‘Narrative of a Residence in Siam.’ London, 1852.

 Nelson (J. H.), ‘A View of the Hindu Law.’ Madras, Calcutta, and
 Bombay, 1877.

 Neubauer, ‘Ehescheidung im Auslande;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
 Rechtswiss.,’ vols. v.-ix. Stuttgart, 1884-90.

 Neumann, (K. F.), ‘Russland und die Tscherkessen.’ Stuttgart and
 Tübingen, 1840.

 Nicholson (H. A.), ‘Sexual Selection in Man.’ [Toronto], 1872.

 Nicolaus Damascenus, ‘Ἐθῶν συναγωγή.’

 Niebuhr (Carsten), ‘Travels in Arabia.’ Trans.; in Pinkerton,
 ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. x. London, 1811.

 Nieuhoff (Jan), ‘Voyages and Travels into Brazil.’ Trans.; in
 Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xiv. London,
 1813.

 Nordenskiöld (A. E.), ‘Den andra Dicksonska expeditionen till
 Grönland.’ Stockholm, 1885.

 —— ‘Vegas färd kring Asien och Europa.’ 2 vols. Stockholm, 1880-81.

 Nordqvist (O.), ‘Tschuktschisk ordlista;’ in Nordenskiöld,
 ‘Vega-expeditionens vetenskapliga iakttagelser,’ vol. i. Stockholm,
 1882.

 Nordström (J. J.), ‘Bidrag till den svenska samhälls-författningens
 historia. 2 vols. Helsingfors, 1839-40.

 Nott (J. C.) and Gliddon (G. R.), ‘Types of Mankind.’ Philadelphia,
 1854.

 ‘Nya Pressen. Tidning för politik, handel och industri.’ Helsingfors.


 O’Curry (Eugene), ‘On the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish.’
 Ed. by W. K.  Sullivan. 3 vols. London and Dublin, 1873.

 Odhner (C. T.), ‘Lärobok i Sveriges, Norges och Danmarks historia.’
 Stockholm, 1873.

 Oettingen (A. von), ‘Die Moralstatistik in ihrer Bedeutung für eine
 Socialethik.’ Erlangen, 1882.

 Oldenberg (Hermann), ‘Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order.’
 Trans. by W. Hoey. London, 1882.

 Oldfield (A.), ‘On the Aborigines of Australia;’ in ‘Trans. Ethn.
 Soc.,’ N.S., vol. iii. London, 1865.

 Olivecrona (S. R.  D.  K.), ‘Om makars giftorätt i bo.’ 4th ed.
 Stockholm.

 Ortolan (J.), ‘Histoire de la législation romaine.’ Paris, 1876.


 Palgrave (W. G.), ‘Narrative of a Year’s Journey through Central and
 Eastern Arabia.’ 2 vols. London and Cambridge, 1866.

 Pallas (P. S.), ‘Merkwürdigkeiten der Morduanen, Kasaken, Kalmücken,’
 &c. Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1773.

 —— ‘Merkwürdigkeiten der obischen Ostjaken, Samojeden,’ &c. Frankfurt
 and Leipzig, 1777.

 Palmblad (V. F.), ‘Grekisk fornkunskap.’ 2 vols. Upsal, 1843-45.

 Palmer (Edward), ‘Notes on some Australian Tribes;’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
 Inst.,’ vol. xiii. London, 1884.

 Pardessus (J. M.), ‘Loi Salique.’ Paris, 1843.

 Park (Mungo), ‘Travels in the Interior of Africa.’ Edinburgh, 1858.

 Parker (E. H.), ‘Comparative Chinese Family Law;’ in ‘The China
 Review,’ vol. viii. Hongkong, 1879-80.

 Parkyns (M.), ‘Life in Abyssinia.’ 2 vols. London, 1853.

 Pausanias. ‘Τῆς Ἑλλάδος περιήγησις.’

 Percival (Peter), ‘The Land of the Veda.’ London, 1854.

 Périer (J. A.  N. ), ‘Essai sur les croisements ethniques;’ in ‘Mém.
 Soc. d’Anthr.,’ vols. i.-ii. Paris, 1860-65.

 Pérouse (J. F.  G.  de la), ‘A Voyage round the World, in the Years
 1785-1788.’ Trans. 3 Vols. London, 1799.

 Peschel (O.), ‘The Races of Man.’ Trans. London, 1876.

 Petermann (A.), ‘Mittheilungen aus Justhus Perthes’ geographischer
 Anstalt.‘ Gotha.

 Petherick (John), ‘Egypt, the Soudan and Central Africa.’ Edinburgh
 and London, 1861.

 Petroff (Ivan), ‘Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources
 of Alaska;’ in ‘Tenth Census of the United States.’ Washington, 1884.

 Pindar, ‘Πύθια.’

 Pinkerton (John), ‘A General Collection of ... Voyages and Travels.’
 17 vols. London, 1808-14.

 Pischon (C. N.), ‘Der Einfluss des Islâm auf das häusliche, soziale
 und politische Leben seiner Bekenner.’ Leipzig, 1881.

 Plato, ‘Νόμοι.’

 Pliny, ‘Historia Naturalis.’

 Ploss (H. H.), ‘Das Kind im Brauch und Sitte der Völker.’ 2 vols.
 Stuttgart, 1876.

 —— ‘Das Weib in der Natur-und Völkerkunde.’ Ed. by M. Bartels. 2
 vols. Leipzig, 1887.

 —— ‘Ueber die das Geschlechtsverhältniss der Kinder bedingenden
 Ursachen;’ in ‘Monatsschrift für Geburtskunde und Frauenkrankheiten,’
 vol. xii. Berlin, 1858.

 Plutarch, ‘Λῦκουργος.’

 —— ‘Περὶ τῆς ἠθικῆς ἀρετῆς.’

 —— ‘Ποπλικόλας.’

 Poeppig (E.), ‘Reise in Chile, Peru und auf dem Amazonenstrome.’ 2
 vols. Leipzig, 1835-36.

 Poiret (J. L.  M. ), ‘Voyage en Barbarie.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1789.

 Polak (J. E.), ‘Persien, Das Land und seine Bewohner.’ 2 vols.
 Leipzig, 1865.

 Polo (Marco), ‘The Book of, Concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of
 the East.’ Trans. ed. by H. Yule. 2 vols. London, 1871.

 Poole (F.), ‘Queen Charlotte Islands.’ London, 1872.

 Porthan (H. G.), ‘Anmärkningar rörande Finska Folkets läge och
 tillstånd;’ in ‘Kongliga Vitterhets, Historie och Antiquitets
 Academiens Handlingar,’ vol. iv. Stockholm, 1795.

 Post (A H.), ‘Afrikanische Jurisprudenz.’ 2 vols. Oldenburg and
 Leipzig, 1887.

 —— ‘Die Anfänge des Staats-und Rechtsleben.’ Oldenburg, 1878.

 —— ‘Bausteine für eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft auf
 vergleichend-ethnologischer Basis.’ 2 vols. Oldenburg, 1880-81.

 —— ‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit und die Entstehung der
 Ehe.’ Oldenburg, 1875.

 —— ‘Die Grundlagen des Rechts.’ Oldenburg, 1884.

 —— ‘Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Familienrechts.’ Oldenburg
 and Leipzig, 1890.

 —— ‘Der Ursprung des Rechts.’ Oldenburg, 1876.

 Potter (John), ‘Archaeologia Graeca, or the Antiquities of Greece.’ 2
 vols. Edinburgh, 1832.

 Pouchet (George), ‘The Plurality of the Human Race.’ Trans. ed. by H.
 J. C.  Beavan. London, 1864.

 Powell (Wilfred), ‘Wanderings in the Wild Country; or, Three Years
 amongst the Cannibals of New Britain.’ London, 1883.

 Powers (Stephan), ‘Tribes of California.’ U. S.  Geograph. and
 Geolog. Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region:—Contributions to North
 American Ethnology,‘ vol. iii. Washington, 1877.

 Prejevalsky (N.), ‘From Kulja, across the Tian Shan to Lob-nor.’
 Trans. London, 1879.

 —— ‘Mongolia, the Tangut Country and the Solitudes of Northern
 Tibet.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1876.

 Prescott (W. H.), ‘History of the Conquest of Peru.’ London, 1878.

 Preyer (W.), ‘Die Seele des Kindes.’ Leipzig, 1884.

 —— ‘Specielle Physiologie des Embryo.’ Leipzig, 1885.

 Prichard (J. C.), ‘The Natural History of Man.’ London, 1845.

 —— ‘Researches into the Physical History of Mankind.’ 5 vols. London,
 1836-47.

 Pridham (Charles), ‘An Historical, Political, and Statistical Account
 of Ceylon.’ 2 vols. London, 1849.

 Pritchard (W. T.), ‘Polynesian Reminiscence.’ London, 1866.

 ‘Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of
 Geography.’ London.

 Proyart (L. B.), ‘History of Loango, Kakongo, and other Kingdoms in
 Africa.’ Trans.; in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’
 vol. xvi. London, 1814.

 ‘Ptah-Hotep, The Precepts of.’ Trans. by Philippe Virey; in ‘Records
 of the Past,’ new series, vol. iii.


 Quatrefages (A. de), ‘Hommes fossiles et hommes sauvages.’ Paris,
 1884.

 —— ‘The Human Species.’ London, 1879.

 Quetelet (A.), ‘A Treatise on Man.’ Trans. Edinburgh, 1842.


 Raffles (T. S.), ‘The History of Java.’ 2 vols. London, 1830.

 Ralegh (W.), ‘The Discovery of the ... Empire of Guiana.’ Ed. by R.
 H. Schomburgk. London, 1848.

 Ranke (Johannes), ‘Der Mensch.’ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1885-87.

 Ratzel (F.), ‘Völkerkunde.’ 3 vols. Leipzig, 1885-88.

 Rauber (A.), ‘Homo sapiens ferus oder die Zustände der Verwilderten.’
 Leipzig, 1885.

 Rawlinson (George), ‘The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern
 World.’ 3 vols. London, 1871.

 Reade (W. Winwood), ‘Savage Africa.’ London, 1863.

 Reclus (Élisée), ‘Nouvelle géographie universelle.’ _In progress._
 Paris, 1875, &c.

 Redhouse (J. W.), ‘Notes on Prof. E. B.  Tylor’s “Arabian
 Matriarchate.”‘ [London, 1884.]

 'Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, Annual
 Report of the.’ London.

 Regnard (J. F.), ‘A Journey to Lapland.’ Trans.; in Pinkerton,
 ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. i. London, 1808.

 Reich (Eduard), ‘Geschichte, Natur-und Gesundheitslehre des ehelichen
 Lebens.’ Cassel, 1864.

 Rein (J. J.), ‘Japan: Travels and Researches.’ Trans. London, 1884.

 Rémusat (J. P.), ‘Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques.’ 2 vols. Paris, 1829.

 Rengger (J. R.), ‘Naturgeschichte der Säugethiere von Paraguay.’
 Basel, 1830.

 Revillout (Eug.), ‘Les contrats de mariage égyptiens;’ in ‘Jour.
 Asiatique,’ ser. vii., vol. x. Paris, 1877.

 ‘Revue d’Anthropologie.’ Paris.

 ‘Revue des deux mondes.’ Paris.

 Ribbe (Charles de), ‘Les families et la société en France avant la
 Révolution.’ Paris, 1873.

 Ribot (Th.), ‘L’hérédité psychologique.’ Paris, 1882.

 Richardson (John), ‘Arctic Searching Expedition: a Journal of a Boat
 Voyage.’ 2 vols. London, 1851.

 Ridley (William), ‘The Aborigines of Australia.’ Sydney, 1864.

 —— ‘Kámilarói, and other Australian Languages.’ New South Wales, 1875.

 Riedel (J. G.  F. ), ‘De sluik-en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes
 en Papua.’ The Hague, 1886.

 —— ‘Galela und Tobeloresen. Ethnographische Notizen; ’ in ‘Zeitschr.
 f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. Berlin, 1885.

 ‘Rig-Veda Sanhitá.’ Trans. by H. H.  Wilson. _In progress._ London,
 1850, &c.

 Rink (H. J.), ‘The Eskimo Tribes.’ Copenhagen and London, 1887.

 —— ‘Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo.’ Edinburgh and London, 1875.

 Ritter (Bernhard), ‘Philo und die Halacha.’ Leipzig, 1879.

 Ritter (Carl), ‘Die Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur und zur
 Geschichte des Menschen, oder allgemeine vergleichende Geographie.’ 19
 vols. Berlin, 1822-59.

 Rochon (A. M.), ‘A Voyage to Madagascar and the East Indies.’ Trans.;
 in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xvi. London,
 1814.

 Rockhill (W. W.), ‘The Land of the Lamas.’ London, 1891.

 Rogers (Charles), ‘Scotland, Social and Domestic.’ London, 1869.

 Rohlfs (Gerhard), ‘Mein erster Aufenthalt in Marokko.’ Bremen, 1873.

 Romilly (H. H.), ‘The Western Pacific and New Guinea.’ London, 1887.

 Ross (B. R.), ‘The Eastern Tinneh;’ in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1866.
 Washington.

 Ross (John), ‘History of Corea, Ancient and Modern.’ Pasley [1879].

 Rossbach (A.), ‘Untersuchungen über die römische Ehe.’ Stuttgart,
 1853.

 Roth (Rudolph), ‘On the Morality of the Veda.’ Trans.; in ‘Journal
 of the American Oriental Society,’ vol. iii. New York, 1853.

 Rousselet (Louis), ‘India and its Native Princes.’ Trans. London,
 1876.

 Rowley (Henry), ‘Africa Unveiled.’ London, 1876.

 Rowney (H. B.), ‘The Wild Tribes of India.’ London, 1882.

 Rubruquis (G. de), ‘Travels into Tartary and China.’ Trans.; in
 Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. vii. London,
 1811.

 ‘Русская Сгарина.’ St. Petersburg.

 ‘Ruth, The Book of.’


 Saaschütz (J. L.), ‘Archäologie der Hebräer.’ 2 vols. Königsberg,
 1855-56.

 —— ‘Das mosaische Recht.’ 2 vols. Berlin, 1853.

 Sabatier (C.), ‘Étude sur la femme Kabyle;’ in ‘Revue
 d’Anthropologie,’ series ii., vol. vi. Paris, 1883.

 Sachs (Julius), ‘Text-Book of Botany.’ Trans. Oxford, 1882.

 Sadler (M. T.), ‘The Law of Population.’ 2 vols. London, 1830.

 St. John (S.), ‘Life in the Forests of the Far East.’ 2 vols. London,
 1862.

 St. Paul, ‘The Epistle to the Ephesians.’

 —— ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians.’

 —— ‘The First Epistle to Timothy.’

 Saint-Pierre (J. H. Bernardin de), ‘Études de la nature.’ 3 vols.
 Paris, 1784.

 Salvado (R.), ‘Mémoires historiques sur l’Australie.’ Trans. Paris,
 1854.

 —— ‘Voyage en Australie.’ Trans. Paris, 1861.

 Samuelson (James), ‘India, Past and Present.’ London, 1890.

 Sauer (M.), ‘An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition
 to the Northern Parts of Russia Performed by Joseph Billings.’ London,
 1802.

 Savage (T. S.), ‘A Description of the Characters and Habits of
 _Troglodytes Gorilla_.’ Boston, 1847.

 —— ‘Observations on the External Characters and Habits of the
 _Troglodytes Niger_;’ in ‘Boston Journal of Natural History,’ vol.
 iv. Boston, 1844.

 Saxo Grammaticus, ‘Historia Danica.’ Ed. by P. E.  Müller and J. M. 
 Velschow. 2 vols. Copenhagen, 1839-58.

 Sayce (A. H.), ‘The Principles of Comparative Philology.’ London,
 1874.

 Schaaffhausen (Hermann), ‘On the Primitive Form of the Human Skull.’
 Trans.; in ‘The Anthropological Review,’ vol. vi. London, 1868.

 Schadenberg (Alex.), ‘Ueber die Negritos in den Philippinen;’ in
 ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol,’ vol. xii. Berlin, 1880.

 Schaeffner (W.), ‘Geschichte der Rechtsverfassung Frankreichs.’ 4
 vols. Frankfurt am Main, 1845-50.

 Scheelong (O.), ‘Ueber Familienleben und Gebrauche der Papuas der
 Umgebung von Finschhafen;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xxi.
 Berlin, 1889.

 Scheurl (A. von), ‘Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht.’ Erlangen, 1882.

 Schlegel, ‘Om Morgongavens Oprindelse;’ in ‘Astræa,’ vol. ii.
 Copenhagen, 1799.

 Schlyter (C. J.), ‘Juridiska afhandlingar.’ 2 vols. Upsal, 1836-79.

 Schmidt (Franz), ‘Sitten und Gebräuche bei Hochzeiten, Taufen und
 Begräbnissen in Thüringen.’ Weimar, 1863.

 Schmidt (Karl), ‘Jus primae noctis.’ Freiburg im B., 1881.

 —— ‘Das Streit über das jus primae noctis;’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
 Ethnol.,’ vol. xvi. Berlin, 1884.

 ‘Schmidt’s (C. C.) Jahrbücher der in-und ausländischen gesammten
 Medicin.’ Leipzig.

 Schoen (J. F.) and Crowther (Samuel), ‘Journals of, who Accompanied
 the Expedition up the Niger, in 1841.’ London, 1842.

 Schomburgk (Richard), ‘Reisen in Britisch-Guiana.’ 3 vols. Leipzig,
 1847-48.

 Schomburgk (Robert H.), ‘Journal of an Expedition from Pirara to the
 Upper Corentyne;’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol. xv. London, 1845.

 Schoolcraft (H. R.), ‘Historical and Statistical Information
 Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian
 Tribes of the United States’ (the title-pages of vols. iv.-vi. read:
 ‘Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge,’ &c.). 6 vols. Philadelphia,
 1851-60.

 —— ‘The Indian in his Wigwam.’ New York, 1848.

 Schopenhauer (Arthur), ‘The World as Will and Idea.’ Trans. by R. B.
 Haldane and J. Kemp. 3 vols. London, 1883-86.

 Schrader (O.), ‘Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples.’ Trans.
 by F. B.  Jevons. London, 1890.

 Schroeder (L. von), ‘Die Hochzeitsgebräuche der Esten und einiger
 anderer finnisch-ugrischer Völkerschaften in Vergleichung mit denen
 der indo-germanischen Völker.’ Berlin, 1888.

 —— ‘Indiens Literatur und Cultur in historischer Entwicklung.’
 Leipzig, 1887.

 Schuermann (C. W.), ‘The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln;’ in
 Woods, ‘Native Tribes of South Australia.’

 Schuetz-Holzhausen (D. von), ‘Der Amazonas.’ Freiburg im B., 1883.

 ‘Schwabenspiegel (Der).’ Ed. by F. L.  A. von Lassberg. Tübingen,
 1840.

 Schwaner (C. A.  L.  M.), ‘Borneo: beschrijving van het stroomgebied
 van den Barito,’ &c. Amsterdam, 1853.

 Schweinfurth (Georg), ‘Im Herzen von Afrika.’ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1874.

 ‘Science. An Illustrated Journal.’ Cambridge (Mass.).

 Sebright (J. S.), ‘The Art of Improving the Breeds of Domestic
 Animals.’ London, 1809.

 Seemann (B.), ‘Narrative of the Voyage of _Herald_ during the Years
 1845-1851.’ 2 vols. London, 1853.

 —— ‘Viti.’ Cambridge, 1862.

 Semper (Karl), ‘Die Palau-Inseln.’ Leipzig, 1873.

 Serpa Pinto, ‘How I Crossed Africa.’ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1881.

 Shooter (Joseph), ‘The Kafirs of Natal and the Zulu Country.’ London,
 1857.

 Shortt (John), ‘The Hill Ranges of Southern India.’ 5 parts. Madras,
 1870-76.

 —— ‘An Account of the Hill Tribes of the Neilgherries;’ in ‘Trans.
 Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. London, 1869.

 Sibree (James), ‘The Great African Island. Chapters on Madagascar.’
 London, 1880.

 Siebold (H. von), ‘Ethnologische Studien über die Aino auf der Insel
 Yesso.’ ‘Supplement zur Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.‘ Berlin, 1881.

 Smeaton (D. Mackenzie), ‘The Loyal Karens of Burma.’ London, 1887.

 Smith (E. R.), ‘The Araucanians.’ New York, 1855.

 Smith (Thomas), ‘Narrative of a Five Years’ Residence at Nepaul.‘ 2
 vols. London, 1852.

 Smith (William), ‘Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.’ London,
 1849.

 —— and Cheetham (Samuel), ‘A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.’ 2
 vols. London, 1875-80.

 —— Wayte (William) and Marindin (G. E.), ‘A Dictionary of Greek and
 Roman Antiquities.’ _In progress._ London, 1890, &c.

 Smith (W. Robertson), ‘Marriage and Kinship in Early Arabia.’
 Cambridge, 1885.

 Smithsonian Institution, ‘Annual Report of the Board of Regents.’
 Washington.

 Smyth (R. Brough), ‘The Aborigines of Victoria.’ 2 vols. London, 1878.

 Snow (W. Parker), ‘A Two Years’ Cruise off Tierra del Fuego.‘ 2
 vols. London, 1857.

 Sohm (Rud.), ‘Institutionen des römischen Rechts.’ Leipzig, 1884.

 Solinus, ‘Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium.’ Ed. by Th. Mommsen.
 Berlin. 1864.

 ‘South American Missionary Magazine (The).’ London.

 Southey (R.), ‘History of Brazil.’ 3 vols. London, 1810-19.

 Soyaux (Hermann), ‘Aus West-Afrika.’ Leipzig, 1879.

 Sparrman (A.), ‘A Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope.’ Trans. 2 vols.
 London, 1786.

 Spencer (Herbert), ‘Descriptive Sociology.’ 8 vols. London, 1873-81.

 —— ‘Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative.’ 2 vols. London,
 1883.

 —— ‘The Principles of Psychology.’ 2 vols. London, 1881.

 —— ‘The Principles of Sociology.’ _In progress._ London, 1885, &c.

 Spiegel (F.), ‘Erânische Alterthumskunde.’ 3 vols. Leipzig, 1871-78.

 Spix (J. B. von) and Martius (C. F. Ph. von), Travels in Brazil in the
 Years 1817-1820.‘ Trans. 2 vols. London, 1824.

 Sproat (G. M.), ‘Scenes and Studies of Savage Life.’ London, 1868.

 Squier (E. G.), ‘The States of Central America.’ London, 1858.

 —— ‘Observations on the Archaeology and Ethnology of Nicaragua;’ in
 ‘Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. New York, 1853.

 Starcke (C. N.), ‘The Primitive Family in its Origin and
 Development.’ London, 1889.

 Starkweather (G. B.), ‘The Law of Sex.’ London, 1883.

 Stavorinus (J. S.), ‘Account of Java and Batavia.’ Trans.; in
 Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xi. London, 1812.

 Steele (Arthur), ‘The Law and Custom of Hindoo Castes.’ London, 1868.

 Steinen (Karl von den), ‘Durch Central-Brasilien.’ Leipzig, 1886.

 Steller (G. W.), ‘Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka.’ Frankfurt
 and Leipzig, 1774.

 Stephens (Edward), ‘The Aborigines of Australia;’ in ‘Jour. &
 Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. Sydney and London, 1889.

 Stewart (R.), ‘Notes on Northern Cachar;’ in ‘Jour. As. Soc.
 Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. Calcutta, 1855.

 Stone (O. C.), ‘A Few Months in New Guinea.’ London, 1880.

 Strabo, ‘Γεωγραφικῶν βίβλοι ιζ’.’

 Stulpnagel (C. R.), ‘Polyandry in the Himâlayas;’ in ‘The Indian
 Antiquary,’ vol. vii. Bombay, 1878.

 Sturluson (Snorri), ‘Heimskringla eller Norges Kongesagaer.’ Ed. by
 C. R. Unger. Christiania, 1868.

 —— ‘The Heimskringla or the Sagas of the Norse Kings.’ Trans. by S.
 Laing, ed. by R. B.  Anderson. 4 vols. London, 1889.

 Sturt (Charles), ‘Narrative of an Expedition into Central Australia.’
 2 vols. London, 1849.

 Suessmilch (J. P.), ‘Die Göttliche Ordnung in den Veränderungen des
 menschlichen Geschlechts.’ 2 vols. Berlin, 1761-62.

 Sugenheim (S.), ‘Geschichte der Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft und
 Hörigkeit in Europa.’ St. Petersburg, 1861.

 Sully (James), ‘Outlines of Psychology.’ London, 1884.

 Sully (Maximilian de Bethune, Duke de), ‘Memoirs.’ Trans. 5 vols.
 London, 1778.


 Tacitus, ‘Germania.’

 Taplin (G.), ‘The Narrinyeri;’ in Woods, ‘Native Tribes of South
 Australia.’

 Taylor (R.), ‘Te Ika a Maui; or, New Zealand and its Inhabitants.’
 London, 1870.

 Tengström (R.), ‘Finska folket såsom det skildras i Kalevala;’ in
 ‘Joukahainen,’ vol. ii. Helsingfors, 1845.

 Tennent (James Emerson), ‘Ceylon.’ 2 vols. London, 1860.

 Tertullian, ‘Ad Uxorem.’

 Theal (G. McCall), ‘History of the Emigrant Boers.’ London, 1888.

 Thierry (Augustin), ‘Narratives of the Merovingian Era.’ Trans.
 London [1845].

 Thomson (J. P.), ‘British New Guinea.’ London, 1892.

 Thomson (Joseph), ‘Through Masai Land.’ London, 1887.

 Thunberg (C. P.), ‘An Account of the Cape of Good Hope.’ Trans.; in
 Pinkerton,‘ ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. xvi. London,
 1814.

 ‘Tidningar utgifne af et Sällskap i Äbo.’ Äbo.

 Tocqueville (Alexis de), ‘Democracy in America.’ Trans. 2 vols.
 London, 1889.

 Tod (James), ‘Annals and Antiquities of Rajast’han.’ 2 vols. Madras,
 1873.

 Topelius (Zachris), ‘De modo matrimonia jungendi apud Fennos quondam
 vigente.’ Helsingfors, 1847.

 Topinard (Paul), ‘Anthropology.’ Trans. London, 1878.

 ‘Transactions of the American Ethnological Society.’ New York.

 —— of the Asiatic Society of Japan.’ Yokohama.

 —— of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.’ Hongkong.

 —— of the Ethnological Society of London.’ New series. London.

 —— of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.’ London.

 —— of the International Folk-Lore Congress, 1891.‘ London, 1892.

 Tschudi (J. J. von), ‘Reisen durch Südamerika.’ 5 vols. Leipzig,
 1866-69.

 Tuckey (J. K.), ‘Narrative of an Expedition to Explore the River
 Zaire.’ London, 1818.

 Turner (George), ‘Nineteen Years in Polynesia.’ London, 1861.

 —— ‘Samoa a Hundred Years ago and long before.’ London, 1884.

 Turner (Samuel), ‘An Account of an Embassy to the Court of the Teshoo
 Lama, in Tibet.’ London, 1800.

 Tylor (E. B.), ‘Anthropology.’ London, 1881.

 —— ‘Researches into the Early History of Mankind.’ London, 1878.

 —— ‘On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions;
 applied to Laws of Marriage and Descent;’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
 vol. xviii. London, 1889.

 —— ‘Primitive Society;’ in ‘The Contemporary Review,’ vols.
 xxi-xxii. London, 1873.


 Ujfalvy (Ch. E. de), ‘Le Kohistan, Le Ferghanah & Kouldja.’ Paris,
 1878.

 Unger (Joseph), ‘Die Ehe in ihrer welthistorischen Entwicklung.’
 Vienna, 1850.

 ‘Uplands-Lagen;’ in H. S.  Collin and C. J.  Schlyter, ‘Corpus Juris
 Sueo-Gotorum Antiqui,’ vol. iii. Stockholm, 1834.


 Vámbéry (H.), ‘Die primitive Cultur des turko-tartarischen Volkes.’
 Leipzig, 1879.

 —— ‘Das Türkenvolk.’ Leipzig, 1885.

 Vancouver (G.), ‘A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean,
 and round the World.’ 3 vols. London, 1798.

 ‘Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie,
 Ethnologie und Urgeschichte.’ Berlin.

 Virchow (Rudolf), ‘Untersuchungen über die Entwickelung des
 Schädelgrundes im gesunden und krankhaften Zustande.’ Berlin, 1857.

 —— ‘The Veddás of Ceylon.’ Trans.; in ‘Jour. Roy. As. Soc. Ceylon
 Branch,’ vol. ix. Colombo, 1888.

 Virgil, ‘Bucolica.’

 Vischer (F. Th.), ‘Aesthetik, oder Wissenschaft des Schönen.’ 3
 parts. Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1846-54.

 ‘Vishnu, The Institutes of.’ Trans. by Julius Jolly. Oxford, 1880.

 Vogt (Carl), ‘Lectures on Man.’ Trans. ed. by J. Hunt. London. 1864.

 Voisin (A.), ‘Contribution à l’histoire des mariages entre
 consanguins; in ‘Mém. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ vol. ii. Paris, 1865.


 Waitz (Th.), ‘Anthropologie der Naturvölker.’ 6 vols. (vol. v. pt.
 ii. and vol. vi. by G. Gerland). Leipzig, 1859-72.

 —— ‘Introduction to Anthropology.’ Trans. ed. by J. F.  Collingwood.
 London, 1863.

 Wake (C. S.), ‘The Development of Marriage and Kinship.’ London, 1889.

 —— ‘The Evolution of Morality.’ 2 vols. London, 1878.

 Walker (Alex.), ‘Beauty.’ London, 1846.

 —— ‘Intermarriage.’ London, 1838.

 Wallace (A. R.), ‘Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection.’
 London, 1871.

 —— ‘Darwinism.’ London, 1889.

 —— ‘The Malay Archipelago.’ 2 vols. London, 1869.

 —— ‘Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro.’ London, 1853.

 —— ‘Tropical Nature and other Essays.’ London, 1878.

 Wallace (D. Mackenzie), ‘Russia.’ London, 1877.

 Wappäus (J. E.), ‘Allgemeine Bevölkerungsstatistik.’ 2 vols. Leipzig,
 1859-61.

 Wargentin (P.), ‘Uti hvilka Månader flera Människor födas och do
 Sverige;’ in ‘Kongliga Vetenskaps-academiens Handlingar,’ vol.
 xxviii. Stockholm, 1767.

 Warnkoenig (L. A.), ‘Juristische Encyclopädie.’ Erlangen, 1853.

 —— and Stein (L.), ‘Französische Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte.’ 3
 vols. Basel, 1846-48.

 Watson (J. F.), and Kaye (J. W.), ‘The People of India.’ 6 vols.
 London, 1868.

 Weber (Albrecht), ‘Collectanea über die Kastenverhältnisse in den
 Brâhmana und Sûltra;’ in Alb. Weber, ‘Indische Studien,’ vol. x.
 Leipzig, 1868.

 Weber (E. von), ‘Vier Jahre in Afrika.’ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1878.

 Weddell (James), ‘A Voyage towards the South Pole,’ London, 1825.

 Weinhold (Karl), ‘Altnordisches Leben.’ Berlin, 1856.

 —— ‘Die deutschen Frauen in dem Mittelalter.’ 2 vols. Vienna, 1882.

 Weismann (Aug.), ‘Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological
 Problems.’ Trans. Oxford, 1889.

 ‘Westgöta-Lagen. Codex Recentior;’ in H. S.  Collin and C. J. 
 Schlyter, ‘Corpus Juris Sueo-Gotorum Antiqui,’ vol. i. Stockholm,
 1827.

 Westropp (H. M.) and Wake (C. S.), ‘Ancient Symbol Worship.’ New
 York, 1874.

 Wheeler (J. Talboys), ‘The History of India from the Earliest Ages.’
 _In progress._ London, 1867, &c.

 Wied-Neuwied (Maximilian zu), ‘Travels in Brazil.’ Trans. London,
 1820.

 Wilda (W. E.), ‘Das Strafrecht der Germanen.’ Halle, 1842.

 Wilken (G. A.), ‘Huwelijken tusschen bloedverwanten.’ Reprinted from
 ‘De Gids,’ 1890, no. 6. Amsterdam.

 —— ‘Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern.’ Trans. Leipzig, 1884.

 —— ‘Over de verwantschap en het huwelijks-en erfrecht bij de volken
 van het maleische ras.’ Reprinted from ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1883, May.
 Amsterdam.

 —— ‘Plechtigheden en gebruiken bij verlovingen en huwelijken bij de
 volken van den Indischen Archipel;’ in ‘Bijdragen tot de taal-land-en
 volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië,’ ser. v. vols. i. and iv. The
 Hague, 1886 and 1889.

 —— ‘Over de primitieve vormen van het huwelijk en den oorsprong van
 het gezin;’ in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. and 1881, vol. ii.
 Amsterdam.

 Wilkens (Cl.), ‘Moralstatistiken og den frie Vilje;’ in
 ‘Nationalökonomist Tidsskrift,’ vol. xvi. Copenhagen, 1880.

 Wilkes (Charles), ‘Narrative of the United States Exploring
 Expedition during the Years 1838-1842.’ 5 vols. Philadelphia and
 London, 1845.

 Wilkinson (J. Gardner), ‘The Manners and Customs of the Ancient
 Egyptians.’ 3 vols. London, 1878.

 Williams (John), ‘A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South
 Sea Islands.’ London, 1837.

 Williams (Monier), ‘Buddhism in its Connexion with Brāhmanism and
 Hinduism.’ London, 1890.

 —— ‘Hinduism.’ London [1877].

 —— ‘Indian Wisdom.’ London, 1876.

 Williams (S. Wells), ‘The Middle Kingdom.’ 2 vols. New York, 1883.

 Williams (Thomas) and Calvert (James), ‘Fiji and the Fijians; and
 Missionary Labours among the Cannibals.’ London, 1870.

 Willigerod (J. E. Ph.), ‘Geschichte Ehstlands.’ Reval, 1830.

 Wilson (Andrew), ‘The Abode of Snow.’ Edinburgh and London, 1876.

 Wilson (C. T.) and Felkin (R. W.), ‘Uganda and the Egyptian Soudan.’
 2 vols. London, 1882.

 Winroth (A.), ‘Offentlig rätt. Familjerätt: äktenskapshindren.’ Lund,
 1890.

 Winternitz (M.), ‘On a Comparative Study of Indo-European Customs,
 with Special Reference to the Marriage Customs;’ in ‘Transactions of
 the International Folk-Lore Congress, 1891.’ London, 1892.

 Witkowski (G. J.), ‘La génération humaine.’ Paris, 1881.

 Woldt (A.), ‘Capitain Jacobsen’s Reise an der Nordwestküste Amerikas
 1881-1883.’ Leipzig, 1884.

 Wolkov (Théodore), ‘Rites et usages nuptiaux en Ukraine;’ in
 ‘L’Anthropologie,’ vols. ii.-iii. Paris.

 Wood (J. G.), ‘The Illustrated Natural History.’ 3 vols. London,
 1861-1863.

 —— ‘The Natural History of Man.’ 2 vols. London, 1868-70.

 Woods (J. D.), ‘The Native Tribes of South Australia with an
 Introductory Chapter by J. D.  W. Adelaide, 1879.

 Wright (Thomas), ‘Womankind in Western Europe, from the Earliest Times
 to the Seventeenth Century.’ London, 1869.

 Wundt (W.), ‘Ethik.’ Stuttgart, 1886.

 Wyatt (William), ‘Some Account of the Manners and Superstitions of
 the Adelaide and Encounter Bay Aboriginal Tribes;’ in Woods, ‘The
 Native Tribes of South Australia.’


 Yate (William), ‘An Account of New Zealand.’ London, 1835.

 ‘Ymer. Tidskrift utgifven af Svenska Sällskapet för Antropologi och
 Geografi.’ Stockholm.

 Young (Arthur), ‘A Tour in Ireland;’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of
 Voyages and Travels,’ vol. iii. London, 1809.


 ‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.’ Berlin.

 —— für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft.‘ Stuttgart.

 Zimmer (Heinrich), ‘Altindisches Leben.’ Berlin, 1879.

 Zimmermann (W. F.  A. ), ‘Die Inseln des indischen und Stillen
 Meeres.’ 3 vols. Berlin, 1863-65.

 Zmigrodzki (M. von), ‘Die Mutter bei den Völkern des arischen
 Stammes.’ Munich, 1886.




INDEX


  A

  Abercromby, Mr. John, on marriage _with_ capture, p. 388.

  Abipones, marriage not complete till the birth of a child
    among the, p. 22;
    chastity of women among the, p. 66;
    rank hereditary in the male line among the, p. 99;
    tattooing of young people among the, p. 177;
    their custom of plucking out the eyebrows, p. 182;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 216 n.9;
    horror of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 299;
    infanticide among the, p. 312;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393 n. 2;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    divorce among the, p. 530 n. 3. 

  Abors, female dress among the, p. 197 n. 8;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 8;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11.
    See Pádams.

  ——, Sissee, polyandry among the, p. 452;
    polygyny among the, p. 455.

  Abyssinians, their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 8;
    marry early, p. 138;
    tattooing of women among the, p. 169;
    circumcision among the, pp. 202, 203, 206 n. 1;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 384;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499;
    divorce among the, p. 520.

  Acawoios, monogamous, p. 435 n. 11.

  Acclimatization, pp. 268-270.

  Accra, kinship through males at, p. 102;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage at, p. 309;
    marriage portion at, p. 410, n. 11.

  Achomâwi (California), marriage by purchase among the, p. 401 n. 13.

  Adam, Mr. W., on consanguineous marriage, p. 339.

  Adelaide Plains, natives inhabiting the, their depravation due to
    the influence of the whites, p. 68.

  Admiralty Islanders, hair dress of the young men among the, p. 175;
    painting of women among the, p. 181 n. 4;
    men more decorated than women among the, p. 183;
    covering of the men among the, p. 191 n. 5;
    shell worn by the men among the, p. 201;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 208.

  Adultery, punishments inflicted for, pp. 121, 122, 130.

  Adyrmachidae, _jus primae noctis_ among the, pp. 76 _sq._

  Aenezes, women’s liberty of choice among the, pp. 220 n. 7, 222;
    endogamy of the, p. 371;
    their views on marriage by purchase, p. 408 n. 8. 

  Aëtas (Philippines), monogamous as a rule, p. 440.

  Affection, ch. xvi., p. 546.

  Africa, no people living in promiscuity in, p. 59.

  Africans, paternal duties among certain, pp. 16 _sq._;
    pregnancy must be followed by marriage among certain, p. 23;
    female unchastity punished by certain, p. 62 n. 8;
    preservation of the chastity of wives among many, p. 120;
    punishment for adultery among certain, p. 122 n. 4;
    virginity required from the bride among certain, pp. 123 _sq._;
    infibulation of girls among many, p. 124;
    widows killed among certain, p. 125;
    lip-ornaments among certain, p. 166;
    knocking out teeth among certain, p. 174;
    the men more ornamented than the women among many, p. 182;
    only unmarried women cover their nakedness among many, pp. 195 _sq._;
    a covering considered more necessary for men than women by
    many, p. 199;
    infanticide almost unknown among the, p. 312;
    fertile women respected among the, p. 378 n. 3;
    their desire for offspring, pp. 378 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase does not occur among certain, p. 398;
    marriage portion among certain, p. 410 n. 11;
    no marriage portion among many, p. 414 n. 5;
    polygyny among the, pp. 439, 490, 493, 506;
    class distinctions among the p. 506.

  Africans, Eastern Central, terms for relationships among the, pp. 87, 93;
    recognise the part taken by both parents in generation, p. 105;
    children named after the mother’s tribe among certain, _ib._;
    the husband goes to live near the wife’s family among certain, p. 109;
    female lip-ornament among the, p. 166;
    women more decorated than men among the, p. 183;
    position of women among the, _ib._;
    circumcision among the, pp. 201 _sq._;
    women more particular in their choice than men among the, p. 254;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 384;
    no marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 5;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 438 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 446, 491, 492, 499;
    their women get old early, p. 487;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.;
    divorce among the, pp. 522, 527 n. 1, 528, 532 n. 6. 

  Africans, Equatorial, punishments for wantonness among the, p. 62;
    lending wives among several, p. 74 n. 1;
    terms of address among the, p. 91;
    painting of girls among the, pp. 176 _sq._;
    nakedness of the, p. 193;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    polygyny among the, pp. 491, 494 _sq._

  ——, South, celibacy unknown among the, p. 135;
    circumcision among the, pp. 204 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, p. 446.

  ——, West, circumcision among certain, p. 201;
    women’s power of choice among certain, p. 220;
    appreciation of female beauty among certain, p. 257;
    exogamy among certain, p. 306;
    Levirate among certain, p. 511 n.;
    rule of inheritance among certain, p. 512 n. 3

  Agades, coquetry of the women of, p. 200.

  Agassiz, L., on fertility of union as a characteristic of
    species, p. 288.

  Ahl el Shemál (Syria), marriage portion among the, p. 410.

  Ahts (British Columbia), property, &c., hereditary in the male line
    among the, p. 98;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 123;
    paint used by the young people among the, p. 176;
    marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 224 n. 3;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 297;
    infanticide almost unknown among the,p. 312;
    endogamy of the, p. 365;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 370;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 383;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3;
    compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    return gift among the, p. 409;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 443, _ib._ n. 5;
    excess of male births among the, p. 466.

  Ainos, kinship through males among the, p. 102;
    remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited for a certain period
    among the, p. 129, _ib._ n. 6;
    marry early, p. 138;
    courtship by women among the, p. 159;
    alleged religious origin of tattooing among the, p. 170;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    decrease of the, p. 348;
    endogamy of the, pp. 348, 366 _sq._;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 418;
    concubinage among the, p. 445;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Ainos of the Kuriles, bigamy among the, p. 450 n. 6. 

  ——, Tsuishikari, their terms for grandfather and grandmother, p. 92.

  —— of Yesso, the husband lives with his father-in-law till the birth
    of a child among the, p. 22;
    tattooing by instalments among the, p. 178 n. 5;
    marriage between cousins among the, p. 296;
    do not buy their wives, pp. 397 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 438, 494, 495, n. 2;
    their women get old early, pp. 486 _sq._

  Akas, do not use milk, p. 484 n. 6. 

  Akka, circumcision among the, p. 202.

  Alamanni, decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404, 407;
    dower among the, p. 407.

  Alaska. See Port des Français, Yukonikhotana.

  Aleuts, punishment for illegitimate births among the, p. 65;
    lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among
    the, p. 129 n. 6;
    men brought up like women among the, p. 134 n. 2;
    their want of modesty, p. 210;
    marriage between cousins among the, p. 296;
    their views on infanticide, p. 312;
    their views on incest, p. 352;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 401 n. 13;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny among the, pp. 443, 494;
    polyandry among the, pp. 450, 457;
    divorce among the pp. 520, 521, 530, 533 n. 1. 

  Aleuts, Atkha, marriage binding only after the birth of a child
    among the, pp. 23, 216;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 118;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3. 

  —— of the Fur-Seal Islands, men more desirous of self-decoration
    than women among the, p. 184.

  —— of Oonalashka, polyandry among the, p. 450;
    polygyny and divorce among the, p. 493.

  —— of Unimak, marriage by capture among the, p. 383.

  Algonquins, exogamy among the, p. 297;
    polygyny among the, p. 443;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 2. 

  Allahabad, Hindus of, seasonal increase of births among
    the, pp. 32, 36 _sq._

  Allen, Mr. Grant, on love excited by contrasts, p. 354.

  Alsace-Lorraine, births in, p. 470;
    consanguineous marriages in, p. 481 n. 3. 

  Amazons, tribes of Upper, close intermarriage among the, p. 347;
    infertility of their women, _ib._

  Amboina, prohibited degrees in, p. 302.

  America, caste distinctions in, p. 369.

  ——, States of, divorce in the, p. 526 n. 5. 

  American Indians, their system of nomenclature, pp. 82 _sq._;
    their difficulty in pronouncing labials, p. 87;
    terms of address among the, p. 89;
    ideas of delicacy in married life among certain, p. 152;
    shaving and ornamenting the head among certain, p. 167;
    unions with negresses rare among the, p. 254;
    painting the body among the, p. 264;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 6;
    polygyny among the, p. 492.

  Andamanese, pregnancy followed by marriage among the, p. 24 n. 3;
    alleged looseness of the marriage tie among the, p. 53;
    monogamous, pp. 52, 53, 55, 57, 436, 507;
    divorce unknown among the, pp. 57, 517;
    fidelity among the, p. 57;
    their terms for relations, pp. 90 _sq._;
    sexual modesty of the, p. 152 n. 3;
    tattooing by instalments among the, p. 178 n. 5;
    nakedness of women in a tribe of the, p. 188;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 210;
    prohibition of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 304;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 309;
    conjugal love among the, p. 358;
    do not buy their wives, p. 398;
    barter rare among the, pp. 400 _sq._;
    excess of female births among the, p. 467;
    position of their women, p. 501.

  Andree, R., on the circumcision of the Jews, p. 204.

  Aneiteum (New Hebrides), term for mother in, p. 86.

  Anglo-Saxons, wives deprived of their hair among the, p. 176 n.;
    hair cutting an indication of slavery among the, _ib._

  Angola, Negroes of, barrenness despised among the, p. 378;
    fickleness of their passions, p. 488;
    polygyny among the, _ib._;
    divorce among the, p. 532 n. 2. 
    See Quissama.

  Animals, lower, the male element brought to the female among
    some, p 157;
    the males, the seekers among the, pp. 157 _sq._;
    struggle of the males for the possession of the females among
    the, p. 159;
    female choice among the, pp. 159, 222;
    hybridism among the, pp. 278-280;
    infertility from changed conditions among the, p. 286;
    incest among the, p. 334;
    in-and-in breeding of domesticated, pp. 335-338, 545.

  Annamese, incest among the, p. 292;
    bestiality among the, p. 333 n. 4. 

  Antelopes, small, marriage and paternal care among the, p. 12.

  Antilles, marriage restriction for Frenchmen in the, p. 365.

  Antiquity, peoples of, kinship through females among several of
    the, pp. 103 _sq._

  Ants, sterility of the workers among, p. 150.

  Apaches, chastity of women among the, p. 66;
    lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    polygyny among the, pp. 449, 492, 496;
    divorce among the, p. 533 n. 4. 

  Apalachites, marriage between cousins among the, p. 296.

  Apes, anthropomorphous, their marriage due to the long period of
    infancy, pp. 21, 537;
    not gregarious, pp. 42, 43, 538;
    colour of the skin of the, pp. 271, 276;
    monogamous, p. 508;
    duration of their marriage, p. 517.

  Arabia, excess of female births in, p. 468.

  Arabs, system of kinship among the, pp. 102, _ib._ n. 4, 110 n. 2;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    their disapproval of the remarriage of widows, p. 127;
    unmarried women almost unknown among the, p. 140 n. 6;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 207;
    women’s liberty of choice among certain, p. 222;
    paternal authority among the, p. 228;
    restriction of the paternal authority among the, p. 235;
    marriage between cousins among the, pp. 296, 481;
    marriage with a half-sister among the, p. 332;
    households of the, _ib._;
    their viewson consanguineous marriage, pp. 351 _sq._;
    love among the, p. 361;
    race-prejudice among the, p. 364;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 385;
    marriage by capture among the, _ib._ n. 13;
    morning gift among the, p. 408;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 9;
    their women get old early, p. 487;
    polygyny among the, p. 495 n. 2;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.;
    divorce among the, pp. 525, 535.
    See Bedouins, Mecca.

  ——, ancient, of Arabia Felix, polyandry among the, pp. 454, 458, 481.

  —— of Morocco, monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 5. 

  —— of the Sahara, marry early, p. 138;
    polygyny among the, p. 449;
    their women get old early, p. 487;
    divorced women among the, p. 533.

  Arabs of Syria, marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3. 

  —— of Upper Egypt, test of courage requisite for marriage among
    the, p. 18;
    female chastity among the, p. 62;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 123 n. 8;
    morning gift among the, p. 410 n. 3;
    polygyny and concubinage among the, pp. 449, 496.

  Aracan, Hill Tribes of North consider want of chastity a merit in
    the bride, p. 81;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 418.

  Araucanians, rank hereditary in the male line among the, p. 99;
    ceremony of capture among the, pp. 383 _sq._;
    compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    marriage by purchase among the, _ib._ n. 13;
    polygyny among the, pp. 444 n. 1, 494.

  Arawaks, alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 55;
    jealousy of the men among the, pp. 58, 59, 119;
    marriage among the, p. 59;
    remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period among
    the, pp. 128 _sq._;
    female dress among the, p. 190;
    early betrothals among the, pp. 213 n. 6, 224 n. 1;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Arctopitheci, paternal care among the, p. 12.

  Arecunas, their custom of enlarging the ear-lobes, p. 166;
    tattooing of women among the, p. 181 n. 4. 

  Areois of Tahiti, jealousy of the, pp. 55, 119;
    their dress on public occasions, p. 198.

  Arins, paternal care among certain species of, p. 10.

  Armenia, religious prostitution in, p. 72;
    excess of female births in, p. 467.

  Arorae (Kingsmill Group), woman’s liberty of choice in, pp. 217 _sq._

  Aru Islands, prohibited degrees in the, p. 302;
    obligatory continence in the, p. 483 nn. 1, 2, 6;
    divorce in the, p. 523 n. 9. 
    See Kobroor, Kola.

  Aryan peoples, their system of nomenclature, p. 82;
    their terms for father and mother, p. 88;
    continence required from newly married people among
    certain, p. 151.

  Aryans, early, kinship through females supposed to have prevailed
    among the, p. 104;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    widows forbidden to remarry among the, p. 127;
    regarded celibacy as an impiety and a misfortune, p. 141;
    _patria potestas_ of the, pp. 230 _sq._;
    their desire for offspring, p. 379;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 396;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 442;
    women in child-bed among the, p. 485.

  —— of the North of India, season of love among the, p.33.

  Ashantees, early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 220 n. 11;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 484 n.;
    superstitious ceremonies among the, p. 485;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Asia, Russian, kinship through males among the peoples of, p. 102.

  Ass, in southern countries, has no definite pairing season, p. 38.

  Assamese, the ‘Baisakh Bihu’ festival among the, p. 323;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6. 

  Assyrians, tattooing among the, p. 169;
    marriage with a half-sister among the, p. 295;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 395;
    concubinage among the, pp. 432, 447.

  _Ateles paniscus_, lives in families, p. 12.

  Athenians, ancient, tale of the institution of marriage among
    the, pp. 8 _sq._;
    estimation of courtesans among the, p. 81;
    prosecution of celibates among the, p. 142;
    wives deprived of their hair among the, p. 176 n.;
    marriage with a half-sister among the, p. 295;
    endogamy of the, p. 367;
    dower among the, pp. 405 _sq._;
    divorce among the pp. 520, 529.

  Atooi (Sandwich Islands), tattooing in, p. 201 n. 4;
    curious usage in, p. 205 n. 3. 

  Augilæ, _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 72.

  Auseans, alleged community of women among the, p. 52.

  Australians, occasionally scattered in families in search of
    food, p. 48;
    alleged group-marriage among the, pp. 54, 56 _sq._;
    system of nomenclature among the, p. 56;
    no promiscuity among the, pp. 57, 60, 61, 64;
    wantonness due to the influence of the whites among the, p. 61;
    lending wives among the, pp. 61, 74 n. 1;
    system of kinship among the, p. 101;
    believe that the child is derived from the father only, p. 106;
    jealousy of the men among the, pp. 118, 131;
    prostitution of wives among the, p. 131;
    celibacy of women almost unknown among the, p. 136;
    their women marry early, p. 139;
    celibacy caused by polygyny among the, p. 144;
    the men marry late among the, _ib._ n. 5;
    continence required from newly married people among certain, p. 151;
    combats for women among the, pp. 160 _sq._;
    their vanity, p. 165;
    their custom of knocking out teeth, pp. 167, 174, 202;
    paint the body, pp. 168, 176, 181 n. 4;
    scar the body, pp. 169, 171, 178 _sq._;
    means of attraction among the, p. 173;
    nose ornament among certain, pp. 173 _sq._;
    tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177;
    the men more ornamented than the women among the, p. 183;
    their want of modesty, pp. 187 _sq._;
    nakedness of the, p. 192;
    only unmarried women cover their nakedness among certain, p. 196;
    indecent dances among the, p. 198 n. 1;
    circumcision among the, pp. 202 _sq._;
    no government among the, pp. 203 _sq._;
    the ‘terrible rite’ among several, p. 205 n. 5;
    ideas of modesty among certain, p. 211;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    woman’s liberty of choice among the, p. 217;
    elopements among the, pp. 217, 223, 583;
    independence of sons among the, p. 223;
    their ideal of beauty, pp. 257, 263 _sq._;
    mongrels among the, pp. 284-287;
    exogamy among the, pp. 299, 300, 318, 321 n. 1;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 300, 318;
    infanticide among the, p. 313;
    horror of sexual intercourse within the exogamous limits among
    the, p. 317;
    local exogamy among the, pp. 322, 325;
    their hordes, p. 325;
    endogamy of certain, pp. 332, 367;
    conjugal affection and love among the, pp. 359, 360, 503;
    marriage by capture among the, pp. 384, 385, 389;
    amicable relations between different tribes among the, p. 389;
    marriage by exchange among the, p. 390;
    barter formerly unknown among certain, p. 400;
    marriage ceremonies among the, p. 418;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440;
    proportion between the sexes among the, pp. 461, 462, 467;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    female jealousy among the, p. 498;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 
    See Adelaide Plains, Birria, Botany Bay, Carpentarian Gulf,
    Darling, Dieyerie, Encounter Bay tribe, Eucla tribe, Gippsland,
    Gournditch-mara, Herbert River, Herbert Vale, Kámilarói, Karawalla,
    Koombokkaburra, Kurnai, Larrakía tribe, Moncalon, Murray,
    Narrinyeri, New Norcia, New South Wales, Pegulloburras, Perth,
    Port Essington, Port Jackson, Port Lincoln, Queensland, Riverina,
    Torndirrup, Tunberri, Tuna, Victoria, Watchan-dies.

  Australians, South, terms of address among the, p. 93;
    initiatory rites of manhood among the, p. 199;
    polygyny among the, p. 494.

  ——, West, the family among the, p. 45;
    terms of address among the, p. 92;
    system of kinship among the, p. 101;
    influence of surnames among the, p. 111;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 215;
    mongrels among the, pp. 285, 287;
    bigamy among the, p. 450;
    excess of men among the, p. 461.

  Austria, seasonal increase of births in, p. 32;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    excess of male births among the Jews of, 481 n. 4;
    divorce in, p. 526.

  Avanos, polyandry among the, pp. 451, 472 n. 3;
    excess of men among the, p. 461.


  B

  Babber, female jealousy in, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce in, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Babylonians, religious prostitution among the, p. 72;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 395;
    marriage portion among the, p. 408.

  Bachofen, J. J. , on the promiscuity of primitive man, pp. 51, 78;
    on metrocracy, p. 96;
    on the maternal system among the primitive Aryans, p. 104 n. 2. 

  Badagas, marriage not complete till the woman is pregnant among
    the, p. 23;
    return gift among the, p. 409;
    marriage portion among the, pp. 415 n. 2, 534 n. 5;
    monogamous, p. 436;
    probably endogamous, p. 480;
    excess of men among the, _ib._;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 532 n. 3, 534 nn. 4 _sq._

  Badger, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.;
    breeding season of the, p. 35.

  Baele, marriage not complete till the birth of a child among
    the, pp. 22 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1. 

  Bafióte, celibacy due to poverty among the, p. 144 n. 3;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 438 n. 8. 

  Bagele (in Adamáua), _jus primae noctis_ in, pp. 76 _sq._

  Baghirmi, fights for women in, p. 161;
    incest in, p. 293;
    excess of women in, p. 465 n. 4. 

  Bagobos (Philippines), return gift among the, p. 409;
    polygyny among the, p. 496.

  Bain, Prof. A., on the feeling of shame, p. 208;
    on love, pp. 354, 356, 502;
    on sympathy, p. 362 n. 2. 

  Bakaïri, terms for relationships among the, pp. 86 _sq._

  Bakalai, inheriting widows among the, p. 513.

  Bakongo, seasonal increase of births among the, p. 31;
    horrified at the idea of promiscuous intercourse, pp. 59, 113;
    terms for relationships among the, pp. 86, 88 _sq._;
    kinship through females among the, p. 113;
    celibacy caused by polygyny among the, p. 144;
    aversion to consanguineous marriage among the, p. 306;
    their weddings, p. 418 n. 12;
    divorce among the, p. 522.

  Bakundu,
    punishment for infanticide in, p. 312.

  Ba-kwileh,
    chieftainship hereditary in the male line among the, p. 102;
    marry early, p. 138;
    their women get old early, p. 487.

  Baladea. See Duauru language.

  Balearic Islands, _jus primae noctis_ in the, p. 73.

  Bali, widows killed in, p. 125 n. 8;
    compensation for capture in, p. 401.

  Balonda, nakedness of the women of, p. 189;
    idea of decency in, p. 209.

  Bantu race, influence of the surname among certain tribes of
    the, p. 111;
    prohibition of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 307;
    marriage between cousins among the, pp. 307, 481;
    want of affection among the, p. 357;
    polyandry among certain tribes of the, pp. 452, 481.

  Banyai, wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 6;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393.

  Barabinzes, wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.

  Barea, authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40;
    inheritance through females among the, p. 112;
    circumcision of girls among the, p. 206 n. 1;
    marriage with slaves among the, p. 371 n. 8;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n.

  Baris, tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177;
    nakedness of the men among the, p. 189;
    female dress among the, p. 197 n. 5. 

  Barito district (Borneo), husband’s duties in the, p. 17.

  Barolongs, race-endogamy of the, pp. 363 _sq._

  Barôze, polygyny in, pp. 434 _sq._

  Barter, a comparatively late invention of man, pp. 400, 401, 546.

  Bashkirs, marriage by purchase among the, p. 393;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410.

  Basques, not a pure race, p. 282.

  Basra, ideas of modesty at, p. 207.

  Bastian, Prof. A., on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51;
    on the periodical continence required from the husband, p. 484.

  Basutos, repudiated wives supported by their former husbands among
    the, p. 19;
    terms of address among the, p. 91;
    authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 108;
    adulterer regarded as a thief among the, p. 130 n. 3;
    dress of girls, when dancing, among the, pp. 198 _sq._;
    marriage arranged by the father among the, p. 224;
    marriage between cousins among the, p. 308;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 6;
    polygyny among the, pp. 446, 447, 499;
    divorce among the, pp. 524, 532;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 532.

  Bataks (Sumatra), kinship through males among the, p. 100;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    exogamy among the, p. 302;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 302 _sq._;
    separation formerly not allowed among the, p. 517 n. 5. 

  Batavia, women get old early in, p. 486.

  Bateke, seasonal increase of births among the, p. 31;
    system of kinship among the, p. 103;
    hold the function of both parents in generation alike
    important, p. 105;
    celibacy caused by polygyny among the, p. 144;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 306, 318;
    proportion between the sexes at birth among the, p. 479.

  Bats, substitute for paternal protection among, p. 21;
    their pairing season, p. 25 n. 4. 

  Batz, endogamy of the people of, p. 344.

  Bavaria, age for marriage in, p. 146;
    infertility of marriages between Jews and the non-Jewish
    population in, p. 288;
    mixed marriages in, p. 376.

  Bawar, polyandry in, pp. 453, 456, 472 n. 3. 

  Bazes, authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40;
    their weddings, p. 418 n. 10;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 5. 

  Beauty, typical, ch. xii., pp. 542 _sq._;
    individual ideal of, p. 355.

  Beaver Indians, race-endogamy of the, p. 363 n. 5;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.

  Bebel, A., on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51 n. 2. 

  Bechuanas,
    necessary preliminary to marriage among certain tribes of the, p. 18;
    system of kinship among the, p. 103;
    circumcision among the, pp. 203, 206 n. 1;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    exogamous as a rule, pp. 307 _sq._;
    symbol of capture among the, p. 384;
    their views on marriage by purchase, p. 408 n. 8;
    morning gift among the, p. 410 n. 3;
    validity of marriage among the, p. 430 n. 1;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 438 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 447 n. 1, 493, 509 n. 1;
    their word for son, p. 490 n. 4;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 n., 514 n.
    See Barolongs, Basutos.

  Bedouins,
    remarriage of divorced women prohibited for a certain period among
    the, p. 129;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 532 n. 6. 
    See Aenezes, Ahl el Shemál, Arabs.

  —— of Mount Sinai,
    marriage not complete till the woman is pregnant among the, p. 22;
    forced marriages among the, p. 221;
    marriage on credit among the, p. 394 n. 8;
    lucky day for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Beetles, colours of stridulating, p. 247;
    ‘ornaments’ of many male, pp. 250 _sq._

  Belgium, seasonal increase of births in, pp. 31 _sq._;
    number of celibates in, p. 145.
    See Netherlands.

  Bellabollahs (British Columbia), Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Belt, Mr. T., on the hairlessness of man, p. 276 n. 2. 

  Beni-Amer, modesty of unmarried women among the, p. 62;
    marry early, p. 138;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 357;
    nobility among the, p. 369;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 371;
    morning gift among the, p. 410 n. 3;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 531 n. 4. 

  Beni-Mzab, punishment for seduction among the, p. 62;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 120;
    monogamous, pp. 435 _sq._;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Benin, Negroes of, jealousy of the men among the, p. 131;
    dress of girls among the, p. 192;
    circumcision of girls among the, p. 206 n. 1;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513.

  Berbs of Morocco, monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 5. 

  Berlin, menstruation among the poorer women of, p. 488.

  Berner, on the law of Hofacker and Sadler, p. 469.

  Bernhöft, Prof. F., on group-marriage, p. 95 n. 1. 

  Bertillon, Dr., on the prohibition of marriage between
    kindred, pp. 326 _sq._

  ‘Best Man’ at weddings, p. 421.

  Bestiality, pp. 280, 281, 333, 543 _sq._

  Bétsiléo (Madagascar) female appreciation of manly courage and
    skill among the, p. 256.

  Bhils, their disapproval of the remarriage of widows, pp. 127 _sq._;
    sons betrothed by their parents among the, p. 224 n. 6;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6. 

  Bhúiyas, courtship by women among the, p. 158 n. 6. 

  Bigamy, p. 450.

  Bilúchis, Levirate among the, pp. 511 n.

  Birds, parental care among, pp. 10, 11, 21;
    marriage among, pp. 11, 21;
    their pairing season, p. 25;
    courtship among, p. 163;
    “ornaments” of many male, pp. 241, 250 _sq._;
    sexual colours among, pp. 241-245, 248 _sq._;
    sexual sounds among, pp. 247-249, 251;
    sexual odours among, pp. 248 _sq._;
    hybridism among, p. 278;
    polyandry almost unheard of among, p. 482;
    excess of males among, _ib._;
    absorbing passion for one among, p. 502;
    generally pair for life, p. 517.
    See Galapagos Islands.

  Birria (Australia), monogamous, p. 437.

  Birth, disproportion between the sexes at, pp. 466-469, 547 _sq._

  Births, periodical fluctuation in the number of, pp. 30-37;
    illegitimate, pp. 69 _sq._

  Bisayans (Philippines), wives obtained by service among
    the, p. 391 nn. 1 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1. 

  Bison, Indian, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Blackfeet, celibacy rare among the, p. 134;
    run-away matches among the, p. 216 n. 10;
    their views on infanticide, p. 312;
    excess of women among the, p. 461;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 1;
    polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 3. 

  Blemmyans, Pliny’s description of the, p. 60.

  Bodo, rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    marry early, p. 138;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    position of their women, p. 501;
    nominal authority of their chiefs, p. 506.

  Bogos, circumcision among the, p. 202;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 306.

  Bohemians, alleged community of women among the, p. 52;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 397 n. 6;
    marriage portion among the, p. 413.

  Bokhara, polygyny in, p. 449.

  Bonaks (California), their tribal organization due to the
    introduction of the horse, p. 49;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 383;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417;
    divorce among the, p. 527.

  Bondo, Negroes of, authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40;
    consanguineous marriage among the, p. 296 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 418;
    divorce among the, pp. 520, 532 n. 3. 

  Bongos, marry early, p. 138.

  Bornabi Islanders, their ideal of beauty, p. 264.

  Borneo, tribes of, pregnancy must be followed by marriage among
    many, p. 23;
    alleged absence of marriage among some, pp. 54 _sq._;
    want of modesty among certain, p. 188;
    monogamy among, p. 507.
    See Barito district, Dyaks, Kyans, Olo Ot, Rejang tribe, Sarawak.

  Bornu, wives deprived of all ornaments in, p. 176 n.;
    weddings in, p. 418 n. 10.

  _Bos americanus_, its substitute for paternal protection, p. 21.

  Botany Bay, natives of, scar the body, p. 179;
    dress of the girls among the, p. 196.

  Botis. See Butias.

  Botocudos, husband’s duties among the, p. 16;
    the family among the, p. 46;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    their custom of enlarging the ear-lobes, p. 166;
    covering used by the, p. 189;
    indecent dances among the, p. 198 n. 1;
    early betrothals among the, p. 213;
    endogamy of the, p. 347;
    infertility of their women, _ib._;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    divorce among the, pp. 518, 530, n. 5. 

  Boudin, Dr., on the effects of consanguineous marriage, pp. 340 _sq._

  Brazilian aborigines, isolation of certain, p. 46;
    lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    _jus primae noctis_ among certain, pp. 76, 80;
    kinship through males among the, p. 99;
    marry early, p. 137;
    continence required from newly married people among the, p. 151;
    incest among the, pp. 292, 333;
    endogamous communities among the, pp. 346, 347, 366;
    deterioration of certain, pp. 346 _sq._;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 370;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 383;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 1;
    marriage ceremony among some, p. 419;
    polygyny among the, pp. 444, 494, 495 n. 2;
    proportion between the sexes among the, p. 461;
    monogamy among the lowest tribes of the, p. 507;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 nn. 2 _sq._;
    divorce, exceptional among certain, p. 521 n. 9. 
    See Amazons.

  Brehm, Dr. A. E. , on the marriage of birds, p. 11.

  Breslau,
    on the causes which determine the sex of the offspring, p. 469.

  British Columbia,
    excess of females among half-breed children in, p. 477.

  British Columbians and Vancouver Islanders, state of morality among
    the, pp. 66 _sq._;
    lending wives among certain, pp. 74 _sq._;
    remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period among
    the, pp. 128 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392.
    See Ahts, Bellabollahs, Haidahs, Nutkas.

  Britons, tattooing among the, p. 169;
    polyandry among the, pp. 454, 458.

  Broca, Dr. P., on the intermixture of races, p. 283;
    on the infertility of the connections of Europeans with Australian
    women, pp. 284-287.

  ‘Bruin Menschen,’ excess of female births among the, p. 479.

  Bubis (Fernando Po), nakedness of the women among the, p. 189.

  Buddhists, their views regarding marriage and celibacy, p. 153;
    celibacy of monks among the, _ib._;
    short hair a symbol of chastity among the, p. 175 n. 6;
    marriage of brother and sister according to legends of the, p. 293;
    religious marriage ceremony among, p. 425.

  Budduma, marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9. 

  Bugis of Celebes, prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 371 n. 4;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  —— of Perak, endogamy of the, p. 364.

  Bulgarian, terms for father’s father’s brother and father’s
    father’s sister in, p. 96.

  Bunjogees (Chittagongs Hills), hair-dress of the young men among
    the, p. 175.

  Burdach, C. F. , on the senses of male animals, pp. 249 _sq._

  Buriats, marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3. 

  Burmese, husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    celibacy unknown among the, p. 136;
    marry early, p. 138;
    tattooing by instalments among the, p. 178 n. 5;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 219;
    incest among the, p. 293;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11;
    polygyny among the, p. 444;
    divorce among the, pp. 521 n. 9, 528, 531 n. 4. 

  Burton, Sir R. F. ,
    on polygyny as causing an excess of female births, p. 470 n. 3. 

  Buru,
    exogamy in, p. 302;
    divorce in, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Buschmann, J. C.  E.,
    on names for father and mother, pp. 85 _sq._

  Bushmans, devoid of tribal organization, p. 45;
    from want of sufficient food, p. 47;
    the family among the, pp. 45-47;
    alleged to be without marriage, pp. 52 _sq._;
    marriage among the, pp. 57 _sq._;
    state of morality among the, p. 69;
    kinship through males among the, p. 103;
    wrestling for women among the, p. 161;
    making love among the, p. 163 n. 3;
    their want of modesty, p. 189;
    female dress among the, pp. 191 _sq._;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    women’s liberty of choice
    among the, p. 221;
    women as tall as men among the, p. 260 n. 1;
    marriage between cousins among the, pp. 296, 327;
    households of the, p. 327;
    love among the, p. 358;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 384;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 6;
    their women become sterile early, p. 487;
    divorce among the, p. 531 n.

  Bussahir, polyandry in, p. 456.

  Butias, looseness of the marriage tie among the, p. 60;
    chastity unknown among the, _ib._;
    children belong to the father’s clan among the, p. 102;
    polyandry among the, p. 452.
    See Ladakh.

  Butterflies, sexual colours of, p. 244;
    variation of colours among, pp. 270 _sq._


  C

  Cagatai, term for elder sister in, p. 92.

  Cahyapos (Matto Grosso), alleged community of women among the, p. 55.

  Caindu (Eastern Tibet), lending wives in, p. 75.

  Cairo, divorce in, p. 519.

  Caishánas, the family among the, p. 46.

  Calculation, sexual selection influenced by, pp. 376-382, 546.

  Calidonian Indians (Darien), endogamy of the, p. 347;
    degeneration of the, _ib._;
    polygyny permitted only to chiefs among the, p. 437 n. 10.

  California, excess of girls among half-breed children in, pp. 476 _sq._

  Californian Indians, have a definite pairing season, p. 28;
    lending wives among some, p. 74 n. 1;
    chieftainship hereditary in the male line among the, p. 98;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    punishment for adultery among certain, p. 122 n. 3;
    widows killed among certain, p. 125;
    speedy remarriage of widows prohibited among the, p. 129 n. 3;
    prostitution of wives among the, p. 131;
    marry early, p. 137;
    disputes for women among the, p. 160;
    indecent dances among the, p. 198 n. 1;
    infanticide almost unknown among certain, pp. 312 _sq._;
    race-endogamy of certain, p. 363;
    polygyny permitted to chiefs only among certain, p. 437 n. 10;
    excess of men among certain, p. 460;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    polygyny rare among the, p. 507.
    See Achomâwi, Bonaks, Gallinomero, Gualala, Karok, Kinkla, Miwok,
    Modok, Nishinam, Patwin, Pomo, Senel, Shastika, Wintun, Yokuts,
    Yorok.

  Californian Peninsula, aborigines of the, have no equivalent for
    the verb ‘to marry,’ p. 53;
    polygyny among the, p. 55;
    their custom of perforating the ears, p. 174;
    nakedness of certain, p. 187;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.;
    polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 2. 

  Camea, wild, pairing season of the, p. 25 n. 4;
    colour and odour of the, p. 248.

  Canary, instance of a, with no definite breeding season, p. 38.

  Candolle, Prof. A. de, on marriage between persons with different
    and with similar colours of the eye, p. 355.

  _Canis Azarae_, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  _Canis Brasiliensis_, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.

  _Capra pyrenaica_, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Carajos, monogamous, p. 435 n. 11.

  Caribs, _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 76;
    rules of succession among the, p. 99;
    female dress among the, p. 190;
    men more decently clothed than women among the, p. 199;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 207;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 216 n. 9;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 383;
    polygyny among the, pp. 448, 500 n. 2;
    divorce among the, p. 533 n. 4. 

  Caroline Islanders, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    kinship through males among the, p. 100;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 301;
    punishment for infanticide among the, p. 313;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 392 n. 3, 394, 398 _sq._;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 3;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 6;
    myths of the, p. 508 n. 1;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 512 n. 3;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 
    See Pelli, Ponapé Yap.

  Carpentarian Gulf, Australians south-west of the, excess of women
    among the, p. 462.

  Cat, wild, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Catalanganes (Philippines), divorce exceptional among
    the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Catamixis, nakedness of the, p. 187.

  Cathæi, liberty of choice among the, p. 221.

  Catholics, Roman, celibacy of the clergy among, p. 155;
    prohibited degrees among, pp. 308 _sq._;
    ‘spiritual relationship’ among, p. 331;
    religious endogamy among, pp. 375 _sq._;
    fictitious dowry among, p. 407 n. 7;
    dotal right among, p. 412;
    marriage a sacrament among, pp. 427 _sq._;
    divorce prohibited among, p. 526.

  Cayáguas, the family among the, p. 46.

  _Cebus Azarae_, lives in families, p. 12.

  Celebes, ideas of modesty in, p. 207.
    See Bugis, Macassars, Minahassers.

  Celibacy, ch. vii., pp. 70, 541.

  Celts, paternal authority among the, p. 230.

  Central America, the whites decrease in numbers in, p. 269;
    marriage restriction for Spaniards in, p. 365;
    proportion between the sexes at birth in, p. 477.

  ——-, ancient inhabitants of, wives obtained by service among
    the, p. 394.

  ——-, Indians of, marry early, p. 137.

  ——-, Isthmians of, endogamy of the, p. 363;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 370.

  Ceram, possession of human heads requisite for marriage in, p. 18;
    sexual modesty in, p. 152 n. 3;
    exogamy in, p. 302;
    divorce in,p. 523 n. 9. 

  _Cervus campestris_, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.

  Ceylon, kinship through females in, p. 102;
    proportion between the sexes in, pp. 463, 472.
    See Moors, Sinhalese, Veddahs.

  Chaldeans, marriage by purchase among the, p. 395.

  Chamba (probably Cochin China), royal privileges in, p. 79.

  Chamois, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Charruas, husband’s duties among the, p. 15;
    celibacy unknown among the, p. 135;
    painting of girls among the, p. 176 n. 6;
    nakedness of the men among the, p. 187 n. 4;
    aversion to incest among the, pp. 318 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, p. 497;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 522.

  Chastity among lower races, pp. 61-70, 539.
    See Virginity.

  Chavantes, their custom of pulling out the eyebrows, p. 167;
    monogamous, p. 435 n. 11.

  Chawanons, coquetry of women among the, p. 200.
    See Paraguay.

  Chaymas, their custom of blackening the teeth, p. 174;
    nakedness of the, p. 187;
    ashamed to cover themselves, p. 195;
    endogamy of the, pp. 365 _sq._

  Cheek-bones, jutting-out, an accompaniment of large jaws, p. 267.

  Chelonia, live in pairs, p. 10;
    parental care among the, _ib._;
    sexual sounds among the, p. 248.

  Chenier, on the origin of tattooing, p. 172.

  Cheremises, exogamy among the, p. 306;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386 n. 4;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Chervin, N., on polygyny, p. 482.

  Chibchas, rules of succession among the, pp. 98 _sq._;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 8;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among
    the, p. 129 n. 6;
    perforation of the ears by the, p. 174;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 424;
    polygyny among the, pp. 431, 443.

  Chichimecs (Central Mexico), virginity required from the bride
    among the, p. 123.

  Chickasaws, remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period
    among the, p. 128;
    exogamy among the, p. 298.

  Child-bed, women in, pp. 483-485, 548.

  Children, in case of divorce, pp. 532 _sq._
    See Offspring.

  Chili, seasonal increase of births in, pp. 32, 38;
    excess of female births in, p. 478.

  ——, Indians of, polygyny among the, p. 448.
    See Araucanians.

  Chimpanzees, marriage and paternal care among, p. 14;
    live generally in pairs, families, or small groups of
    families, p. 42;
    are more numerous in the season when fruits come to maturity, p. 43.

  China, aboriginal tribes of, a husband lives with his father-in-law
    till the birth of a child, in one of the, p. 22;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 3. 
    See Miao.

  Chinese, tale of the institution of marriage among the, p. 8;
    the surname influencing the law of inheritance among the, p. 112;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    remarriage of widows discouraged among the, p. 127;
    celibacy unknown among the, pp. 139 _sq._;
    marry early, p. 140;
    marriage of the dead among the, _ib._;
    celibacy of priests among the, p. 153;
    their ideas of decency, pp. 200, 207;
    coquetry of women among the, p. 206;
    paternal authority and filial obedience among the, p. 227;
    parental consent necessary for marriage among the, _ib._;
    early betrothals among the, _ib._;
    their ideal of female beauty, p. 263;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    exogamy and prohibited degrees among the, pp. 305, 330;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 309;
    clannish feeling among the, p. 330;
    want of conjugal affection among the, p. 360;
    seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 361;
    endogamy of the, p. 364;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 372;
    their desire for sons, pp. 377, 379, 489;
    no trace of marriage by capture among the, p. 387;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 394 _sq._;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404 _sq._;
    exchange of presents among the, p. 405;
    no marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 3;
    omens among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    ‘lucky days,’ &c., among the, _ib._;
    religious marriage ceremony
    among the, p. 425;
    concubinage among the, pp. 431, 439, 440, 445, 448 n. 2,
    489, 495 n. 2, 498;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439;
    excess of women among the, p. 463;
    obligatory continence
    among the, p. 483 n. 5;
    eschew the use of milk, p. 484;
    women in child-bed among the, p. 485;
    ill-assorted marriages among the, pp. 485 _sq._;
    divorce among the, pp. 524, 525, 528;
    divorced women among the, p. 533.

  Chinooks, their ideal of beauty, p. 257;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 443 n. 5;
    superstitious ceremonies among the, p. 485 n. 2;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Chippewas, virginity required from the bride among the, p. 123;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 214 n. 14;
    liberty of choice among the, pp. 215 _sq._;
    incest among the, p. 291 n.;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 297, 324 _sq._;
    live in small bands, p. 325;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 359 n. 6;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    their desire for numerous offspring, pp. 489 _sq._;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Chippewyans, celibacy rare among the, p. 134;
    marry early, p. 137 n. 7;
    men more ornamented than women among the, p. 182;
    early betrothals among the, p. 213;
    run-away matches among the, p. 216 n. 10;
    incest among the, p. 290;
    their desire for offspring, p. 376;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 
    See Beaver Indians, Copper Indians, Kutchin, Northern Indians,
    Tinneh.

  Chiriguana, no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny permitted only to chiefs among the, p. 437 n. 10.

  Chittagong Hill tribes,
    alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 55;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 59;
    punishment for adultery among some of the, p. 122;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 219;
    love among the, p. 357;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 372;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12;
    most of the, do not buy their wives, p. 398;
    social equality among the, p. 506.
    See Bunjogees, Chukmas, Khyoungtha, Kukis, Mrús, Tipperahs,
    Toungtha.

  Choctaws, exogamy among the, p. 298.

  Choice, liberty of, ch. ix., pp. 541 _sq._

  Christians, religious endogamy of, pp. 374 _sq._

  ——, early, their disapproval of second marriages, p. 128;
    views regarding celibacy among the, pp. 154 _sq._;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 427;
    indissoluble nature of marriage according to the, pp. 525 _sq._

  Chukchi, their terms for father and mother, p. 92;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2. 
    See Tuski.

  Chukmas (Chittagong Hills), celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 136;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 303;
    compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    omens among the, p. 423;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Chulims, virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 385 n. 15;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393.

  Chuvashes, virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423 n. 7;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Cicero, on intermarriages of _ingenui_ and freedmen, p. 372.

  Circassia, horses of, p. 281.

  Circassians, marriage not complete till the birth of a child among
    the, p. 22;
    punishment for unchastity among the, p. 63;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    exogamy among the, p. 306;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3;
    divorce among the, p. 532 n. 3. 

  Circumcision, pp. 201-206.

  Civil marriage, pp. 428 _sq._

  ‘Classifactory system of relationship,’ pp. 82-96, 328, 329, 539, 544.

  Coca, Indians of, nakedness of the, p. 187.

  Cochabamba, excess of women in, p. 461.

  Cochin-Chinese, their admiration for black teeth, p. 182;
    their ideal of beauty, pp. 257 _sq._;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439.
    See Chamba.

  Coco-Maricopas, monogamous, p. 435.

  Coimbatore. See Vellalah caste.

  Colour of the skin, pp. 269-271.

  Colours, of flowers, pp. 242 _sq._;
    sexual, of animals, ch. xi., p. 542.

  Colquhoun, Mr. A. R. , on the origin of tattooing, p. 172.

  Columbians, early betrothals among the, p. 213;
    large households of the, p. 324;
    their views on marriage by purchase, p. 402.
    See British Columbians, Chinooks, Nez Percés, Oregon, Spokane
    Indians, Walla Wallas, Washington.

  ——, Inland, standard of female excellence among the, p. 381;
    divorce among the, pp. 527, 531 n. 4, 533 n. 4. 

  ——, about Puget Sound, prostitution of wives among the, p. 131;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.

  Comanches, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 3;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    marry early, p. 137 n. 7;
    men more ornamented than women among the, p. 182;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 216 n. 5;
    run-away matches among the, p. 216 n. 10;
    calculation in marriage selection among the, p. 382;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417;
    polygyny among the, p. 449 n. 2;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.

  ‘Communal marriage.’ See Promiscuity.

  Concubinage, pp. 443-447.

  Congo, region of the, royal privileges in the, p. 79;
    widows killed in the, p. 125;
    means of attraction in the, p. 174;
    religious marriage ceremony among the Negroes of the, p. 423 n.7;
    excess of females among half-breed children in the, pp. 478 _sq._

  ——, people of the Lower, monogamous as a rule, p. 438.

  ——, people of the Upper, love among the, p. 358.

  ‘Consanguine family,’ p. 85.

  Continence, periodical, required from the husband, pp. 483-485, 548.

  Contrasts, love excited by, pp. 353-355.

  Copper Indians, prohibited degrees among the, p. 295.

  Copts, circumcision among the, pp. 202, 204 n. 2;
    their weddings, p. 418 n. 10;
    day for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Coreans, bachelors disdained among the, p. 140;
    celibacy due to poverty among the, p. 144 n. 3;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 372;
    polygyny among the, p. 431;
    ill-assorted marriages among the, pp. 485 _sq._

  Coroados, not in a social state, p. 46;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    do not buy their wives (?), p. 398;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4. 

  Coropos, do not buy their wives (?), p. 398.

  Cossacks, Saporogian, polyandry among the, p. 453.

  Country districts in Europe, periodical fluctuation in the number
    of births in, p. 38;
    celibacy in, pp. 146, 148;
    excess of male births in, pp. 471, 476.

  Courage and strength, female appreciation of, pp. 255 _sq._

  Courtesans, respect paid to, pp. 80, 81, 539.

  Courtship, ch. viii. _sq._, p. 541.

  ‘Couvade, La,’ pp. 106 _sq._

  Crampe, on some effects of close interbreeding, pp. 336, 345;
    on the proportion between the sexes at birth among horses, p. 480.

  Creeks, a woman who is abandoned may destroy her child, among
    the, p. 24;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, pp. 40 _sq._;
    kinship through females among the, p. 107;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122;
    widows forbidden to speak with any man for a certain period among
    the, p. 128;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 216;
    exogamy among the, p. 298;
    large households of the, p. 324;
    love among the, p. 358 n. 2;
    their desire for offspring, pp. 378 _sq._;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    excess of women among the, p. 460;
    divorce among the, p. 518.

  Crees, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 118;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 8;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    prostitution of wives among the, p. 131;
    celibacy rare among the, p. 134;
    women less desirous of decorating themselves than of decorating
    the men among the, p. 184;
    run-away matches among the, p. 216 n. 10;
    infanticide rare among the, p. 312;
    their desire for offspring, p. 376;
    polygyny among the, pp. 443, 500 n. 2;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3. 

  Crickets, colours of, p. 247.

  Croatians, marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 235;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 421.

  Crocodiles, maternal care among, p. 10;
    sexual odours of, pp. 246, 248 _sq._

  Crows, polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 3. 

  Cunningham, Lieut. J. D. , on polyandry, p. 474.

  Curetús, nakedness of women among the, p. 187 n. 5;
    monogamous, p. 435 n. 11.

  Cyprus, religious prostitution in, p. 72.


  D

  Dacotahs, terms for relationships among the, p. 87;
    chieftainship hereditary in the male line among the, p. 98;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among
    the, p. 129 n. 2, 6;
    celibacy scarcely known among the, pp. 134 _sq._;
    marry early, p. 137 n. 7;
    means of attraction among the, p. 173;
    run-away matches among the, p. 216;
    infanticide rare among the, p. 312;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 360;
    morning gift among the, p. 410;
    mortality of children among the, p. 491 n. 4;
    polygyny among the, p. 497;
    divorce among the, p. 533 n. 1. 
    See Naudowessies.

  Dahl, Dr. L., on the effects of consanguineous marriage, p. 343.

  Dahomans, punishment for seduction among the, p. 62;
    royal privileges among the, pp. 78 _sq._;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 120;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 421;
    polygyny among the, P. 494.

  Damaras, system of kinship among the, p. 103;
    their mutilations of the teeth, pp. 167, 174;
    circumcision among the, p. 203;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393;
    polygyny among the, p. 446;
    polyandry among the, pp. 451, 452, 504 n. 1;
    their women get old early, p. 487;
    divorce among the, p. 526 n. 7. 

  Danes in England, p. 529.

  Darien, ancient, widows killed in, p. 125.

  Darling river, natives of the, conjugal affection among the, p. 359.

  Darwin, Mr. Charles, on the sociability of the progenitors of
    man, p. 42;
    on the progress of mankind, pp. 49 _sq._;
    on promiscuous intercourse, p. 117;
    on the courtship of animals, pp. 157-159, 163;
    on the plain appearance of savage women, p. 183 n. 5;
    on individual inclinations among domesticated quadrupeds, p. 185;
    on female choice, pp. 222, 253, 255, ch. xi.;
    on sexual selection among animals, ch. xi.;
    on the racial standard of beauty, p. 261 n. 2;
    on the connection between love and beauty, pp. 274 _sq._;
    on the origin of the human races, pp. 275, 276, 543;
    on the hairlessness of the human body, p. 276;
    on the crossing of species, pp. 279 _sq._;
    on the infertility of hybrids, pp. 279, 280 n. 1;
    on infertility from changed conditions of life, p. 286;
    on female infanticide among primitive men, p. 313;
    on savage observation of the injurious results of consanguineous
    marriage, p. 318 n. 1;
    on the effects of cross- and self-fertilization of plants,
    pp. 335, 337, 338, 345.

  Darwin, Prof. G. H. , on marriage between first cousins,
    pp. 341, 342, 346.

  Delaunay, M., on personal beauty, p. 261 n. 3. 

  Denmark, age for marriage among men in, p. 146;
    consanguineous marriages in, pp. 342-345;
    isolated communities in, p. 344;
    divorce in, p. 526.

  Deutsch, Platt, term for female cousin and niece in, p. 96.

  Devay, F., on the effects of consanguineous marriage, pp. 340 _sq._

  Dhimáls, rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    marry early, p. 138;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    position of their women, p. 501;
    nominal authority of their chiefs, p. 506.

  Dieyerie (Australia), system of kinship among the, p. 101;
    their custom of knocking out teeth, p. 169 _sq._;
    tradition of the origin of exogamy among the, pp. 350 _sq._

  Dinka, nakedness of the men among the, p. 189.

  Divorce, ch. xxiii., pp. 107, 108, 549.

  Djidda, sexual morality at, p. 364.

  Djour tribes, on the White Nile, marry early, p. 138.

  Dogs, male, inclined towards strange females, p. 334 n. 1;
    in-and-in breeding of, p. 336.

  Dongolowees, female appreciation of manly courage among the, p. 256.

  Dophlas, polyandry among the, p. 452;
    polygyny among the, P. 455.

  Dorey, Papuans of, female chastity among the, p. 64;
    nakedness of the girls among the, p. 197 n. 4;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    monogamous, p. 437.

  Dormouse, pairing season of the, pp. 26 _sq._

  Draco, brilliant colours in the genus, p. 245.

  Dragon-flies, sexual colours of, p. 245.

  Dress, ch. ix., p. 541.

  Drummond’s Islanders (Kingsmill Group), their want of
    modesty, p. 188 n. 8. 

  Duallas, divorce among the, p. 530 n. 7. 

  Duauru language of Baladea, term for father in the, p. 86.

  Duboc, Dr. J., on love, p. 356 n. 2. 

  Ducks, want of paternal care among, p. 11.

  Duesing, Dr. C., on the causes which determine the sex of the
    offspring, pp. 470, 471, 476.

  Duke of York Group, nakedness of men in the, p. 188 n. 9. 

  Dutch, term for nephew, grandson, and cousin in, p. 96.

  Dwarfs, abnormal constitution of, p. 266.

  Dyaks (Borneo), possession of human heads requisite for marriage
    among the, p. 18;
    tattooing of young people among the, p. 177;
    tattooing of women among the, p. 179;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 218;
    female appreciation of manly courage among the, p. 255;
    prohibited degrees among certain, p. 295;
    endogamy of the, p. 367;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377 n. 6;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n. 1;
    marriage rites among the, pp. 421 _sq._;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    authority of their women, p. 501;
    divorce among the, pp. 518, 519, 526 n. 7, 531, 533.

  Dyaks on the Batang Lupar, unrestrained sexual intercourse, but no
    promiscuity among the, p. 71.

  ——, Land, seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 63;
    celibacy unknown among the, p. 136;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    monogamous, p. 437;
    nominal authority of their chiefs, p. 506.

  —— of Lundu, endogamy of the, p. 348;
    infertility of their women, _ib._

  ——, Sea, prohibited degrees among the, pp. 301 _sq._;
    conjugal love among the, p. 358;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 371 n. 4;
    monogamous, p. 437 n. 1;
    jealousy of the, p. 498;
    divorce among the, p. 531 n. See Sibuyaus.

  —— of Sidin, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1. 


  E

  East, unmarried women very rare in the, p. 140;
    wives profitable to their husbands in the, p. 147;
    desire for offspring in the, p. 489;
    polygyny in the, pp. 489, 496, 498, 519;
    divorce in the, p. 519.

  Easter Islanders, their custom of enlarging the ear-lobes, p. 166;
    tattooing among the, pp. 169, 181;
    excess of men among the, p. 462.

  Edeeyahs (Fernando Po), first wife obtained by service among the,
    p. 446.

  Efatese (New Hebrides), their term for father, &c., p. 87;
    kinship through females among the, p. 108;
    denomination of children among the, _ib._ n. 4;
    consider sexual intercourse unclean, p. 151;
    exogamy among the, pp. 301, 325;
    their clans, p. 325;
    their nomenclature, _ib._

  Egbas, their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1. 

  Egmont Island. See Santa Cruz.

  Egypt. See Arabs of Upper Egypt.

  Egyptians, ancient, tale of the institution of marriage among
    the, p. 8;
    believed that a child descended chiefly from the father, p. 106;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 4;
    paternal authority and filial duties among the, p. 229;
    incest among the, pp. 294, 339;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425;
    polygyny among the, pp. 432, 442, 447;
    monogamy of their priests, p. 432;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  ——, modern, celibacy disreputable among the, p. 140;
    tattooing of women among the, p. 181 n. 4;
    ideas of modesty among the, p. 207;
   their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    use of children among the, p. 380;
    lucky day for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    unlucky period for marriage among the, _ib._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 449, _ib._ n. 5, 488, 489, 498 _sq._;
    their women get old early, p. 487;
    fickleness of their passions, p. 488;
    their desire for offspring, p. 489;
    divorce among the, pp. 519 _sq._

  Eimeo (Society Islands), tattooing in, pp. 177 n. 12, 178 n. 5. 

  Elephants, substitute for paternal protection among, p. 21;
    have no definite pairing season, p. 27.

  Elk, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Ellice Islands. See Hudson’s Islanders, Humphrey’s Islanders,
    Mitchell’s Group, Vaitupu.

  Elopement, marriage by, p. 223.

  Encounter Bay tribe (Australia), paternal duties among the, p. 16;
    scattered in search of food, p. 48;
    means of attraction among the, p. 173;
    mongrels among the, p. 287.

  Endogamy, pp. 332, 343, 344, 346-350, 363-368, 373, 374, 546;
    class- and caste-, pp. 370-373, 546.

  Engels, F., on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 50 n. 1. 

  England, spring-customs in, p. 30;
    age for marriage in, p. 146;
    average age of bachelors and spinsters who marry, in, _ib._;
    women’s liberty of choice in, during early Middle Ages, p. 236;
    parental restraints upon marriage in, p. 239;
    deaf-mutes in, p. 341;
    marriages between first cousins in, pp. 341, 342, 346, 481 n. 3;
    aristocracy of, p. 368;
    class-endogamy in, p. 373;
    traces of marriage by purchase in, pp. 396 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase in, p. 404;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    divorce in, p. 529.

  English, term for granddaughter in Shakespeare’s time in, p. 96.

  Ermland (Prussia), marriage ceremony in, p. 419.

  Eskimo, lending wives among the, pp. 74 n. 1, 75;
    their system of nomenclature, p. 84;
    their terms for relationships, p. 93;
    celibates disdained among the, p. 136 n. 10;
    nose-ornament among the, pp. 173 _sq._;
    tattooing of girls among the, p. 177;
    their clothing, pp. 186 _sq._;
    want of modesty among the, p. 210;
    early betrothals among the, p. 213;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 309;
    love among the, p. 360;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    marriage with old women among the, p. 381;
    morning gift among the, p. 410;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 443 n. 5, 450, 482;
    polyandry among certain, pp. 451, 472 n. 3;
    excess of women among certain, pp. 460, 465, 482;
    mortality among the, p. 465;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3;
    a passionless race, p. 515;
    a rather advanced race, p. 516.
    See Greenlanders, Togiagamutes.

  ——, Eastern, women adopting masculine manners among the, p. 134 n. 2. 

  —— of Etah, their want of modesty, p. 210.

  —— at Igloolik, speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited
    among the, p. 129 nn. 3, 6;
    marriage between cousins among the, p. 296;
    affection among the, p. 359;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6. 

  Eskimo, Kinipetu, _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 76.

  —— of Newfoundland, affection among the, p. 357.

  —— of Norton Sound, affection among the, p. 357.

  —— at Prince Regent’s Bay, polygyny among the, pp. 488 _sq._

  ——, Western, infanticide unknown among the, p. 312;
    excess of men among the, pp. 460, 473;
    divorce among the, p. 530 n. 7. 

  Essenes, celibacy of the, p. 154;
    desire for offspring among an order of the, p. 379.

  Esthonians, spring-customs among the, p. 30;
    their term for grandfather, p. 92;
    marriage by capture among the, p.386;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 419;
    period for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Eucla tribe (Australia), scar the body, p. 179;
    monogamous, P. 437.

  Eurasians, p. 283.

  Europe, spring customs in certain countries of, p. 30;
    illegitimate births in towns and in country districts in, p. 69;
    prostitution in, pp. 69 _sq._;
    illegitimate births in, p. 70;
    celibacy in, pp. 70, 145-149, 541;
    numerical proportion between the sexes in, pp. 146, 147, 464;
    vanity of women in, p. 185;
    ear-ring worn in, p. 186;
    differences in the standard of beauty in, p. 258;
    difference in stature between the sexes in, p. 260;
    no pure races in, p. 282;
    marriage between cousins in, p. 296;
    usefulness of children among the uneducated classes of, p. 380;
    morning gift in, p. 407;
    marriage portion in, pp. 412, 413, 416;
    marriage ceremonies in, p. 421;
    polygyny in, p. 434;
    mortality in, p. 465;
    excess of male births in, pp. 469, 481 n. 4;
    monogamy in, p. 502;
    divorce in, pp. 529, 530, 536.
    See Middle Ages.

  Europe, ancient inhabitants of, their decorations, p. 165.

  ——, Eastern, ‘spiritual relationship’ in, p. 331.

  Europeans, almost incapable of forming colonies in the tropics,
    pp. 268 _sq._;
    change of complexion of, in the tropics, pp. 269 _sq._

  Exogamy, ch. xiv. _sq._, pp. 544-546;
    local, pp. 321-323, 544.


  F

  Fallow deer, p. 281.

  Family, ch. i., iii.

  Faroe Islands, sheep of the, p. 281.

  Fashions, pp. 274 _sq._

  Fatherhood, recognition of, pp. 105-107.

  Fathers of the Church, opinions about celibacy held by many of
    the, pp. 154 _sq._

  Fecundity, female, appreciation of, p. 378.

  Felkin, Dr. R. W. , on acclimatization, p. 268;
    on the causes which determine the sex of the offspring, p. 479.

  Ferghana, Mohammedans of, their ideas of decency, p. 209.

  Fernando Po, the adulterer punished as a thief in, p. 130 n. 4. 
    See Bubis, Edeeyahs.

  Fick, on the influence of muscles on the form of the bones, p. 268.

  Fida, Negroes of, royal privileges among the, p. 79;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 120;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    polygyny among the, p. 490;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1. 

  Fighting, for females, pp. 159-163, 541;
    by women, for the possession of men, p. 164.

  Fijians, chastity of the, p. 64;
    rank and property hereditary in the male line among the, p. 99;
    widows killed among the, pp. 125 _sq._;
    their opinions as regards celibacy, p. 137;
    their ideas of delicacy in married life, pp. 151 _sq._;
    combats for women among the, p. 161;
    their appreciation of vermilion, p. 168;
    tattooing among the, pp. 169, 170, 177 n. 12, 184, 201 n. 4;
    means of attraction among the, p. 173;
    position of women among the, p. 184;
    female dress among the, pp. 190, 197;
    their ideas of modesty, pp. 209-211;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 215 n.;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 218 n. 5;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    local exogamy among the, p. 323;
    conjugal love among the, p. 359;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 394, 399 n. 7;
    religious marriage ceremonies among the, p. 422;
    polygyny among the, pp. 435, 441 n. 3, 496 n. 1;
    obligatory continence among the, pp. 483 n. 6, 484;
    female jealousy among the, p. 497;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 512 n. 3. 

  Finland, ceremony of capture in, p. 386;
    ceremony of purchase in, p. 396.

  Finnish, term for father in, pp. 86, 91 _sq._;
    term for grandmother in, p. 92.

  Finnish peoples, marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1. 

  ——, East, marriage by purchase among the, p. 396.

  Finns, ancient, devoid of tribal organization from want of
    sufficient food, p. 47;
    state of morality among the, p. 69;
    appreciation of manly courage among the, p. 255;
    horror of incest among the, pp. 291 _sq._;
    consanguineous marriage avoided among the, p. 306;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 395 _sq._;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, p. 404;
    traces of polygyny among the, p. 434.

  Finschhafen, Papuans of, celibacy rare among the, p. 136 n. 5;
    sexual modesty of the, p. 152 n. 3. 

  Fishes, want of parental care among, pp. 10, 21;
    colours of, p. 245;
    sexual sounds of, p. 247;
    ‘ornaments’ of some male, pp. 250 _sq._;
    hybridism scarcely known among, p. 278.

  Fiske, Mr. J., on the long period of infancy of man, p. 21 n. 5;
    on promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51 n. 2. 

  Fison, Rev. L., on group-marriage among the Australians,
    pp. 54, 56 _sq._;
    on women as food-providers among savages, p. 222;
    on female infanticide among savages, p. 313.

  Flemish, term for female cousin and niece in, p. 96.

  _Florisuga mellivora_, males of, displaying their charms, p. 251 n. 2. 

  Forel, Prof. A., on the sterility of the workers among ants, p. 150.

  Forster, G., on different ideas of modesty, p. 206;
    on female beauty in hot countries, p. 488 n. 2. 

  Fowls, in-and-in breeding of, p. 336.

  Fox, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  France, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in, p. 32;
    illegitimate births in, p. 69;
    _jus primae noctis_ during the Middle Ages in certain parts
    of, p. 77;
    number of people who die single, in, p. 146;
    average age of bachelors and spinsters who marry, in, _ib._;
    women’s liberty of choice in, during early Middle Ages, p. 236;
    parental restraints upon marriage in, pp. 236 n. 8, 238 _sq._;
    slow decline of the paternal authority in, pp. 237 _sq._;
    mixture of race in, p. 282;
    prohibited degrees in, p. 296;
    deaf-mutes in, p. 341;
    consanguineous marriages in, p. 342;
    endogamous communities in, p. 344;
    aristocracy of, p. 368;
    class-endogamy in, p. 373;
    marriage portion in, p. 416;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    divorce in, p. 526.

  Frazer, Mr. J. G. , on the origin of tattooing, &c., pp. 170 _sq._

  Frogs, sexual sounds of, pp. 247, 249;
    colours of, p. 248.

  Fuegians, husband’s duties among the, p. 15;
    marriage not regarded as complete till the birth of a child
    among the, p. 22;
    devoid of tribal organization, p. 44;
    from want of sufficient food, p. 47;
    the family among the, pp. 44, 45, 47;
    alleged promiscuity among the, p. 54;
    no promiscuity among the, p. 58;
    terms of address among the, p. 94;
    consider the maternal tie more important than the paternal, p. 105;
    jealousy of the men among the, pp. 117 _sq._;
    marry early, pp. 137 _sq._;
    their vanity, p. 165;
    their custom of pulling out the eyebrows, p. 167;
    men more desirous of ornaments than women among the, p. 184;
    their clothing, p. 186;
    their want of modesty, p. 187;
    nakedness of the, pp. 193, 197 n. 4;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 216;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    polygyny among the, pp. 315, 442;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 359;
    marriage with old women among the, p. 381;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 384;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    barter formerly unknown among the, p. 400;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 1;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    mortality of children among the, p. 491 n. 4;
    female jealousy among the, p. 497. See Yahgans.

  Fulah, rules of succession among the, p. 102;
    the adulterer punished as a thief among the, p. 130 n. 4;
    their women become sterile early, p. 487.

  Fulfúlde language, terms for uncles in the, p. 91.

  Fustel de Coulanges, Prof. N. D. , on the _patria potestas_ of
    the primitive Aryans, p. 230 n. 5. 


  G

  Gaddanes (Philippines), courtship restricted to a certain season
    among the, p. 28.

  Galactophagi, alleged community of women among the, p. 52;
    terms of address among the, p. 92.

  Galapagos Islands, birds of, have no definite breeding season,
    p. 27 n. 6. 

  Galchas, monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2. 

  Galega, excess of men in, p. 464.

  Galela, local exogamy among the, p. 323;
    monogamous, p. 436 n. 12;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 531.

  Galibi language (Brazil), term for young brother and son in the,
    p. 93.

  Gallas, necessary preliminary to marriage among the, p. 18;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Gallinaceæ, marriage among, p. 11;
    sexual colours of the, p. 245 n. 3;
    hybridism among, p. 278.

  Gallinomero (California), divorce among the, p. 533 n. 4. 

  Galton, Mr. F., on consanguineous marriage, p. 339;
    on marriage selection, p. 355.

  Gambier Islanders, tattooing among the, pp. 177 n. 12, 180;
    their women indifferent to ornaments, p. 184.

  Ganges, valleys of the, religious prostitution in the, p. 72.

  Garamantians of Ethiopia, alleged community of women among the,
    pp. 52, 59, 60.

  Garenganze, divorce among the, p. 528.

  Garhwal Hills, polygyny and excess of women among the people of
    the, p. 473.

  Garos, courtship by women among the, p. 158;
    covering used by the, p. 191;
    exogamy among the, p. 303;
    consanguineous marriages among their chiefs, p. 348;
    degeneration of their chiefs, _ib._;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    divorce among the, p. 522.

  Gauls, women as tall as men among the, p. 260 n. 1. 
    See Sena.

  Gazelles, marriage and paternal care among, p. 12.

  Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I., on the racial standard of beauty,
    p. 261 n. 2;
    on dwarfs and giants, p. 266;
    on the infertility of hybrids, p. 279.

  Georgia, mountaineers of, position of the maternal uncle among
    the, p. 40.

  Georgian, term for father in, p. 86.

  Gerland, Prof. G., on tattooing, p. 171;
    on the racial standard of beauty, p. 261 n. 2. 

  German, terms for parents in, p. 92.

  Germans, ancient, their chastity, p. 69;
    system of kinship among the, p. 104;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    age for marriage among the, p. 143;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, _ib._;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 293, 328;
    households of the, p. 328;
    endogamy of the, p. 365;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    exchange of presents among the, p. 406;
    period for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 429;
    legitimacy of marriage among the, _ib._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 433, 442;
    monogamous, p. 442;
    divorce among the, p. 521.
    See Teutons.

  Germany, spring-customs in, p. 30;
    periodical fluctuation in the number of births in, pp. 31-34;
    liberty of choice in, during the Middle Ages, p. 237;
    parental restraints upon marriage in, p. 239;
    class-endogamy in, pp. 372 _sq._;
    foreigners in, during the Middle Ages, p. 374;
    folk-lore in, on childless marriages, p. 378;
    traces of marriage by purchase in, pp. 396 _sq._;
    morning gift in, p. 407 n. 6;
    marriage portion in, p. 416 n. 3;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    polygyny in, p. 434.

  Ghost moth, sexual colours of the, pp. 244 _sq._

  Giants, abnormal constitution of, p. 266.

  Gilyaks, celibates disdained among the, p. 136 n. 10;
    sons betrothed in infancy among the, p. 224 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 2. 

  ——, Smerenkur, polyandry among the, p. 453.

  Ginoulhiac, Ch., on the morning gift, p. 407 n. 8. 

  Gippsland, aborigines of, plain appearance of women among the, p. 185;
    women food-providers among the, p. 222.

  Giraffe, sexual sounds of the, p. 247.

  Giraud-Teulon, Prof. A., on the place of the maternal uncle in
    the primitive family, p. 39;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, pp. 51, 78, 133;
    on the estimation of courtesans, p. 80;
    on the maternal system among the ancient Aryans, p. 104 n. 2;
    on want of jealousy among savages, p. 117.

  Goa, religious prostitution at, p. 72.

  Goajiro Indians, authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40.

  Goat, he-, has no definite pairing season, p. 38.

  Godron, D. A. , on tribal physiognomy among savages, p. 265;
    on the colour of the skin, p. 269;
    on the fertility of mongrels, p. 284.

  Goehlert, Dr. V., on the causes which determine the sex of the
    offspring, p. 469;
    on the proportion between the sexes at birth among horses, p. 476.

  Gold Coast, Negroes of the, system of kinship among the, p. 102;
    celibacy very rare among the, p. 135;
    their custom of purchasing wives does not cause celibacy among
    the poor, p. 145 n. 3;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    woman’s power of choice among the, p. 220 n. 11;
    love among the, p. 357;
    excess of women among the, p. 464;
    polygyny among the, p. 492.
    See Accra.

  Gonds, rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 4;
    tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177;
    marriage between cousins among the, p. 297;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1;
    marriage ceremonies among the, pp. 420, 422;
    omens among the, pp. 423 n. 10, 424 n. 1;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11;
    polygyny rare among the, p. 493;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3. 

  Gorillas, marriage and paternal care among, pp. 13 _sq._;
    their pairing season, p. 27;
    live generally in pairs or families, p. 42;
    chiefly monogamous, p. 508;
    duration of their marriage, p. 535.

  Gournditch-mara (Australia), the family among the, p. 45;
    kinship through males among the, p. 101;
    marriage of captured women among the, p. 316 n. 2. 

  Gowane (Kordofan), their desire for offspring, p. 379 n. 1. 

  Goyaz, excess of women in, p. 478.

  Grasshoppers, colours of, p. 247.

  Gratz, illegitimate births in, p. 69.

  Great Britain, endogamous communities in, pp. 344 _sq._

  Greece, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in, p. 32;
    mixed marriages in, p. 375;
    marriage by capture in, p. 386;
    excess of male births in, p. 469.

  Greek, terms for grandfather and grandmother in, p. 86;
    term for nephew, grandson, and cousin in, p. 96.

  Greek Church, Orthodox, religious endogamy in the, p. 375.

  Greek colonies, bigamy in some of the, p. 433.

  Greeks, ancient, their belief that a child descended chiefly from
    the father, p. 106;
    their disapproval of the remarriage of widows, p. 128;
    regarded marriage as indispensable, p. 142;
    celibacy of priests among the, p. 153;
    fights and emulation for women among the, p. 162.;
    paternal authority among the, pp. 230, 232 _sq._;
    women betrothed by the father or guardian among the, p. 233;
    restriction of paternal authority among the, p. 236;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    marriage of brother and sister among the, p. 295 n. 5;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 328;
    family feeling among the, _ib._;
    love among the, p. 361;
    seclusion of the sexes among the, _ib._;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 396;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404-406;
    dower among the, pp. 406, 411, 412, 415, 416, 429;
    morning gift among the, p. 406;
    period for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    religious marriage ceremonies among the, pp. 426 _sq._;
    legitimacy of marriage among the, p. 429;
    polygyny and concubinage among the, pp. 433, 447;
    divorce among the, pp. 520, 521, 523.
    See Athenians, Spartans.

  Greenland, mixture of race in, p. 282;
    marriage restriction for Danes in, p. 365.

  Greenlanders, modesty of their women, p. 65;
    illegitimate births among the, _ib._;
    depravation due to European influence among the, p. 66;
    lending wives among the, p. 75;
    privileges of their Angekokks, p. 80;
    property hereditary in the male line among the, p. 98;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among the,
    p. 129 n. 6;
    a widow’s mourning among the, p. 130;
    marry early, p. 137;
    consider incontinence in marriage blamable, p. 151;
    wrestling for women among the, p. 160 n. 2;
    tattooing among the, p. 170;
    their fear of being blamed by others, p. 209;
    their want of modesty, p. 210 n. 3;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 216 n. 9;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 297, 324;
    close living together a bar to intermarriage among the, p. 321;
    their households, p. 324;
    views on consanguineous marriage among the, p. 351;
    affection among the, pp. 357, 359 n. 5;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377 n. 6;
    their views on female attractions, p. 381;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 1;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441, 443, 450, 488, 495 n. 2, 496 n. 3;
    polyandry among the, p. 451 n. 2;
    their desire for offspring, p. 488;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.;
    jealousy of their women, p. 496;
    divorce among the, pp. 518, 521, 526 n. 7, 530 n. 7, 531 n.,
    533 n. 4. 

  Greenlanders, Eastern, marriage not regarded as complete till the
    birth of a child among the, p. 22;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 135;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 309;
    horror of sexual intercourse within prohibited degrees among
    the, p. 317;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 388.

  Griquas, p. 283.

  Group-marriage, pp. 54, 56, 57, 85, 95 n. 1, 516, 549.

  Gruenhagen, Dr. A., on the pairing season of animals, p. 25.

  Guachís, live scattered in families, p. 46.

  Gualala (California), prohibited degrees among the, p. 297.

  Guanas, their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 3;
    marry early, p. 137;
    combats for women among the, p. 160;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 216;
    morning gift among the, p. 410;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    excess of men among the, pp. 461, 466 n. 1;
    female infanticide among the, p. 466 n. 1;
    divorce among the, p. 527.

  Guanches, monogamous, p. 435.
    See Lancerote.

  Guaranies, paternal care among the, p. 17;
    marry early, p. 137;
    their horror of consanguineous marriage, p. 299;
    polygyny permitted only to chiefs among the, p. 437 n. 10;
    excess of women among the, p. 461;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1. 

  Guarayos, painted suitors among the, p. 176;
    tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 214 n. 15.

  Guatemalans, marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 226;
    marriage with a half-sister among the, p. 295;
    endogamy of the, p. 365;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 370;
    divorce among the, p. 528.

  Guatós, live scattered in families, p. 46.

  Guaycurûs, alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 55;
    monogamous, pp. 59, 435 n. 11;
    rank hereditary in the male line among the, p. 99;
    their custom of painting the body, p. 168;
    male dress among the, p. 190.

  Guiana, Indians of, proof of manhood requisite for marriage among
    the, p. 18;
    their custom of pulling out the eyebrows, p. 167;
    women more decorated than men among the, p. 183;
    position of women among the, _ib._;
    their ideal of female beauty, p. 259;
    exogamy among the, pp. 298 _sq._;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 359;
    race-endogamy of the, p. 363;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 444 n. 1, 449, 497;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    mortality of children among the, p. 491 n. 4. 

  Guinea-pigs, in-and-in breeding of, pp. 336 _sq._

  Gumplowicz, L., on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51 n. 2. 

  Gypsies, illegitimate childbirths dishonourable among the, p. 62;
    incest among the, p. 292;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6. 


  H

  Haeckel, Prof. E., on fighting for females, p. 159.

  Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Islands, alleged community of women
    among the, p. 53;
    marriage among the, p. 58;
    prostitution among the, _ib._;
    depravation due to the influence of the whites among the, p. 67;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 118;
    tattooing among the, p. 171;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.

  Hair, dressing the, ch. ix.;
    short, a symbol of chastity, pp. 175 _sq._ n. 6. 

  Hairlessness of the human body, p. 276.

  _Harpale jacchus_, p. 503.

  Hartmann, E. von, on love excited by contrasts, p. 354 n. 3. 

  Hawaiians, their system of nomenclature, p. 83;
    their terms for relationships, pp. 90, 93;
    rules of succession among the, p. 100;
    do not buy their wives, p. 399;
    female infanticide among the, p. 466 n. 1;
    their women get old early, p. 486.
    See Sandwich Islanders.

  Hayti, aborigines of, nakedness of the, pp. 187, 197 n. 4;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 442.

  Hearn, Dr. W. E. , on the _patria potestas_ of the primitive Aryans,
    p. 230 n. 5. 

  Hellwald, F. von, on the place of the maternal uncle in the
    primitive family, p. 39;
    on instinctive aversion to intermarriage, p. 320 n. 2. 

  Hemiptera, colours of the, p. 245.

  Herbert River (Northern Queensland), natives of, few men die
    unmarried among the, p. 136;
    excess of women among the, p. 462.

  Herbert Vale (Northern Queensland), natives near, quarrels for women
    among the, p. 160.

  Hervey Islanders, children belong either to the father’s or mother’s
    clan among the, p. 100;
    infanticide unknown among the, p. 312.

  Hewit, Dr., on the low fecundity of savage women, p. 490.

  Himalayas, proportion between the sexes in the, p. 463.

  Hindus, tale of the institution of marriage among the, p. 8;
    phallic worship among the, p. 72;
    their belief that a child descended chiefly from the father, p. 106;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    their disapproval of the remarriage of widows, p. 127;
    regarded marriage as a religious duty, p. 141;
    celibates generally disdained among the, pp. 141 _sq._;
    religious celibates among the, pp. 153 _sq._;
    ‘Swayamvara’ among the, p. 162;
    coquetry of women among the, p. 200;
    women’s liberty of choice according to tales of the, p. 221;
    paternal authority among the, pp. 231 _sq._;
    women’s liberty ofchoice among the, _ib._;
    their eight forms of marriage, p. 232;
    early betrothals among the, _ib._;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    marriage of brother and sister among the, p. 293;
    exogamy and prohibited degrees among the, pp. 303, 304, 326;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 310;
    large households of the, p. 326;
    ‘spiritual relationship’ among the, p. 331;
    views on consanguineous marriage among the, p. 351;
    want of conjugal affection among the, pp. 360 _sq._;
    origin of caste among the, pp. 368 _sq._;
    intermarriage of castes among the, pp. 371 _sq._;
    their desire for sons, p. 377;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage by purchase among the p. 396;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 403-406;
    return gift among the, p. 405;
    dower among the, pp. 406, 411, _ib._ n. 3;
    marriage ceremonies among the, pp. 419 _sq._;
    wedding-ring among the, p. 421 n. 6;
    periods for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    marriage a sacrament among the, p. 426;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, _ib._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 433, 442, 447, 448 n. 2, 489, 498,
    499, 507 _sq._;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 439, 442;
    polyandry among the, pp. 454, 456 _sq._;
    their desire for offspring, p. 489;
    Levirate (‘Niyoga’) among the, pp. 513 _sq._ n. 8, 514;
    divorce among the, pp. 525, 529. See Allahabad, Ganges, India.

  Hindus of the Madras Province, paternal authority among the, p. 231.

  Hindustan, native peoples of, their disapproval of the remarriage
    of widows, p. 128.

  Hippopotamus, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.

  Hispaniola. See Hayti.

  Hofacker, on the causes which determine the sex of the offspring,
    p. 469.

  Holland, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in,
    pp. 31 _sq._;
    parental restraints upon marriage in, p. 239.
    See Netherlands.

  Homoptera, sexual sounds of certain, pp. 246 _sq._

  Honduras, ancient, succession through males in, p. 98;
    punishment for adultery in, p. 122 n. 3. 

  Horses, p. 334 n. 1;
    proportion of the sexes at birth among, pp. 470, 476, 480.
    See Circassia.

  Hos, licentious festival among the, p. 29;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    celibacy due to poverty among the, pp. 143 _sq._;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, pp. 214 _sq._ n. 15;
    elopements among the, p. 220 n.;
    exogamy among the, p. 303;
    conjugal love among the, p. 358;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12.

  Hottentots, licentious festival among the, p. 30;
    kinship through males among the, p. 103;
    their custom of painting the body, p. 176;
    female dress among the, p. 191;
    indecent dress of the men among the, p. 194;
    curious usage among the, p. 206;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 221;
    their ideal of female beauty, pp. 259, 261;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 308;
    endogamy of the, pp. 347, 348, 366;
    degeneration of the, pp. 347 _sq._;
    marriage with slaves among the, p. 371 n. 8;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 438, 439, 506;
    polyandry among the, p. 451;
    social equality among the, p. 506;
    divorce among the, p. 524.
    See Namaquas.

  Hovas, terms of address among the, pp. 91, 94;
    remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period among the,
    p. 129;
    women’s admiration for long hair among the, p. 175;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 264;
    affection and love among the, p. 357;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 371;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 419;
    validity of marriage among the, p. 430 n. 1;
    polyandry (?) among the, p. 452;
    polygyny among the, p. 499;
    divorce among the, p. 521.

  Howitt, Mr. A. W. , on marriage by capture and marriage by elopement,
    p. 223.

  Hudson’s Islanders (Ellice Islands), early betrothal among the,
    p. 214 n. 8;
    religious rites among the, p. 421.

  Huge tortoise of the Galapagos Islands, sexual sounds of the, p. 247.

  Humboldt, A. von, on sexual selection among savages, p. 256;
    on the racial standard of beauty, p. 261;
    on the red painting of American Indians, p. 264;
    on tribal physiognomy among savages, p. 265.

  Humboldt Bay, Papuans of, decorations among the, p. 198 n. 1. 

  Hume, D., on beauty, p. 257.

  Humming-birds, brilliant colours of, p. 244.

  Humphrey’s Islanders (Ellice Islands), religious marriage ceremony
    among the, p. 423 n. 7. 

  Hungarian, terms for elder brother and uncle in, p. 92.

  Hungary, number of celibates in, p. 145;
    age for marriage among women in, p. 146.

  Husband living with the wife’s family, pp. 109, 110, 540.

  Husband-purchase, pp. 382, 416.

  Huth, Mr. A. H. , on consanguineous marriage, pp. 315 _sq._ n. 3,
    319, 320, 339 _sq._;
    on incest among animals, p. 334;
    on the effects of close interbreeding, p. 336.

  Hybridism, pp. 278-280, 543.

  _Hydromus coypus_, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.


  I

  Iboína (Madagascar), incest in, p. 293.

  Ichneumon, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.

  Idiots, sensuality of, p. 150.

  Igorrotes (Philippines), no ‘engagement’ binding till the woman is
    pregnant, among the, p. 23;
    chastity held in honour by the, p. 63;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among the,
    p. 129 n. 6;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423;
    monogamous, p. 437;
    separation not allowed among the, p. 517 n. 5. 

  —— of Ysarog, marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n.

  Incas, a conquering race, p. 369.
    See Peruvians.

  Incest, ch. xiv. _sq._, pp. 544 _sq._

  India, unrestrained sexual intercourse, but no promiscuity among
    the savage nations of, p. 71;
    estimation of courtesans in, p. 81;
    kinship through females in a few parts of, p. 102;
    systems of kinship among the polyandrous peoples of, p. 112;
    early betrothals in, p. 214;
    great death-rate among Europeans in, pp. 268 _sq._;
    marriage ceremony in various parts of, p. 420;
    omens among several peoples of, p. 423;
    monogamy the rule in, p. 439;
    proportion between the sexes in, pp. 463, 482;
    polygyny in, p. 500.

  ——, Hill Tribes of, stimulating intercourse between the sexes at
    particular seasons among most of the, p. 29;
    kinship through males among most of the, pp. 101, 108.

  Indo-Burmese border tribes, woman’s liberty of choice among the,
    p. 219 n. 5. 

  Indo-China, savage nations of, unrestrained sexual intercourse,
    but no promiscuity among the, p. 71.

  Indo-Europeans, their admiration of long hair in women,
    pp. 261 _sq._;
    marriage ceremony among the, pp. 419 _sq._
    See Aryans.

  Infanticide, female, pp. 311-314, 466, 472, 473, 547.

  Infants, ‘engagement’ of, pp. 213, 214, 541 _sq._

  Ingaliks, prohibited degrees among the, p. 297;
    their desire for offspring, pp. 376 _sq._;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    mortality among certain, p. 465;
    their women not prolific, p. 149 n.

  Insects, want of parental care among, p. 9;
    fighting for females among, p. 159;
    sexual colours of, pp. 241-245, 247;
    stridulous sounds of, pp. 246, 247, 249;
    hybridism scarcely known among, p. 278.

  Interbreeding, close, effects of, among animals, pp. 335-339,
    345, 346, 545.

  Invertebrata, want of parental care among, pp. 9, 21.

  Iowa, Buffalo clan of the, their hair-dress, p. 170.

  Ireland, hurling for women in the interior of, pp. 162 _sq._;
    no parental restraints upon marriage in, p. 239.

  Irish, marriage by purchase among the, pp. 397, 407;
    morning gift among the, p. 407;
    marriage portion among the, 413.

  Iroquois, the husband’s duties among the, p. 15;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 110;
    widows forbidden to remarry among the, p. 127;
    tattooing among the, p. 171;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 214 n. 14;
    marriage arranged by the mother among the, p. 224;
    exogamy among the, pp. 298, 324;
    large households of the, p. 324;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    monogamous, pp. 435, 500, 506;
    authority of their women, p. 500;
    social equality among the, p. 506;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3;
    divorce among the, pp. 522, 533 n. 4. 
    See Tsonontooas.

  ——, Two-Mountain, their system of nomenclature, p. 83.

  Irulas, divorce among the, p. 528.

  Isánna Indians, consanguineous marriage among the, pp. 327, 347;
    households of the, p. 327.

  Italones (Philippines), prohibition of consanguineous marriage
    among the, p. 302;
    monogamous, p. 436 n. 12;
    separation not allowed among the, p. 517 n. 5. 

  Italy, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in, pp. 31 _sq._;
    prohibited degrees in, p. 296;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    judicial separation in, pp. 526, 529.


  J

  Jabaána, polygyny permitted only to chiefs among the, p. 437 n. 10.

  Jacobs, Mr. J., on the infertility of mixed marriages between Jews
    and non-Jewish Europeans, p. 288;
    on the proportion between the sexes at birth among Jews,
    p. 481 n. 4. 

  Jacquinot, H., on racial instincts, p. 281 n. 5. 

  Jakuts, women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    exogamy among the, pp. 305 _sq._;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423;
    polygyny among the, p. 444 n. 11;
    divorce among the, pp. 521 n. 9, 532 n. 2. 

  James’s Bay, Indians at, struggle of women for men among the, p. 164;
    wedding-ring among the, p. 421 n. 6. 

  Japanese, the husband entering the wife’s family among the, p. 110;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 121;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 139;
    paternal authority and filial obedience among the, pp. 227 _sq._;
    marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 228;
    function of the ‘nakōdo’ among the, _ib._;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, pp. 309 _sq._;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 372;
    their desire for offspring, pp. 377, 379 _sq._;
    traces of marriage by purchase among the, p. 395;
    exchange of presents among the, pp. 405 _sq._;
    marriage ceremony among the, pp. 419, 425 n. 3;
    omens among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    concubinage among the, pp. 431, 495 n. 2;
    divorce among the, p. 525.

  Jarai, people of, their want of modesty, p. 188.

  Java, endogamous communities in, p. 344.
    See Lipplapps.

  Javanese, celibacy of women unknown among the, p. 136;
    circumcision of girls among the, p. 206 n. 1;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, pp. 218 _sq._;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 264;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440;
    divorce among the, pp. 534 n. 3, 535 n. 1. 

  Jaws, large, a mark of low civilization, p. 267.

  Jealousy of men, pp. 117-132, 503, 540, 549;
    of women, pp. 495-500.

  Jews, virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 141;
    considered marriage a religious duty, _ib._;
    circumcision among the, pp. 201, 202, 204;
    paternal authority and filial duties among the, pp. 228 _sq._;
    marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 229;
    restriction of paternal authority among the, p. 235;
    liberty of choice among the, _ib._;
    infertility of mixed marriages between non-Jewish Europeans and,
    pp. 287 _sq._;
    consanguineous marriages among the, p. 288;
    marriage with a half-sister among the, p. 295;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 310;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 328;
    households of the, _ib._;
    love among the, p. 361;
    marriage with aliens among the, p. 365;
    religious endogamy among the, pp. 374 _sq._;
    their desire for offspring, pp. 377, 379, 489;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 395;
    ceremony of purchase among the, _ib._;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404, 408;
    marriage portion among the, pp. 408, 413, 415;
    morning gift among the, p. 408;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425;
    polygyny among the, pp. 431, 432, 447, 450, 489, 499;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 442;
    excess of male births among the, pp. 476, 481;
    excess of female births in mixed marriages among the, p. 479;
    marriage between cousins among the, p. 481;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 1;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 n., 513 n. 8, 514;
    divorce among the, pp. 521, 523, 528.
    See Essenes.

  Jews of Western Russia, early betrothals among the, p. 214.

  Joest, W., on the origin of tattooing, p. 181 n. 5. 

  Johnston (H. H.), on the origin of dress, p. 211 n. 6. 

  Jolah (St. Mary), alleged community of women among the, p. 55.

  Jounsar, polyandry in, pp. 453, 456, 458, 472 n. 3;
    excess of men in, p. 473.

  Juanga. See Patuah.

  Juángs, exogamy among the, p. 303.

  Jurís, their tattooing, p. 181 n. 4;
    nakedness of women among the, p. 187 n. 5;
    polygyny among the, p. 444 n. 1. 

  _Jus primae noctis_, pp. 72-80, 539.


  K

  Kabyles, punishment for illegitimate intercourse among the, p. 62;
    want of conjugal affection among the, p. 357;
    race-endogamy of the, p. 364;
    morning gift among the, p. 410 n. 3;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439.

  Kadams, monogamous, p. 436 n. 12.

  Kafirs, necessary preliminary to marriage among certain, p. 18;
    licentious festival among the, p. 30;
    chastity among the, p. 61;
    lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    kinship through males among various tribes of the, p. 103;
    bachelors disdained among the, p. 137;
    celibacy among the, pp. 143 n. 9, 144;
    female dress among the, p. 197 n. 5;
    circumcision among the, pp. 201, 204 n. 2, 206 n. 1;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, pp. 220 _sq._;
    elopements among the, p. 221 n. 1;
    their ideal of female beauty, p. 259;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 306 _sq._;
    their kraals, p. 326;
    their views on consanguineous marriage, pp. 350, 352;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 392 nn. 2 _sq._, 393, 402;
    their views on marriage by purchase, p. 402 n. 3;
    polygyny among the, pp. 438, 447, 448, 450, 495 n. 2, 496;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 438 _sq._;
    births in polygynous families among the, p. 470;
    their women get old early, p. 487;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 
    See Khosas.

  Kafirs, Cis-Natalian, seasonal increase of births among the,
    pp. 30 _sq._;
    licentious feasts among the, p. 31;
    terms of address among the, p. 91;
    their belief that a child descends chiefly from the father, p. 106;
    close living together a bar to intermarriage among the, p. 321;
    excess of women among the, pp. 464, 465 n. 4;
    divorce among the, p. 523.

  —— of Natal, courtship by women among the, p. 159;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513;
    Levirate among the, p. 514;
    juridical fatherhood among the, _ib._;
    divorce among the, p. 526 n. 7. 

  Ka-káu, monogamous, p. 436 n. 12.
    See Singphos.

  Kakhyens, a husband lives with his father-in-law till the birth of
    a child among the, p. 22;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.
    See Singphos.

  Kalmucks, illegitimate childbirths dishonourable among the, p. 62;
    privileges of their priests, p. 79;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220 n. 7;
    marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 224;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    exogamy among the, p. 305;
    marriage portion among the, pp. 410, 415 n. 1;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, pp. 423, 425 n. 3;
    omens among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polygyny among the, p. 444 n. 11.

  Kamaon, polyandry in, p. 458.

  Kamchadales, temporary exchange of wives among the, p. 75 n. 4;
    fights of women for men among the, p. 164;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    consanguineous marriage among the, p. 292;
    local exogamy among the, p. 323;
    bestiality among the, p. 333 n. 4;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n., n. 2;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polygyny among the, pp. 448, 450 n. 6;
    excess of men among the, p. 464;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 1;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Kamchatka, islands outside, struggle for women in the, pp. 161 _sq._

  Kámilarói (Australia), clan-exogamy among the, pp. 53 _sq._;
    terms of address among the, pp. 54, 56;
    alleged group-marriage among the, _ib._;
    system of nomenclature among the, p. 56.

  Kandhs, rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    marry early, p. 138;
    celibacy due to poverty among the, p. 143;
    their hair-dress, p. 167;
    paternal authority among the, p. 225;
    exogamy among the, p. 303;
    prohibition of marriage among the, p. 321;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n.;
    position of their women, p. 501;
    divorce among the, p. 528.

  ——, Boad, elopements among the, p. 220 n.

  Kaneti, polyandry in, p. 456.

  Kaniagmuts, polyandry among the, pp. 116, 450, 457;
    men brought up like women among the, p. 134 n. 2;
    tattooing of women among the, p. 178;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 215;
    incest among the, p. 290;
    unnatural vices among the, p. 333 n. 4;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377 n. 1;
    fertile women respected among the, p. 378 n. 3;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny among the, p. 443;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 1;
    superstitious ceremonies among the, p. 485 n. 2. 

  Kanúri language, terms for mother and elder brother in the, p. 86.

  Karakalpaks, state of morality among the, p. 69.

  Karawalla (Australia), monogamous, p. 437.

  Karens, pregnancy must be followed by marriage among some of the,
    p. 23;
    their system of nomenclature, p. 84;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    divorce among the, pp. 102, 522, 531;
    endogamy of the, pp. 303, 350, 366 n. 8;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 303, 350;
    exogamy among some of the, p. 350;
    effects of close intermarrying among the, _ib._;
    monogamous, pp. 436, 507.

  ——, Red, marry early, p. 138;
    divorce among the, p. 523.

  ——, of the Tenasserim Provinces, incest among the, pp. 291, 333.

  ——, Yoon-tha-lin, sons betrothed by the parents among the,
    p. 224 n. 6. 

  Karmanians, necessary preliminary for marriage among the, p. 18.

  Karok (California), their views regarding sexual intercourse, p. 151;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 392, 402 n. 4, 429 _sq._;
    validity of marriage among the, pp. 402 n. 4, 429 _sq._

  Kashmir, excess of men in, pp. 463, 466 n. 1;
    female infanticide in, p. 466 n. 1. 

  Káttis, marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12.

  Kaupuis, their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 3;
    elopements among the, p. 219 n. 10;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 534 n. 4. 

  Kautsky, C., on the guardianship of children among primitive men,
    p. 41;
    on the importance of the tribe among savages, p. 43 n. 4. 

  Kaviaks, polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 2. 

  Kechua (Brazil), their term for father, p. 86.

  Kenai, views on marrying in-and-in among the, p. 351;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4. 
    See Ingaliks.

  Kerantis, divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 534 n. 4. 

  Keres (New Mexico), licentious festival among the, p. 30.

  Keriahs, alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 55;
    have no word for marriage, p. 59;
    marriage by purchase among the, _ib._

  Khamtis, polygyny among the, pp. 444, 445, 450.

  Khasias, kinship through females among the, pp. 107 _sq._;
    the husband goes to live with the wife’s family among the, p. 109;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 9;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 418;
    polyandry among the, pp. 452, 453, 455;
    do not use milk, p. 484 n. 6;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 533 n. 4. 

  Khevsurs, continence required from newly married people among the,
    p. 151.

  Khosas, excess of women among the, pp. 464 n. 7, 465 n. 4. 
    See Kafirs.

  Khyens. See Kakhyens.

  Khyoungtha (Chittagong Hills), marry early, p. 138;
    continence required from newly married people among the, p. 151;
    tradition of the origin of dress among the, pp. 194 _sq._;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423;
    omens among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    traces of polyandry among the, pp. 458 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, p. 507.

  King George’s Sound, Indians of, slight differences between the
    sexes among the, p. 260 n. 1. 

  Kingsmill Islanders, their system of nomenclature, p. 83;
    rule of succession among the, p. 100;
    fights of women for men among the, p. 164;
    tattooing among the, pp. 170, 177 n. 12;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    elopements among the, p. 218 n. 5;
    do not buy their wives, p. 399;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423;
    divorce among the, p. 518.
    See Arorae, Drummond’s Islanders, Makin Island.

  Kinkla (California), monogamous, P. 435.

  ‘Kinship through females only,’ system of, pp. 96, 97, 539 _sq._

  ‘Kinship through males,’ system of, pp. 98-105, 540.

  Kirantis, wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 7. 

  Kirghiz, their ideal of female beauty, p. 259;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 385 n. 15;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2. 

  Kisáns, marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 224;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 394;
    monogamous, p. 436.

  Knight, Andrew, on marriage between persons of different and of
    similar constitutions, p. 354.

  Knox, Dr. R., on infertility of half-breeds, p. 283.

  Kobroor (Aru Islands), aborigines of, do not buy their wives, p. 398.

  Koch, liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 9;
    endogamy of the, p. 366 n. 8;
    monogamous, p. 436.

  Koenigswarter, L. J. , on the transition from marriage by capture
    to marriage by purchase, p. 401;
    on the morning gift, p. 407 n. 7. 

  Kohler, Prof. J., on the promiscuity of primitive man,
    pp. 51, 73 n. 5;
    on ‘La Couvade,’ p. 107 n. 1;
    on the origin of exogamy, p. 316.

  Kois, authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40.

  Kola (Aru Islands), aborigines of, do not buy their wives, p. 398.

  Kolams, endogamy of the, p. 366.

  Kols, liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 8;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11.

  ——, Munda, repudiated wives supported by their former husbands
    among the, p. 19;
    marry early, p. 138;
    celibacy due to poverty among the, pp. 143 _sq._;
    consider sexual intercourse sinful, p. 151;
    sons betrothed by their parents among the, p. 224 n. 6;
    horror of incest among the, p. 292;
    exogamyamong the, p. 303;
    conjugal love among the, p. 358;
    race-endogamy of the, p. 364;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12;
    polygyny among the, pp. 436, 489;
    position of their women, p. 501;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 532 n. 6. 

  Kolyas, unrestrained sexual intercourse, but no promiscuity among
    the, p. 71;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 nn. 4, 8;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 9. 

  Komarsen, polyandry in, p. 456.

  Komâti (Vaiśya) caste, authority of the maternal uncle among some
    of the, p. 40.

  Koombokkaburra tribe (Australia), dress of the young women among
    the, p. 197.

  Kordofan. See Gowane.

  Koriaks, jealousy of the men among the, pp. 120, 132;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.

  Korkús, their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 4;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    marriage ceremonies among the, p. 420;
    omens among the, p. 424 n. 1; monogamous as a rule,
    pp. 439 n. 11, 493.

  Kotars, licentious festival among the, p. 29;
    local exogamy among the, pp. 323, 480;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11;
    proportion between the sexes among the, pp. 480 _sq._;
    do not use milk, p. 484 n. 6. 

  Kotegarh, polyandry in, pp. 453, 455, 456, 458, 472 n. 3,
    475 _sq._ See Kulus.

  Kovalevsky, Prof. M., on the place of the maternal uncle in the
    primitive family, p. 39.

  Koyúkuns, consider the killing of a deer a necessary preliminary
    to fatherhood, p. 18.

  Kubus (Sumatra), circumcision among the, p. 208;
    their ideas of shame, _ib._;
    race-endogamy among the, p. 364.

  Kukis, privileges of their rajahs, p. 79;
    a widow’s duties among the, p. 126;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, pp. 219 _sq._;
    incest among the, p. 291;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 303;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 7;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423;
    do not use milk, p. 484 n. 6;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    social equality among the, p. 506;
    divorce among the, p. 523.

  ——, Old, remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited for a certain
    period among the, pp. 128, 129 n. 6;
    monogamous, p. 436.

  Kulan, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Kulischer, M., on the promiscuity of primitive man, pp. 51 n. 2, 78;
    on the occurrence of marriage by purchase, p. 390 n. 2. 

  Kulus, polyandry among the, p. 116;
    excess of men among the, p. 466 n. 1;
    female infanticide among the, _ib._;
    want of jealousy among the men of the, p. 515.
    See Kotegarh.

  Kunáma, remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period
    among the, p. 128;
    marriage with slaves among the, p. 371 n. 8;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377 n. 6;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n.;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 n., n. 2, 512 n. 5;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 512 n. 5;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 531 n. 4. 

  Kunawar, polyandry in, pp. 453, 456, 474, 504;
    polygyny in, pp. 455, 456, 474;
    monogamy in, p. 456.

  Kurds, race-prejudice among the, p. 364.

  Kurgs of Mysore, polyandry and group-marriage among the, p. 452.

  Kûri, Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Kúrmis, marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12;
    omens among the, p. 423 n. 10.

  Kurnai, paternal duties among the, p. 16;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 217;
    elopements among the, pp. 217, 399;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 300;
    marriage by capture and by purchase among the, p. 399.

  Kurumbas, alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 55;
    absence of marriage ceremony, not of marriage, among the, p. 59.

  Kutchin, alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 55;
    polygyny among the, pp. 58, 492, 494;
    jealousy of the men among the, pp. 58, 118;
    a widow’s duties among the, p. 126;
    celibacy among the, p. 144, _ib._ n. 3;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 214 n. 14;
    exogamy among the, p. 297;
    affection among the, p. 357;
    excess of men among the, pp. 460, 466 n. 1;
    female infanticide among the, p. 466 n. 1;
    mortality among the, p. 466;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 1;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6. 

  Kyans of Baram (Borneo), monogamous, p. 437 n. 1. 


  L

  Lacertilia, bright tints of the, pp. 248 _sq._

  Ladakh, liberty of choice in, p. 219, n. 9;
    polyandry in, pp. 453, 456, 458, 474 _sq._;
    polygyny in, pp. 456, 488;
    proportion between the sexes in, p. 463;
    people of, an indolent race, p. 515;
    divorce in, p. 524 n. 5. 

  Ladinos, approximating to the aboriginal type, p. 269;
    excess of female births among, p. 477.

  Lado, husband’s duties in, p. 17.

  Lagos, excess of women in, p. 464.

  Lakes Superior, Huron, &c., Indians around, excess of women among
    the, pp. 460 _sq._

  Lakor, divorce in, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Lammayru (Ladakh), polyandry in, pp. 474 _sq._

  Lampong (Sumatra), separation not allowed in, p. 517 n. 5. 

  Lancerote, polyandry in, pp. 116, 451;
    nakedness of the men in, 189;
    people of, rather advanced in civilization, p. 516.

  Lánda, rule of inheritance in, p. 103.

  Lang, Mr. Andrew, on consanguineous marriage, p. 319.

  Langobardi, dower among the, p. 407.

  Laosians, tattooing of men among the, p. 179;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11.

  Laplanders, tale of the institution of marriage among the, p. 9;
    considered want of chastity a merit in the bride, p. 81;
    their term for grandfather, p. 92;
    endogamy of the, p. 365;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    their views on marriage by purchase, p. 408 n. 8;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9. 

  La Plata, caste distinction in, p. 369.

  Larrakía tribe (Australia), polygyny rare among the, p. 440.

  Latin, meaning of ‘nepos’ in, p. 96.

  Latúka, hair-dress of the men among the, p. 167;
    excess of women among the, p. 464.

  Lawrence, Sir W., on tribal physiognomy among savages, p. 265 n. 2;
    on deviations from the racial standard, p. 226;
    on deformed individuals among savages, p. 277.

  Le Bon, Dr. G., on the practice of lending wives, p. 73 n. 5;
    on want of jealousy among savages, p. 117;
    on polygyny, pp. 499, 509.

  Lepchas, children belong to the father’s clan among the, p. 102;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    marriage on credit among the, p. 394 n. 8. 

  Lepidoptera, colours of certain, p. 247.

  Let-htas (Burma), seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 63;
    means of attraction among the, p. 173.

  Letourneau, Prof. Ch., on savage women married without their
    wishes being consulted, p. 221;
    on the ultimate form of marriage, pp. 509 _sq._

  Lettis, prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    monogamous, p. 437 n. 1;
    divorce among the, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Leuckart, Prof. R., on the periodicity in the sexual life of
    animals, p. 25.

  Levirate, pp. 3, 510-514.

  Liburnes, alleged community of women among the, p. 52.

  Lifuans, time for ‘engagements’ among the, p. 30;
    terms for relationships among the, pp. 86, 89;
    children belong to the father’s clan among the, p. 100;
    celibacy caused by polygyny among the, p. 144;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 301;
    polyandry among the, p. 451;
    divorce among the, p. 522.

  Limbus, children belong to the father’s clan among the, p. 102;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 7. 

  Lippert, J., on the place of the maternal uncle in the primitive
    family, p. 39;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51.

  Lipplapps, alleged sterility of, p. 287;
    excess of women among the, p. 478.

  Lithuania, marriage by capture in, p. 387.

  Livonia, marriage by capture in, p. 387.

  Lizards, sexual odours of, p. 246.

  Loango, Negroes of, female chastity among the, pp. 62 _sq._;
    inheritance through females among the, p. 112;
    men more desirous of ornaments than women among the, p. 184;
    nakedness of women among the, p. 189;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 220 n. 11;
    marriage with slaves among the, p. 371 n. 8;
    morning gift among the, p. 410 n. 3;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 421;
    polygyny among the, p. 435;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 438;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Lob-nor, Lake-dwellers of, unchastity punished by the, p. 63;
    marry early, p. 139.

  Locustidæ, colours of the, p. 247.

  London, marriages between first cousins in, p. 346.

  Loucheux Indians. See Kutchin.

  Louisiade Archipelago, want of modesty among the people of the,
    p. 188.

  Love, analysis of, p. 456;
    affectionate, ch. xvi., p. 546;
    depending on sympathy, ch. xvi.;
    influencing the form of marriage, pp. 502, 503, 548;
    influencing the duration of marriage, pp. 533, 534, 536.

  Love-bird, pp. 502 _sq._

  Loyalty Islands. See Lifuans, Maréan language, Uea.

  Lubbock, Sir John, on the progress of mankind, p. 5;
    on the importance of the tribe among savage men, p. 50;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, pp. 51 _sq._;
    evidence for early promiscuity adduced by, pp. 52-61, 72-81;
    on expiation for individual marriage, pp. 72, 73, 76, 78 n. 3;
    on the estimation of courtesans, pp. 80 _sq._;
    on names for father and mother, p. 85 n. 4;
    on the roots ‘pa’ and ‘ma,’ p. 88;
    on marriage by purchase, p. 145;
    on the plain appearance of savage women, p. 183 n. 5;
    on the origin of exogamy, p. 316;
    on savage observation of the injurious results of consanguineous
    marriage, p. 318 n. 1;
    on female beauty in hot countries, p. 488 n. 2. 

  Lubus (Sumatra), alleged absence of marriage among the, pp. 54 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 58.

  Lucas, P., on love excited by contrasts, p. 354, _ib._ n. 5. 

  ‘Lucky days’ for marriage, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Lukungu, female dress in, p. 191.

  Lukunor, tattooing of men in, p. 178;
    ideas of modesty in, p. 211.

  Luther, Martin, on marriage as a civil act, p. 428;
    on polygyny, p. 434.

  Lydians, women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 221.

  Lyø, consanguineous marriages in, p. 344.


  M

  Maabar (Coromandel Coast), ideal of beauty in, p. 264.

  Ma Bung (Timannee country), excess of women in, p. 464.

  Macas (Ecuador), property hereditary in the male line among the,
    p. 99;
    marriage by capture and by purchase among the, p. 383.

  Macassars (Celebes), prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 371 n. 4;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Macatecas, religious ceremonies among the, p. 422.

  Machacaris, covering used by the, pp. 189 _sq._

  McLennan, Mr. J. F. , on early history, p. 2;
    on the Levirate, pp. 3, 510, 512-514;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51;
    on ‘kinship through females only,’ pp. 96, 97, 105;
    on Sir John Lubbock’s theory of expiation for individual marriage,
    pp. 72, 73, 76;
    on the estimation of courtesans, p. 81;
    on the maternal system among the ancient Aryans, p. 104 n. 2;
    on polyandry, pp. 132, 510, 512-514;
    on the origin of exogamy, pp. 311, 314;
    on Sir John Lubbock’s hypothesis as to the origin of individual
    marriage, p. 316;
    on the origin of marriage by capture, p. 388.

  Macusís, their term for father and paternal uncle, p. 87;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among the,
    p. 129 n. 6;
    female dress among the, p. 190;
    early betrothals among the, p. 213 n. 6;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    superstitious ceremonies among the, p. 485 n. 2;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Madagascar, state of morality in, pp. 68 _sq._;
    supplying guests with wives in, p. 74;
    systems of kinship in, p. 103;
    adulterer regarded as a thief in, p. 130 n. 3;
    cicatrices made in the skin by some tribes of, p. 169;
    circumcision in, pp. 202, 203, 204 n. 2;
    female appreciation of manly strength and courage in, p. 255;
    incest in, p. 293;
    prohibited degrees in, p. 308;
    consanguineous marriages in, p. 348;
    infertility of the women in, _ib._;
    desire for offspring in, p. 377;
    marriage portion in, p. 414 n. 4;
    polygyny in, pp. 447, 500;
    excess of women in, p. 465;
    Levirate in, pp. 511 n., 514, _ib._ n.;
    divorce in, p. 526.
    See Bétsiléo, Hovas, Iboína, Sàkalàva, Tanàla.

  Mádi, pregnancy must be followed by marriage among the, p. 23;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220.

  Magians, divorce among the, p. 520.

  Magyars, race-prejudice among the, p. 364.

  Mahaga language (Ysabel), term for father in the, p. 86.

  Mahlemuts, prohibited degrees among the, p. 297;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4. 

  Maine, Sir Henry, on paternity and maternity, p. 105;
    his argument against the hypothesis of promiscuity, p. 115;
    on the _patria potestas_ of the primitive Aryans, p. 230;
    on savage observation of the injurious results of consanguineous
    marriage, p. 318;
    on endogamy in civilized society, p. 373.

  Maize, varieties of, p. 288.

  Makalaka, breaking out teeth among some of the, pp. 167, 174;
    tattooing of young girls among the, p. 178.

  Makin (Kingsmill Islands), celibacy caused by polygyny in, p. 144;
    quarrels for women in, p. 161;
    excess of women in, p. 462.

  Makololo, their ideal of female beauty, p. 259;
    polygyny among the, p. 495.

  Makonde, obligatory continence among the, p. 484.

  Malabar, _jus primae noctis_ in, pp. 77, 80;
    polyandry in, p. 474.
    See Nairs, Teeyer.

  Malay Archipelago, state of, morality in the, p. 63;
    kinship through males in the, p. 100;
    kinship through females only, in the, p. 102;
    jealousy of the men in the, p. 120;
    virginity required from the bride in the, p. 123;
    celibates disdained in the, p. 136 n. 10;
    filing and blackening the teeth in the, pp. 166, 167, 174;
    women’s liberty of choice in the, pp. 218 _sq._;
    incest in the, pp. 290 _sq._;
    prohibited degrees in the, p. 302;
    preference given to strangers in the, p. 323;
    class-endogamy in the, p. 371;
    barren wives despised in the, p. 378 n. 4;
    marriage by capture in the, p. 385;
    return gift in the, p. 409;
    marriage ceremony in the, p. 419;
    unlucky days for marriage in the, p. 424 n. 1;
    polygyny in the, pp. 440, 444;
    Levirate in the, p. 511 n.;
    divorce in the, pp. 518, 522, 523, 527.

  Malayan family, system of, nomenclature among the, pp. 82-84.

  Malays, authority of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40;
    privileges of the rajahs among many, p. 79;
    marry early, p. 139;
    difficulty in supporting a family unknown among the, p. 147;
    circumcision among the, p. 203;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 264;
    mongrels among the, pp. 283, 287;
    large households of the, p. 325;
    polygyny among the, p. 448 n. 2;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 2;
    divorce among the, pp. 530, 532 n. 3, 534 n. 4. 

  Malays, Mohammedan, polygyny among the, p. 535;
    divorce among the, _ib._

  Maldivians, the husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    divorce among the, p. 519.

  Mallicollo (New Hebrides), indecent dress of women in, p. 194.

  Malwa, excess of women in, p. 463.

  Mammals, parental care among, pp. 12, 21;
    pairing seasons of, pp. 25-28;
    courtship among, p. 163;
    sexual odours and sounds of, pp. 241, 246-250;
    colours of, p. 245;
    ‘ornaments’ of certain male, pp. 250 _sq._;
    hybridism among, p. 278;
    absorbing passion for one, among certain domesticated, p. 502;
    duration of the relation between the sexes among, p. 517.

  Man, primitive, pairing season of, pp. 28, 35;
    marriage with, pp. 39, 537;
    fighting for females with, p. 159;
    courtship of, p. 163;
    women’s liberty of choice with, pp. 222, 542;
    sexual selection with, p. 253;
    homogeneous, p. 272;
    infanticide probably unknown with, p. 313;
    consanguineous marriage with, pp. 352 _sq._;
    conjugal affection with, p. 360;
    monogamy of, pp. 508, 549;
    duration of marriage with, p. 535.

  Manáos, painting of girls among the, p. 176 n. 6. 

  Manchus, their ideal of beauty, p. 258.

  Mandans, female virtue among the, pp. 65 _sq._;
    remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period among the,
    p. 129;
    marry early, p. 137;
    large households of the, p. 324;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 500 n. 2;
    their women get old early, p. 486.

  Mandingoes, virginity required from the bride among the, p. 123 n. 8;
    celibacy scarcely known among the, p. 135;
    circumcision of girls among the, p. 206 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 393, 402 n. 1;
    morning giftamong the, p. 410 n. 3;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1. 

  Mangoni country, marriage by purchase in the, p. 393.

  Manipuris, their women get old early, p. 486;
    divorce among the, p. 531.

  Manta (Peru), _jus primae noctis_ in, pp. 72 _sq._

  Mantegazza, Prof. P., on the racial standard of beauty, p. 261 n. 2;
    on love excited by contrasts, p. 354;
    on the compound character of love, p. 356.

  Mantras, monogamous, p. 436 n. 12;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 524 n. 5, 533.

  Maoris, the husband’s duties among the, p. 16;
    privileges of their chiefs, p. 79;
    their system of nomenclature, p. 83;
    rule of succession, &c., among the, pp. 100 _sq._;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    marry early, p. 139;
    struggle for women among the, p. 161;
    tattooing among the, pp. 168, 177 n. 14, 178, _ib._ n. 5, 180 _sq._;
    curious usage among the, p. 205;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 215 n.;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 217;
    women more particular in their choice than men among the, p. 253;
    unions with European women rare among the, p. 254;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 263;
    fashion among the, p. 274;
    consanguineous marriage among the, pp. 296, 327;
    endogamy of the, pp. 327, 348, 367, 481;
    their villages, p. 327;
    decrease of the, p. 348;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385;
    compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    polygyny among the, pp. 440, 441, 444;
    excess of men among the, pp. 462, 481;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 5;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 522.

  Marauás, live in separate families or small hordes, p. 46;
    nakedness of women among the, p. 187 n. 5. 

  Maravi, marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 224 n. 3. 

  Marea, punishment for pregnancy out of wedlock and seduction among
    the, p. 62;
    speedy remarriage of widows prohibited among the, p. 129 n. 2;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 371;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3;
    marriage portion among the, p. 411;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439;
    polygyny among the, p. 450 n.;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    divorce among the, p. 526 n. 7. 

  Maréan language (Loyalty Islands), terms for father in the, p. 86.

  Marianne Group, proof of manhood requisite for marriage in the, p. 18;
    punishment for adultery in the, p. 122 n. 3;
    class-endogamy in the, p. 371;
    polygyny in the, p. 444 n. 4;
    divorce in the, pp. 527, 531, 533, n. 4, 534 n. 4. 

  Máriás, sons betrothed by their parents among the, p. 224 n. 6. 

  Marquesas Islanders, widows forbidden to remarry among the, p. 127;
    celibacy of priests among the, p. 152;
    tattooing by instalments among the, p. 178 n. 5;
    monogamous, p. 437.
    See Nukahivans, Waitahoo.

  Marriage, definition of the word, pp. 19, 20, 537;
    origin of, ch. 1., p. 537;
    antiquity of human, ch. iii., pp. 537 _sq._;
    age for, ch. vii., p. 541;
    notions of impurity attached to, pp. 151-156, 541;
    between kindred, ch. xiv. _sq._, pp. 3, 480-482, 544-546, 548;
    between relatives by alliance, pp. 309, 310, 331;
    by capture, ch. xvii., pp. 223, 546;
    by purchase, ch. xvii., pp. 143-145, 493, 504, 532, 535, 546, 548;
    by exchange, p. 390;
    on credit, p. 394;
    decay of, by purchase, ch. xviii., pp. 546 _sq._;
    validity of, pp. 429 _sq_.

  —— ceremonies and rites, ch. xix.

  —— portion, ch. xviii., pp. 531, 534, 535, 547.

  Martineau, Dr. J., on personal beauty, p. 261 n. 3. 

  Marutse, royal privileges among the, p. 78;
    their admiration for blue beads, p. 168;
    early betrothals among the, pp. 213 _sq._;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220.

  Masai, nakedness of men among the, p. 189;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 2;
    polygyny among the, pp. 438, 450 n.;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Masarwas, nose-ornament among the, pp. 173 _sq._

  Mashukulumbe, nakedness of the, p. 189.

  Massachusetts, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in,
    p. 32.

  Massagetæ, looseness of the marriage tie among the, pp. 52, 55;
    polyandry among the, pp. 454, 457, 458, 472 n. 3, 504 n. 3;
    excess of men among the, p. 464;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 2. 

  Mathew, Rev. J., on instinctive hankering after foreign women,
    p. 321 n.

  Matongas, their custom of breaking out teeth, pp. 167, 174.

  Matriarchal theory, pp. 39-41, 96-113, 538-540.

  Matto Grosso. See Cahyapos.

  Mauhés, live scattered in families, p. 46.

  Maupiti (Society Islands), excess of men in, pp. 462, 466 n. 1;
    female infanticide in, p. 466 n. 1. 

  Mauritius, marriage restriction for Englishmen in, p. 365.

  Mayas, their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 424;
    concubinage among the, p. 443;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Mayer, Dr. J. R. , on acclimatization, pp. 269 _sq._

  Maypurs, polyandry among the, pp. 451, 472 n. 3;
    excess of men among the, p. 461.

  Mbayas, polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Means of attraction, ch. ix., p. 541.

  Mecca, marriage with a half-sister at, p. 295.

  Mech, compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    monogamous, p. 436.

  Medians, polygyny among the, pp. 432 _sq._;
    polyandry among the, p. 454.

  Melanesians, paternal authority among the, p. 41;
    terms of address among the, p. 56 n. 5;
    female chastity among the, p. 64;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    tattooing of women among the, p. 184;
    position of women among the, _ib._;
    circumcision among the, p. 202;
    exogamy among the, p. 301;
    horror of sexual intercourse within the exogamous limits among
    the, p. 317;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 399.

  Merovingian kings, polygyny of the, p. 434.

  Mesopotamia, excess of female births in, p. 467.

  Mewar. See Rajputs.

  Mexicans, ancient, succession through males among the, p. 98;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 123;
    married early, p. 139;
    celibacy among the, pp. 139, 152;
    continence required from newly married people among the, p. 151;
    chastity of religious women among the, pp. 152 _sq._;
    duels for women among the, p. 160;
    short hair a symbol of chastity among the, p. 175 n. 6;
    paternal authority and filial duties among the, pp. 225 _sq._;
    marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 226;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    prohibition of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 298;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 424;
    omens among the, _ib._ n. 1;
    concubinage among the, pp. 431, 443;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 2;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3;
    divorce among the, pp. 524, 528.
    See Tahus, Tlascala.

  Mexico, mongrels in, p. 282;
    proportion between the sexes at birth in, p. 477.
    See Macatecas, Schawill.

  ——, Central, wild tribes of, their women marry early, p. 137.
    See Chichimecs.

  Miao (China), marriage between cousins among the, pp. 296 _sq._

  Micmacs, their system of nomenclature, pp. 83 _sq._

  Micronesians, system of nomenclature among several, p. 83;
    celibacy of the poorer class and slaves among the, p. 144;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 218.

  Middle Ages, _jus primae noctis_ in Europe during the, pp. 77 _sq._;
    class distinction in the, pp. 369 _sq._;
    want of international sympathy in the, p. 374;
    polygyny in the, p. 434.

  Mikris, monogamous, p. 436.

  Milanowes (Borneo). See Rejang.

  Minahassers (Celebes), women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 219;
    incest among the, p. 291 n.;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    endogamy of the, p. 367;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 371 n. 4;
    formerly monogamous, p. 437;
    position of their women, p. 501.

  Minas (Slave Coast), shutting up of widows among the, p. 126.

  Minnetarees, polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 2. 

  Minuanes, polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Mirikina, seems to live in pairs, p. 12.

  Miris, liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 9;
    polyandry among the, pp. 452, 455, 504 n. 1;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1. 

  Mishmis, rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    sons betrothed by their parents among the, p. 224 n. 6;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 392 n. 3, 394;
    marriage on credit among the, p. 394 n. 8;
    return gift among the, p. 409;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513.

  ——, Chalikata, no marriage ceremony among the, p. 418.

  Mitchell, Dr. A., on the effects of close interbreeding and
    consanguineous marriage, pp. 337, 345 _sq._

  Mitchell’s Group (Ellice Islands), infanticide unknown in the, p. 312.

  Miwok (California), nakedness of the, in former days, p. 187;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Mixed marriages, pp. 374-376.

  Moa, divorce in, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Modesty, ch. ix., p. 541.

  Modok (California), polygyny among the, pp. 492, 495.

  Mohammedans, paternal duties among the, p. 17;
    use of veil among women of the, p. 120 n. 9;
    jealousy of the men among the, pp. 120 _sq._;
    consider marriage a duty, p. 140;
    circumcision among the, pp. 201 _sq._;
    paternal authority among the, pp. 235 _sq._;
    liberty of choice among the, _ib._;
    marriage between cousins among the, pp. 296, 534;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 310;
    views on consanguineous marriage among the, p. 351;
    religious endogamy among the, p. 374;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 395;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404, 408;
    marriage portion among the, pp. 408, 413-415, 534 n. 5;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425;
    polygyny among the, pp. 432, 445, 446, 448, 496, 498;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 525, 533, 534 n. 5;
    seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 534.

  Moles, marriage and paternal care among, p. 12.

  Monbuttu, circumcision among the, p. 202;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    excess of female births among the, p. 468.

  Moncalon (Australia), kinship through males among the, p. 101.

  Mongols, marry early, p. 138;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 1;
    omens among the, p. 423;
    concubinage among the, p. 445;
    excess of men among the, pp. 463 _sq._;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  ——, Chalcha, their term for mother, p. 86.

  Monogamous instinct, pp. 502, 503, 548.

  Monogamy, ch. xx.-xxii., pp. 2, 534, 535, 547-549.

  Montesquieu, on the prohibition of marriage between cousins, p. 326;
    on an excess of female births in the hot regions of the Old World,
    p. 469.

  Moors, colour of the skin of the, p. 272.

  —— of Ceylon, marriage between cousins among the, p. 296.

  —— of Morocco, excess of female births among the, p. 468.

  —— of the Sahara, female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce among the, p. 520.

  —— in the region of the Senegal, divorce among the, p. 530.

  —— of the Western Sahara, monogamous, pp. 436, 501, 535;
    authority of their women, pp. 501 _sq._;
    divorce among the, p. 535.
    See Trarsa.

  Moquis, jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    courtship by women among the, p. 158;
    exogamy among the, p. 298;
    monogamous, p. 435.

  Mordvins, ceremony of capture among the, p. 385 n. 15;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Moreton Island, dress of the girls in, p. 196.

  Morgan, Mr. L. H. , on the evolution of marriage and the family, p. 3;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, pp. 51, 85;
    on systems of relationship, pp. 82, 84, 89, 539;
    on ‘marriage in a group,’ pp. 84, 539;
    on the ‘consanguine family’ p. 85;
    on the ‘Punaluan family,’
    _ib._ n. 2;
    on the origin of the prohibition of marriage between kindred,
    p. 318;
    on endogamy and incest among primitive men, p. 353 n. 1;
    on polygyny, p. 506.

  Mormons, polygyny among the, pp. 434, 448 _sq._;
    excess of female births among the, p. 470.

  Morning gift, pp. 406-408, 410, 546 _sq._

  Morocco, lucky period for marriage in, p. 424 n. 1;
    excess of women in, pp. 464, 465 n. 4;
    divorce in, p. 520;
    divorced women in, p. 533.
    See Arabs, Berbs, Moors.

  Mortality, of men, pp. 465, 466, 547;
    of women, pp. 466, 547;
    of children among savages, p. 491.

  Moseley, Prof. H. N. , on savage dress, p. 186.

  Mosquitoes, a widow’s duties among the, pp. 126 _sq._;
    celibacy of priests
    among the, p. 152;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 383;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 443 _sq._;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 5;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Moths, nocturnal, colours of, p. 244.

  Moxes, no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4. 

  Mpongwé, their ideal of female beauty, p. 259;
    aversion to consanguineous marriage among the, p. 306.

  Mrús, (Chittagong Hills), wives obtained by service among the,
    p. 391 n.;
    monogamous, pp. 436, 507;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.;
    divorce among the, p. 532 n. 2. 

  Muásís, consider it a father’s duty to find a bridegroom for his
    daughter, p. 136;
    courtship by women among the, p. 158 n. 6;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 9. 

  Mucúra, Indians at, women ashamed to cover themselves, among the,
    p. 195.

  Mueller, Prof. F. Max, on the derivation of ‘pitár’ and ‘mâtár,’
    p. 88;
    on the system of kinship among the primitive Aryans, p. 104.


  Mulattoes, fertility of, pp. 283, 284, 287;
    excess of female births among, p. 477.

  Mundas. See Kols.

  Mundrucûs, their tattooing, p. 169;
    nakedness of women among the, p. 187 n. 5;
    sons betrothed in infancy among the, p. 224 n. 1;
    exogamy among the, p. 299;
    polygyny among the, pp. 443 _sq._;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Munich, illegitimate births in, p. 69.

  Múuras, combats for women among the, p. 160;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4. 

  Murray, natives of the Lower, female dress among the, p. 190;
    mongrels among the, p. 285.

  _Muscardinus avellanarius._ See Dormouse.

  Muscovy, marriage by capture in, p. 387.

  Musk-deer, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.;
    sexual odour of the, p. 248.

  Musk-duck, Australian, sexual odour of the, pp. 248 _sq._

  Musk-ox, pairing season of the, p.26 n.

  Mussus, religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 423 n. 7. 

  Mutsa (Indo-China), polygyny among the, p. 488.

  _Mycetes caraya_, lives in families, p. 12.

  Mygge, Dr. J., on the effects of consanguineous marriage,
    pp. 342, 343, 345.

  Mykonos (Cyclades), weddings in, p. 418.


  N

  Nagas, the husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 101;
    prohibition of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 303;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 2. 

  ——, Tankhul, ring worn by the men among the, p. 201.

  Nagas, of Upper Assam, possession of human heads requisite for
    marriage among the, p. 18;
    tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177;
    men more decently clothed than women among the, p. 199;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 7;
    monogamous p. 436.

  Nagel, E., on the excess of male births among Jews, p. 481 n. 4. 

  Naiabui (New Guinea), marriage by purchase in, p. 402 n. 1;
    excess of women in, p. 462;
    polygyny in, p. 494.

  Naickers, omens among the, p. 424 n. 1. 
    See Reddies.

  Nairs, the husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    group marriage among the, pp. 53, 57;
    polyandry among the, pp. 116, 117, 452, 453, 455, 474;
    prohibition of marriage among the, p. 325;
    large households of the, _ib._

  Nakedness, ch. ix.

  Namaquas, denomination of children among the, p. 103.
    See Hottentots.

  Names, pp. 107-112, 330, 331, 540, 545.

  Nanusa, prohibition of marriage in, p. 325;
    large households in, _ib._

  Narrinyeri, kinship through males, among the, p. 101;
    dress of young women among the, p. 197;
    the women’s consent to marriage desirable among the, p. 217;
    mongrels among the, p. 287;
    love among the, p. 359;
    marriage ceremony among the, pp. 420 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 444, 498;
    female jealousy among the, p. 498.

  Nasamonians, _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 72.

  Natchez, divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Naudowessies, their ideas of generation, pp. 105 _sq._;
    sexual modesty of the, p. 152 n. 3;
    their custom of painting the face, p. 168;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5;
    polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 2;
    divorce rare among the, p. 521.
    See Dacotahs.

  Navajos, endogamy of the, p. 365;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 392 _sq._;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    divorce among the, p. 527.

  Neapolis (Palestine), Council of punishment for adultery decreed
    by the, p. 122.

  Negro slaves in America, infertility of, p. 115.

  Negroes, alleged community of women among certain, pp. 55, 59;
    lending wives among the, p. 75;
    kinship through females among the, p. 108;
    prostitution of wives among the, p. 131;
    their ideal of beauty, pp. 262, 282;
    change of colour of, p. 270;
    colour of children among, p. 273 n. 2;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    bargain about women among certain, p. 402;
    no marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 5;
    polygyny among the, pp. 446, 448;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 nn. 1 _sq._;
    love among, p. 503;
    marriage upon trial among many, p. 520;
    divorce among the, pp. 523, 524, 534 n. 4.

  ——-, Inland, ceremony of capture among certain, p. 384.

  _Neotragus Hemprichii_, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.

  Nepaul, inhabitants of, their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 4. 

  Nestorians of Syria, p. 364.

  Netherlands, number of people who die single in the, p. 146.
    See Belgium, Holland.

  Neuroptera, colours of certain, p. 247.

  New Britain, the husband’s duties in, p. 16;
    celibacy due to poverty in, p. 144;
    blackening the teeth in, p. 174;
    nakedness of men in, p. 188 n. 9;
    early betrothals in, p. 214 n. 8;
    women’s liberty of choice in, p. 218;
    prohibited degrees in, pp. 295 n. 9;
    exogamy in, p. 301;
    endogamy in, p. 367;
    wives obtained by service in, p. 391 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase in, p. 399 n. 7;
    Levirate in, p. 510 n. 3. 

  New Caledonians, terms for relationships among the, p. 87;
    kinship through males among the, p. 100;
    jealously of the men among the, p. 119;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 121 n. 4;
    covering used by the, p. 191;
    nakedness of girls among the, p. 197 n. 4;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 218;
    love among the, p. 358;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 399 n. 7;
    polyandry among the, p. 451;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 
    See Duauru language.

  New Guinea, female chastity in, p. 64;
    kinship through males in, p. 100;
    punishment for adultery in, pp. 121 _sq._;
    virginity required from the bride in, p. 123;
    continence required from newly married people in, p. 151;
    filing the teeth in, p. 167;
    tattooing in, pp. 172, 179;
    wives deprived of their ornaments in, p. 176 n.;
    nakedness of men in parts of, and on neighbouring islands,
    p. 188, _ib._ n. 9;
    covering of men in, p. 191 n. 4;
    early betrothals in, p. 214;
    infanticide unknown in parts of, p. 312;
    endogamy in, p. 367;
    marriage by capture in, p. 385;
    marriage on credit in, p. 394 n. 8;
    marriage by purchase in, p. 399 n. 7;
    compensation for capture in, p. 401;
    polygyny in, pp. 441 n. 3, 492;
    Levirate in, p. 510 n. 3;
    rule of inheritance in, p. 512 n. 3;
    juridical fatherhood in, p. 514;
    separation not allowed in parts of, p. 517;
    divorce in, pp. 522, 527, 533 n. 1. 
    See Dorey, Finschhafen, Humboldt Bay, Naiabui, Nufoor Papuans,
    Orangerie Bay, Outanatas, Papuans, Port Moresby, Tassai, Wukas.

  New Hanover, men more ornamented than women in, pp. 183 _sq._;
    position of women in, p. 184;
    polygyny exceptional in, p. 441 n. 3;
    authority of women in, p. 501.

  New Hebrides, strangulation of wives whose husbands are long
    absent from home in the, p. 126;
    men more ornamented than women in the, p. 183;
    covering of men in the, p. 191 n. 3;
    horror of incest in the, p. 321;
    marriage by purchase in the, p. 399 n. 7;
    polygyny in the, pp. 438, 494;
    Levirate in the, p. 511 n. 3. 
    See Aneiteum, Efatese, Mallicollo, Tana.

  New Ireland, men more ornamented than women in, p. 183;
    nakedness of women in, p. 193 n. 4;
    polygyny exceptional in, p. 441 n. 3. 

  New Norcia, mongrels at, p. 285.

  New South Wales, aborigines of, seclusion of the sexes among the,
    p. 64;
    _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 75;
    a girl disposed of by her maternal uncle among certain, p. 106;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 130;
    lending wives among the, _ib._;
    marry early, p. 139.

  New Spain, excess of male births in some communities of, p. 466.

  New Zealanders. See Maoris.

  Newhaven, consanguineous marriage avoided in, pp. 344 _sq._

  Nez Percés, chastity of women among the, p. 66;
    validity of marriage among the, p. 430;
    excess of women among the, p. 461.
    See Walla Wallas.

  Niam-Niam, conjugal affection among the, p. 358;
    do not buy their wives, p 398.

  Niasians, punishment for pregnancy out of wedlock and seduction
    among the, p. 63;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 120 n. 2;
    exogamy among the, p. 302;
    separation formerly not allowed among the, p. 517 n. 5. 

  Nicaragua, surnames of children in, p. 107;
    proportion between the sexes at birth in, p. 477.

  Nicaraguans, ancient, _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 76;
    succession through males among the, p. 98;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 123;
    their custom of flattening the children’s heads, p. 170;
    marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 226;
    women’s liberty of choice in some of their towns, _ib._;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, pp. 424 _sq._;
    civil marriage among the, p. 429;
    bigamy punished among the, p. 443;
    monogamous, pp. 500 _sq._;
    authority of their women, _ib._;
    myths of the, p. 508 n. 1;
    divorce among the p. 524.

  Nicobarese, blacken the teeth, p. 174;
    monogamous, p. 436.

  Nile countries, preservation of the chastity of wives in the, p. 120.

  Nishinam (California), horror of incest among the, p. 292;
    myths of the, p. 508 n. 1. 

  Nitendi. See Santa Cruz Island.

  Niutabutabu (Tonga Islands), semi-castration of boys in, p. 205.

  ‘Niyoga’ of the Hindus, p. 514 n.

  Nogai, local exogamy among the, p. 323.

  Noirot, on the causes which determine the sex of the offspring,
    p. 469.

  North America, mixture of race in, p. 282;
    excess of females among half-breed children in, pp. 476 _sq._

  North American Indians, husband’s duties among the, p. 15;
    chastity of women among certain, p. 66;
    temporary exchange of wives among the, p. 75;
    terms of address among the, p. 92;
    kinship through males among the, pp. 98, 104 n. 6;
    the husband goes to live with the wife’s family among several
    tribes of the, p. 109;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 4;
    a widow’s duties among certain, p. 130;
    men brought up like women among the, p. 134 n. 2;
    women’s opinions about celibacy among the, p. 135;
    most of the north-western tribes of the, marry early, p. 137;
    enlargement of the ear-lobes among certain, p. 166;
    lip-ornaments among certain, pp. 166, 173;
    men more ornamented than women among certain, p. 182;
    want of modesty among certain, p. 187;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 215;
    marriage arranged by the parents among certain, p. 224 n. 3;
    female appreciation of manly strength and courage among the, p. 255;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 263;
    large households of the, p. 324;
    love among the, pp. 357, 358, 359, 503;
    barren wives despised among the, p. 378 n. 4;
    no marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 5;
    polygyny among the, pp. 435, 448, 449, 482, 500, 507;
    excess of women among the, pp. 460, 461, 465, 482;
    do not use milk, p. 484 n. 5;
    their desire for numerous offspring, p. 489;
    their women not prolific, pp. 490 _sq._;
    female jealousy among the, pp. 496 _sq._;
    divorce among the, pp. 518, 530, 533 n. 4. 

  Northern Indians, seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 65;
    wrestling for women among the, pp. 159 _sq._;
    hair-dress of men among the, p. 167;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483;
    their women not prolific, p. 490 n. 8;
    jealousy among the, pp. 496 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 2. 
    See Chippewyans.

  Norway, consanguineous marriages in, p. 343;
    traces of marriage by purchase in, p. 396;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    births in, p. 469;
    divorce in, p. 526.

  Norwegians, seldom marry Lapps, p. 365.

  Nott, Dr. J. C. , on the intermixture of races, p. 283.

  Nufi people, their weddings, p. 418.

  Nufoor Papuans (New Guinea), marriage arranged by the parents
    among the, p. 224 n. 2;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3. 

  Nukahivans (Marquesas Islands), _jus primae noctis_ among the, p.73;
    polyandry among the, pp. 116, 451, 457, 472 n. 3;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    prostitution of wives among the, p. 131;
    tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177 n. 12;
    nakedness of men among the, p. 188 n. 9;
    curious usage among the, p. 205 n. 3;
    their ideas of modesty, pp. 208, 211;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    incest among the, p. 291;
    nobility among the, p. 369 n. 4;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377 n. 6;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 399;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    illegitimacy unknown among the, p. 429;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 3;
    excess of men among the, p. 462;
    divorce among the, p. 533 n. 1. 

  Nutkas, nakedness of men among the, p. 187 n. 4;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 215;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    excess of men among the, p. 460;
    divorce among the, p. 531 n. 4. 
    See Ahts.

  Nyassa, tribes near, licentious festival among some, p. 30.

  _Nyctipithecus trivirgatus._ See Mirikina.


  O

  Odours, of flowers, p. 246;
    sexual, of animals, ch. xi., p. 542.

  Offspring, man’s desire for, pp. 376-381, 488-491, 530, 548.

  Olo Ot (Borneo), alleged absence of marriage among the,
    pp. 54, 55, 58;
    marriage among the, p. 58.

  Omahas, hair-dress of the, pp. 170, _sq._

  Oonalashka. See Aleuts.

  Orang-Banûwa (Malacca), prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 420.

  Orangerie Bay (New Guinea), tattooing of women at, p. 183;
    men more ornamented than women at, _ib._;
    painting of men at, _ib._

  Orang-Sakai (Malacca), alleged absence of marriage among the,
    pp. 54 _sq._;
    lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 420.

  Orang-utans, marriage and paternal care among, p. 13;
    their long period of infancy, p. 21 n. 5;
    the cause of their defective family life, p. 22;
    their pairing season, p. 27;
    duration of their marriage, p. 535.

  Oráons, unrestrained sexual intercourse, but no promiscuity among
    the, p. 71;
    desire for self-decoration among the young, p. 173;
    decorations among the, p. 198 n. 1;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 9;
    marriage ostensibly arranged by the parents among the, p. 224 n. 7;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12.

  Oregon, Indians of, speedy remarriage of widowers and widows
    prohibited among the, p. 129 n. 6;
    courtship by women among certain, p. 159;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 297;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392;
    return gift among the, p. 409;
    bigamy among the, p. 450;
    polygyny among the, pp. 450, 500 n. 3. 
    See Nez Percés.

  ——, Indians of the interior of, woman’s liberty of choice among
    the, p. 215 n. 6. 

  ——, Indians, of North-Western, polygyny among the, pp. 443 n. 5, 449;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.;
    love among the, p. 503;
    Levirate among the, pp. 510 n. 3, 511 n. 2. 

  Origen, on celibacy, p. 154.

  Orinoco, Indians on the, ashamed to cover themselves, p. 195;
    circumcision among the, p. 202;
    polygyny among the, p. 496 n. 1. 

  Orkney, period for marriage in, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Ornaments, savage predilection for, ch. ix., p. 541.

  ‘Ornaments,’ animal, ch. xi.

  Orongo-antelope, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Orthoptera, colours of the, p. 245;
    sexual sounds of certain, pp. 246 _sq._

  Ossetes, influence of surnames among the, p. 111;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 296;
    exogamy among the, p. 306;
    clannish feeling among the, pp. 330 _sq._;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polyandry among the, p. 454;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 n., 513 n. 8;
    divorce among the, pp. 521 n. 9, 532 n. 3. 

  Ostriches, paternal care among, p. 11 n. 1. 

  Ostyaks, celibacy due to poverty among the, p. 144 n. 3;
    marriage with a half-sister among the, p. 294;
    exogamy among the, p. 306;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386 n. 4;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 393, 394, 402 n. 1;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polyandry among the, p. 454;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Oude. See Teehurs.

  Oudeypour, Hindus of, festival of Holi among the, p. 33.

  Outanatas (New Guinea), fashions among the, p. 274;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417.

  Ovambo, their ideal of beauty, p. 263;
    their women get old early, p. 487.


  P

  Pacific Islanders, alleged absence of marriage among the, p. 53;
    marriage among the, p. 55;
    lending wives among some, p. 74 n. 1;
    systems of kinship among the, pp. 99-101;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    tattooing among the, pp. 172, 177;
    covering used by the, p. 190;
    female dress among certain, p. 197;
    curious usage among some, p. 205;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 263;
    fashions among the, p. 275;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    infanticide among the, pp. 312 _sq._;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441;
    their women get old early, p. 486.

  Pádams, endogamy of the, p. 366;
    do not buy their wives, p. 397;
    monogamous, pp. 436, 501;
    position of their women, p. 501;
    social equality among the, p. 506.
    See Abors.

  Padang (Sumatra), Malays of, exogamy among the, p. 302.

  Pahárias, property hereditary in the male line among the, p. 101;
    love among the, p. 503;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Painting the body, ch. ix., pp. 264, 541.

  Pairing season, ch. ii., p. 537.

  Paiuches (Northern Colorado), nakedness of the, p. 187.

  Palestine, excess of female births in, pp. 467 _sq._

  Pampas, nakedness of men among the, p. 187 n. 4;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Panama, ancient, widows killed in, p. 125.

  Panches (Bogota), local exogamy among the, p. 321.

  Panjab, excess of men in the, p. 463.

  Papuans, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    speedy remarriage of widows prohibited among certain, p. 129 n. 2;
    nose-ornaments among the, p. 166;
    coquetry of the young people among the, p. 201 n. 5. 

  Paraguay, Indians of, women more passionate than men among the,
    p. 158;
    women allowed to make proposals among the, _ib._;
    nakedness of certain, p. 187;
    endogamy of the, p. 363.

  Paravilhana, polygyny permitted only to chiefs among the,
    p. 437 n. 10.

  Parental care, ch. i., p. 537.

  Parkheyas, marriage ceremony among the, p. 420.

  Passau (Peru), alleged community of women in, pp. 52, 59 n. 7. 

  Passés, combats for women among the, p. 160;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4. 

  Patachos, covering used by the, pp. 189 _sq._

  Patagonians, unchastity of their women due to foreign influence,
    p. 67;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 3;
    remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period among the,
    p. 129;
    celibacy of wizards among the, p. 152;
    painting of the, p. 181 n. 4;
    early betrothals among the, p. 213;
    women’s power of choice among the, p. 216 nn. 5, 9;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393;
    barter formerly unknown among the, p. 400;
    return gift among the, p. 409;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    religious ceremony among the, p. 422;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 493;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 522.

  Paternal authority, ch. x., pp. 41, 542.

  Paternal care and duties, ch. i., p. 537.

  Paternal feeling, p. 536.

  Patuah, polygyny among the, pp. 488 _sq._

  Patwin (California), husband’s duties among the, p. 15;
    duels for women among the, p. 160;
    nakedness of men among the, p. 187 n. 4;
    marriage on credit among the, p. 394 n. 8. 

  Payaguas, painting of girls among the, p. 176 n. 6;
    nakedness of men among the, p. 187 n. 4;
    divorce among the, pp. 521 n. 9, 533 n. 4. 

  Peafowl, courtship by females among, p. 158 n. 2. 

  Pegulloburras (Australia), female dress on festive occasions among
    the, p. 198.

  Pelew Islanders, jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    their perforation of the septum of the nose, p. 170;
    blackening the teeth among the, p. 174;
    their ideas of modesty, pp. 188 n. 8, 211;
    exogamy among the, p. 301;
    polygyny among the, pp. 332, 441 n. 3, 444 n. 4;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 398 _sq._;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 2;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce among the, pp. 518, 527 n. 1. 

  Peling, mountaineers of, alleged absence of marriage among the,
    pp. 54 _sq._

  Pelli (Carolines), nakedness of men in, p. 188 n. 9. 

  Pennsylvania, Indians of, consider proof of manhood requisite for
    marriage, p. 18.

  Penrhyn Islanders, their want of modesty, p. 188.

  Perak, Malays of, marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 531 n. 4. 
    See Bugis.

  Périer, J. A.  N., on racial instincts, p. 281 n. 5;
    on the effects of consanguineous marriage, p. 340.

  Périgord, cave dwellers of, p. 400.

  Persians, ancient, regarded marriage as a matter of course, p. 142;
    celibacy of priestesses of the Sun among the, p. 153;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 232;
    early betrothals among the, _ib._;
    incest among the, pp. 291, 293, 294, 339;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377 n. 10;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425;
    polygyny among the, pp. 433, 447, 448 n. 2;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 442;
    divorce among the, p. 520.

  ——, modern royal privileges among the, p. 79;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 121;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    celibacy unknown among the, p. 140;
    their women marry early, _ib._;
    nose-ring worn by women among the, p. 186;
    consanguineous marriages among the, p. 349;
    mortality of children among the, pp. 349 _sq._;
    love among the, p. 361;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425 n. 6;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439;
    polygyny among the, pp. 449 n. 5, 498;
    “Sighe” wives among the, p. 519;
    divorce among the, p. 530 n. 7. 

  Perth, mongrels at, p. 285.

  Peru, endogamous communities in, p. 344.

  ——, Indians of, jealousy of the men among the, p. 119;
    circumcision of girls among the, p. 206 n. 1;
    incest among the, p. 290 n. 3;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 299.

  Peruvians, ancient, widows killed among the, p. 125;
    remarriage of widows discouraged among the, p. 127;
    marriage compulsory among the, p. 139;
    age for marriage among the, _ib._;
    celibacy of virgins dedicated to the Sun among the, p. 152;
    boring the ears among the, p. 204;
    paternal authority among the, p. 226;
    parental consent necessary for marriage among the, _ib._;
    incest among the, p. 294;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 394;
    civil marriage among the, pp. 428 _sq._;
    concubinage among the, pp. 431, 437, 438, 443.
    See Manta, Passau.

  Peschel, Dr. O., on savage observation of the injurious results of
    consanguineous marriage, p. 318;
    on barter among early men, p. 400.

  Philippine Islanders, chastity held in honour by some, p. 63;
    tattooing of the young people among the, p. 177;
    degeneration of the, p. 348;
    race-endogamy of the, p. 364;
    polygyny among the, p. 444 n. 7. 
    See Aëtas, Bagobos, Bisayans, Catalanganes, Goddanes, Igorrotes,
    Italones, Tagalas, Tinguianes.

  Phoenicians. See Tyre.

  Picts, polyandry among the, p. 454.

  Pig, domestic, pairs twice a year, p. 38.

  Pigeons, in-and-in breeding of, p. 336.

  Pimpernel, varieties of the, pp. 288 _sq._

  Pipa, or Toad of Surinam, parental care of the, p. 10.

  Pipiles (San Salvador), prohibited degrees among the, p. 298.

  Pitcairn Islanders, endogamy of the, pp. 343 _sq._;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 344.

  Plants, male and female reproductive cells of, p. 157;
    colours in, pp. 242 _sq._;
    odours in, p. 246;
    hybridism among, pp. 278 _sq._;
    infertility from changed conditions among, p. 286;
    dimorphic and trimorphic, p. 289;
    cross- and self-fertilization among, pp. 335, 337-339, 345, 545;
    excess of male flowers in self-fertilized, p. 476.

  Platter, on the causes which determine the sex of the offspring,
    p. 470.

  Ploss, Dr. H. H. , on the causes which determine the sex of the
    offspring, pp. 471 _sq._

  Poggi Islanders, alleged absence of marriage among the, pp. 54 _sq._

  Poland, proportion between the sexes at birth in, p. 469.

  Poles, marriage arranged by the father among the, p. 234;
    symbol of capture among the, p. 387;
    marriage portion among the, p. 413.

  Polyandry, ch. xx.-xxii., 3, 115-117, 547-549.

  Polygyny, ch. xx.-xxii., pp. 3, 108, 144, 145, 332, 534, 535, 545,
    547-549.

  Polynesians, temporary exchange of wives among the, p. 75;
    system of nomenclature among several, p. 83;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    courtship by women among the, p. 159;
    tattooing of men among the, p. 184;
    position of women among the, _ib._;
    circumcision among the, p. 202;
    ideas of modesty among the, p. 208;
    infertility of women among, at missionary stations, p. 286;
    incest among the, p. 293;
    prohibition of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 300;
    infanticide among the, pp. 313 _sq._;
    nobility among the, p. 369;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 371.

  Pomeranians, marriage by purchase among the, p. 397 n. 6. 

  Pomo (California), civil marriage among the, p. 429.

  Ponapé (Carolines), immodesty of women due to foreign influence
    in, p. 67;
    tattooing in, pp. 179, 201 n. 4;
    semi-castration of boys in, p. 205;
    curious usage in, p. 206;
    love in, p. 357;
    marriage by purchase does not exist in, p. 398;
    polygyny in, p. 444 n. 4;
    divorce in, p. 532.

  Pondicherry, religious prostitution in, p. 72.

  Porcupine, sexual sounds of the, p. 247.

  Port Essington (Australia), natives of, covering used by the, p. 190.

  Port des Français (Alaska), natives of, ideas of modesty among the,
    pp. 207 _sq._

  Port Jackson (New South Wales), natives of, scattered in families
    in search of food, pp. 47 _sq._;
    nakedness of women among the, p. 192;
    dress of girls among the, p. 196.

  Port Lincoln (Australia), natives of, alleged group-marriage among
    the, pp. 54, 56, 57;
    terms of address among the, _ib._;
    the ‘terrible rite’ among the, p. 205.

  Port Moresby (New Guinea), natives of, marry early, p. 139;
    proportion between the sexes among the, pp. 462 _sq._

  Portugal, civil marriage in, p. 428;
    judicial separation in, pp. 526, 529.

  Posen, excess of male births among the Jews of, p. 481 n. 4. 

  Post, Dr. A. H. , on the development of marriage, pp. 2 _sq._;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, pp. 51, 61, 73 n. 5, 78 n. 3. 

  Pouchet, Dr. G., on the intermixture of races, pp. 283 _sq._;
    on the effects of close interbreeding, p. 337.

  Preyer, Prof. W., on the origin of names for father and mother,
    pp. 86 _sq._;
    on some effects of close interbreeding, pp. 336 _sq._

  Prichard, Dr. J. C. , on the intermixture of races, p. 284.

  Primates, marriage of the, pp. 21, 537;
    monogamous instinct among the, p. 535.

  Prolificness of women, less among savage than among civilized
    nations, pp. 490 _sq._

  Promiscuity, tales of, pp. 8 _sq._;
    hypothesis of, ch. iv.-vi., pp. 2, 3, 538-540.

  Prosimii of Madagascar, marriage and paternal care among some
    species of the, p. 12.

  Prostitution, pp. 67-71, 131, 539;
    religious, pp. 72, 539.

  Protestants, religious endogamy of, pp. 375 _sq._;
    sacerdotal nuptials among, p. 428;
    divorce among, p. 526.

  Prussia, marriage between uncle and niece in, p. 296;
    symbol of capture in, p. 387;
    marriage portion in, p. 416;
    excess of male births among the Jews of, p. 481 n. 4;
    divorce in, p. 526.
    See Ermland, Posen.

  Pshaves, position of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40.

  Pueblos, women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 216;
    endogamy of the, pp. 347, 365;
    degeneration of the, p. 347;
    their governors annually elected, p. 506.

  Puncahs, excess of women among the, p. 461.

  Punjas, licentious festival among the, p. 29.

  Puris, do not buy their wives (?), p. 398.

  —— at St. Fidelis, nakedness of the, p. 187.

  Purupurús, nakedness of the, p. 187;
    monogamous, p. 435 n. 11.


  Q

  Quadrumana, marriage and paternal care among the, pp. 12-14.

  Quatrefages, Prof. A. de, on the fertility of mulattoes, p. 284.

  Queen Charlotte Islanders. See Haidahs.

  Queensland, natives of, want of paternal care among the, p. 16;
    old men obtain the youngest wives among the, pp. 132 _sq._;
    sexual modesty of the, p. 152 n. 3;
    combats for women among certain, p. 161;
    combats of women for men among certain, p. 164.

  ——, Mackay blacks of, their term for daughter, p. 93.

  ——, aborigines of Northern, an adulterer regarded as a thief among
    the, p. 130 n. 3;
    female appreciation of manly beauty among the, p. 257;
    divorce among the, p. 518.

  Quetelet, A., on differences in stature, p. 265.

  Quiché, marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9. 

  Quissama (Angola), monogamous, p. 435;
    excess of men among the, p. 464.

  Quito, Indians of, consider want of chastity a merit in the bride,
    p. 81;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 5. 


  R

  Rabbits, in-and-in breeding of, p. 336.

  Race, mixture of, produces an excess of female births, pp. 476-480.

  Races, human, origin of the, pp. 271-276, 543;
    intermixture of, pp. 281, 289, 543.

  Radack, paternal care in, p. 16;
    sexual modesty in, p. 152 n. 3;
    ideas of modesty in, p. 211;
    women’s liberty of choice in, p. 218.

  Rajputs, exogamy among the, p. 303.

  —— of Mewar, season of love among the, p. 33.

  Ranke, Prof. J., on differences in stature, p. 265 n. 5;
    on dwarfs and giants, p. 266 n. 2. 

  Rat, brown, in-and-in breeding of the, pp. 336, 345.

  Rattlesnake, sexual sounds of the, p. 247.

  Reclus, E., on acclimatization, p. 271 n. 4. 

  Reddies, inheritance through males among the, p. 112;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 296, 304, 329;
    terms for relationships among the, p. 329;
    polyandry among the, pp. 453 _sq._;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6. 
    See Naickers.

  Reindeer, marriage and paternal care among, p. 12;
    their pairing season in Norway, p. 26 n.;
    their breeding season, p. 35.

  Rejang tribe of the Milanowes in Borneo, monogamous, p. 437 n. 1. 

  Rejangs (Sumatra), kinship through males among the, p. 100;
    elopements among the, p. 219;
    fashions among the, p. 274 n. 4;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 302, 330;
    divorce among the, pp. 527 n. 1, 534 n. 4. 

  Relationship, terms for, pp. 82-96.

  Religion, a bar to intermarriage, pp. 374-376, 546.

  Religious ceremonies connected with marriage, pp. 421-428.

  Reptiles, want of parental care among most of the, pp. 10, 21;
    their pairing season, p. 25;
    sexual odours and sounds of, pp. 241, 246-250;
    colours of, pp. 245, 248;
    ‘ornaments’ of some male, pp. 250 _sq._

  Return gift, pp. 405, 406, 409, 546.

  Réunion, marriage restriction for Frenchmen in, p. 365.

  Rio, Province of, excess of women in the, p. 478.

  Rio Branco, circumcision among certain tribes in the, p. 202.

  Ripuarii, decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404, 407;
    dower among the, p. 407.

  Riverina (Australia), natives about, seclusion of the sexes among
    the, pp. 64 _sq._;
    _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 75.

  Rocky Mountain Indians, race-endogamy of the, p. 363 n. 5. 

  Rocky Mountains, Indians on the eastern side of the, jealousy of
    the men among the, pp. 118 _sq._;
    celibacy rare among the, p. 134;
    their desire for offspring, p. 376;
    separation seldom permanent among several, pp. 521 _sq._

  Rodents, many, have no definite pairing season, p. 27.

  Romans, ancient, husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    marriage with _manus_ among the, pp. 17, 529;
    their festival in honour of Venus, p. 30;
    their licentiousness in the time of Tacitus, p. 69;
    kinship through males among the, p. 113;
    their disapproval of the remarriage of widows, p. 128;
    regarded marriage as the end of life, p. 142;
    tax imposed on unmarried men among the, _ib._;
    increase of celibates among the, pp. 142 _sq._;
    premium placed on marriage by the Gracchan agrarian laws among
    the, p. 143;
    penalties imposed on celibates by the _Lex Julia et Papia
    Poppæa_, _ib._;
    celibacy of vestals among the, p. 153;
    _patria potestas_ of the, pp. 229 _sq._;
    the house-father’s consent indispensable to marriage among the,
    p. 230;
    decline of the _patria potestas_ of the, p. 236;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 308, 328;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 310;
    incestuous unions among the, p. 320;
    households of the, p. 328;
    endogamy of the, pp. 365, 367 _sq._;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 372;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage by capture among the, pp. 386 _sq._;
    symbol of purchase among the, p. 397;
    _confarreatio_ and _coemptio_ among the, p. 404;
    _dos_ among the, pp. 412, 415, 416, 430;
    unlucky period for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    religious marriage ceremonies among the, pp. 426 _sq._;
    legitimacy of marriage among the, p. 430;
    concubinage among the, P. 433;
    divorce among the, pp. 520, 521, 523, 525, 529.

  Rose chafers, bright hues of, p. 244.

  Rotuma, widows prohibited to remarry in, p. 127.

  Roumania, civil marriage in, p. 428;
    excess of male births in, p. 469.

  Ruk, divorce in, p. 518.

  Russia, licentious festivals in, p. 30;
    _jus primae noctis in_, p. 78;
    privileges of landlords in, pp. 79 _sq._;
    virginity required from the bride among several peoples of, p. 124;
    celibacy unheard of among the peasantry of, p. 143;
    early marriages in, pp. 143, 148;
    age for marriage in, p. 146;
    paternal authority in, p. 234;
    marriage arranged by the father in, _ib._;
    prohibited degrees in, p. 296;
    local exogamy in parts of, p. 323;
    mixed marriages in, p. 375;
    ceremony of capture in, p. 387;
    marriage by purchase in, p. 397 n. 6;
    marriage ceremonies in, pp. 419, 421;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    polygyny in, pp. 434, 447;
    polyandry among the peasantry of, p. 454;
    excess of male births among the Jews of, p. 481 n. 4. 

  Russian, terms of address in, p. 91;
    terms for father’s father’s brother and father’s father’s sister
    in, p. 96.

  Russians, mongrels among the, p. 283;
    marriages with Lapps almost unknown among the, p. 365.


  S

  Sachs, Prof. J., on the male and female reproductive cells of plants,
    p. 157.

  Sadler, M. T. , on the causes which determine the sex of the
    offspring, p. 469.

  Sahara. See Arabs, Moors.

  St. Augustine, on celibacy, p. 154;
    on polygyny, p. 434.

  St. Jerome, on celibacy, p. 155.

  St. Lawrence, Indians of the river, the eldest son named after the
    father among the, p. 98.

  St. Mary, Island of. See Jolah.

  St. Paul, on celibacy, p. 154.

  Saint-Pierre, Bernardin, on love excited by contrasts, pp. 353 _sq._

  Sakais, exogamy among the, p. 303.

  Sàkalàva (Madagascar), female appreciation of manly courage and
    skill among the, pp. 255 _sq._

  Saliras, only harlots clothe themselves among the, p. 195.

  Samaritans, do not practise divorce, p. 523 n. 2. 

  Samoans, husband’s duties among the, p. 16;
    state of morality among the, p. 64;
    _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 77;
    their estimation of female chastity, p. 123;
    combats for women among the, p. 161;
    tattooing among the, pp. 177 n. 12, 179, 201 n. 4;
    decorations among the, p. 198 n. 1;
    indecent dances among the, _ib._;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 207;
    elopements among the, p. 218 n. 5;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 263;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 300 _sq._;
    infanticide unknown among the, p. 312;
    modest behaviour of the, p. 317;
    conjugal love among the, p. 358;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 392 n. 3, 394, 399, 401 n. 13;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    polygyny among the, pp. 444, 448;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    Levirate among the, pp. 510 n. 3, 514;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 512 n. 3;
    juridical fatherhood among the, p. 514;
    divorce among the, pp. 518, 526 n. 7, 533.

  Samogithia, symbol of capture in, p. 387.

  Samoyedes, early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 220;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    exogamy among the, pp. 305 _sq._;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 393, 394, 402 n.;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polygyny among the, pp. 444 _sq._

  San Salvador, ancient, succession through males in, p. 98;
    endogamy in, p. 363.
    See Pipiles.

  Sandwich Islanders, wantonness due to foreign influence among
    the, p. 67;
    jealousy of the men among the, pp. 119, 131;
    their tattooing, p. 169;
    incest among the, p. 293;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 441;
    excess of men among the, pp. 462, 466 n. 1;
    divorce among the, p. 527.
    See Atooi, Hawaiians.

  Sangirese, the husband goes to live with the wife’s family among
    the, p. 109;
    their households, p. 325.

  Santa Cruz Island, fondness for white hair in, p. 168;
    Levirate in, p. 511 n. 3. 

  Santals, marriages once a year among the, p. 29;
    children belong to the father’s clan among the, p. 102;
    bachelors disdained among the, p. 137;
    marry early, p. 138;
    difficulty in supporting a family unknown among the, p. 147 n. 3;
    female ornaments among the, pp. 165 _sq._;
    their admiration for showy colours, p. 168;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 8;
    sons betrothed by their parents among the, p. 224 n. 6;
    exogamous as a rule, p. 303;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 419;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 436, 439 n. 11, 501;
    polygyny among the, p. 444;
    polyandry among the, pp. 452, 453, 455, 459, 474;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    position of their women, p. 501;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 n. 3, 512;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 512;
    divorce among the, p. 523.

  São João d’El Rei, excess of women in, p. 478.

  São Paulo, excess of women in, p. 478.

  Saraë, remarriage of widows prohibited for a certain period in,
    p. 128;
    remarriage of divorced women prohibited for a certain period in,
    p. 129;
    return gift in, p. 409.

  Sarawak, Malays of, monogamous as a rule, p. 440;
    excess of men in, p. 463.

  Sardinia, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in, p. 31;
    marriage ceremony in, p. 419.

  Sauks, large households of the, p. 324.

  Savaras, privilege of the maternal uncle among the, p. 40;
    elopements among the, p. 220 n.;
    conjugal love among the, p. 358;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385 n. 12.

  Saxons, marriage by purchase among the, p. 404.

  —— in England, divorce among the, p. 529.

  Saxony, illegitimate births in, p. 69;
    age for marriage among women in, p. 146;
    number of people who die single in, _ib._;
    proportion of the sexes at birth in, pp. 471 _sq._

  Scandinavia, endogamous communities in, p. 344;
    classes in, pp. 372 _sq._

  Scandinavians, ancient, women’s liberty of choice according to tales
    of the, p. 221;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 293;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 387;
    wives obtained by service among the, pp. 391 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 396, 429;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404, 407;
    dower among the, p. 407;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 419;
    legitimacy of marriage among the, p. 429;
    polygyny among the, pp. 434, 447;
    traces of polyandry among the, pp. 454 _sq._
    See Teutons.

  Schaaffhausen, Prof. H., on peculiarities of the skull, pp. 267 _sq._

  Schawill (Southern Mexico), endogamy in, p. 365.

  Schlegel, on the morning gift, p. 407 n. 7. 

  Schlyter, C. J. , on the morning gift, p. 407 n. 7. 

  Schmidt, Dr. K., on the _jus primae noctis_ in the Middle Ages, P. 77.

  Schopenhauer, A., on love excited by contrasts, p. 354;
    on fair hair and blue eyes, p. 355 n. 1. 

  Scotland, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in,
    pp. 31 _sq._;
    ‘hand-fasting’ in, p. 71;
    no parental restraints upon marriage in, p. 239;
    deaf-mutes in, p. 341;
    isolated communities in, p. 344;
    consanguineous marriages in, pp. 344-346;
    unlucky period and day for marriage in, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Seals, marriage and paternal care among, p. 12.

  Sebright, Sir J., on the intermixture of breeds, p. 289;
    on the effects of close interbreeding, pp. 335-338.

  Self-fertilization of plants, effects of, pp. 335, 337-339, 345, 545.

  Self-mutilation, ch. ix., p. 541.

  Semi-castration, p. 205.

  Semites, their system of nomenclature, p. 82;
    their term for father, p. 87.

  ——, ancient, marriage by purchase among the, p. 395.

  Sena (Gaul), the celibacy of the priestesses of the oracle in, p. 153.

  Senegal. See Moors.

  Senegambia, Negroes of, lucky day for marriage among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.

  Senel (California), large households of the, p. 324.

  Separation, ch. xxiii., p. 549;
    judicial, p. 529.

  Sermatta Islanders, endogamy of the, p. 367;
    divorce among the, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Serpents, maternal care among certain, p. 10.

  Servia, mixed marriages in, p. 375.

  Servians, marriage arranged by the parents among the, p. 235;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 397.


  Serwatty Islands. See Lettis.

  Sex of the offspring, hypotheses as to the causes which determine
    the, pp. 469-482.

  Sexes, numerical proportion of the, ch. xxi., pp. 547 _sq._

  Sexual differences, pp. 260 _sq._

  Sexual selection, among the lower animals, ch. xi., p. 542;
    of man, ch. xii.-xvi., pp. 543-546.

  Sexual uncleanness, notion of, pp. 151-156, 541.

  Shans, women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 219;
    classes among the, p. 369;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11;
    divorce among the, pp. 527, 528, 531 n. 4. 

  Shastika (California), women larger than men among the, p. 260 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392;
    excess of women among the, pp. 460, 465 n. 4. 

  Shawanese, marriage not complete till the birth of a child, among
    the, p. 22;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among the,
    p. 129 nn. 3, 6;
    celibacy rare among the, p. 134;
    their respect for certain celibates, p. 151;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 216 n. 5;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3;
    divorce among the, pp. 521 n. 9, 527 n. 1. 

  Sheep. See Faroe Islands.

  Shilluk, nakedness of men among the, p. 189.

  Shiyann, excess of women among the, p. 461.

  Shorthorns, excess of male births among in-and-in bred, p. 480.

  Shortsightedness of man, pp. 276 _sq._

  Shoshones, devoid of tribal organization from want of sufficient
    food, pp. 48 _sq._;
    early betrothals among the, p. 213 n. 6;
    large households of the, p. 324;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393 n. 2;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9. 

  Shulis, lip-ornaments among the, p. 166;
    female dress among the, p. 197;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220.

  Siamangs, parental care among, p. 13.

  Siamese, marriage portion among the, pp. 23, 414 n. 4;
    marry early, p. 138;
    incest among the, p. 293;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 372;
    omens among the, pp. 423, 424 n. 1;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425 n. 3;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439;
    polygyny among the, p. 444;
    births in polygynous families among the, p. 470;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Siauw, households in, p. 325.

  Siberia, peoples of, the lending of wives among certain, p. 74 n. 1;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377.

  Sibuyaus (Sea Dyaks), irregular connections considered indecent by
    the, p. 63.

  Sierra Leone, Negroes of, circumcision of girls among the,
    p. 206 n. 1;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 484;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Simas, monogamous, p. 435.

  ‘Similarity, the law of,’ ch. xiii., p. 543.

  Simoos, disposal of a girl’s hand among the, p. 214 n. 14.

  Singphos, rule of inheritance among the, p. 102.
    See Ka-káu, Kakhyens.

  Sinhalese, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    systems of kinship among the, pp. 110 n. 2, 112;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 135;
    marry early, p. 138;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 261;
    incest among the, p. 293;
    prohibited degrees among the, p. 304;
    marriage between cousins among the, pp. 327, 328, 481;
    villages and households of the, p. 328;
    class-endogamy among the, p. 372;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 2;
    omens among the, p. 424 n. 1;
    polyandry among the, pp. 452, 455, 472 n. 3, 475, 504;
    excess of men among the, p. 463;
    female infanticide rare among the, p. 467;
    excess of male births among the, pp. 467, 481;
    want of jealousy among the men of the, p. 515;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 531.
    See Ceylon.

  Sirmore, polyandry in, pp. 453, 472 n. 3, 475;
    want of jealousy among the men of, p. 515;
    people of, a rather advanced race, p. 516.

  Sitka Islands, excess of women in the, p. 460.

  Siwalik mountains, polyandry in the, p. 453.

  Skull, peculiarities of the, pp. 267 _sq._

  Slave Indians, wrestling for women among the, p. 160.

  Slavonians (South), immorality due to foreign influence among the,
    p. 68;
    their punishment for adultery, p. 122 n. 4;
    their disapproval of the remarriage of widows, p. 128;
    wrestling of youths among the, p. 162;
    paternal authority among the, pp. 234 _sq._;
    parental consent necessary for marriage among the, p. 235;
    marriage with a half-sister among the Mohammedan, p. 294;
    their house-communities, p. 326;
    prohibited degrees among the, _ib._;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 387;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 397;
    divorce among the, p. 530 nn. 5, 7.

  Slavs, p. 364;
    endogamy of the, p. 365;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 387;
    ceremony of capture among the, _ib._;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 397;
    marriage portion among the, pp. 408, 413.

  Smith, Prof. W. Robertson, on the maternal system among the ancient
    Arabs, p. 102 n. 4;
    on the intermarriage of housemates, p. 332.

  Snakes, sexual odours of, pp. 246, 248.

  Snakes. See Shoshones.

  Sociability of man, pp. 42-50, 538.

  Society Islanders, women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 218.
    See Eimeo, Maupiti, Tahitians.

  Sogno, Negroes of, women’s power of choice among the, p. 220 n. 11;
    women more particular in their choice than men among the,
    pp. 253 _sq._;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1;
    divorce among the, p. 532 nn. 2 _sq._

  Solomon Islanders, their want of modesty, p. 188;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8;
    infanticide rare among the, p. 313;
    their desire for offspring, p. 379 n. 1;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 399 n. 7;
    barter unknown (?) among certain, p. 400;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 3, 492;
    excess of men among some of the, p. 462;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 522.
    See Ulaua, Ysabel.

  Somals, chieftainship hereditary in the male line among the, p. 102;
    virginity required from the bride among the, p. 124;
    differences between the sexes among the, p. 260 n. 1;
    consanguineous marriage among the, pp. 296 n. 1, 306;
    preference given to strangers among the, p. 323;
    morning gift among the, p. 410 n. 3;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 1;
    prolificness of their women, p. 490 n. 6;
    divorce among the, p. 520.

  Soudan, infibulation of girls in the, p. 124;
    celibacy of slaves in the, p. 145.

  ——, Eastern, mixture of race in, p. 283.

  ——, Egyptian, nakedness of the negro men of the, p. 189.

  Sounds, sexual, of animals, ch. xi., p. 542.

  South America, mongrels in, pp. 282 _sq._

  South American Indians, kinship through males among the, p. 99;
    lip-ornaments among certain, p. 166;
    tattooing of girls among certain, p. 177;
    female dress among certain, p. 190;
    conjugal affection among certain, p. 359.


  Spain, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in, p. 32;
    prohibited degrees in, p. 296;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    judicial separation in, pp. 526, 529.

  Spanish, term for brother’s great grandson in, p. 96.

  Sparrows, case of voluntary celibacy among, p. 134 n. 1. 

  Spartans, criminal proceedings against celibates among the, p. 142;
    wives deprived of their hair among the, p. 176 n.;
    endogamy among the, p. 367;
    their desire for offspring, p. 378;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415.

  Spencer, Mr. Herbert, on the gregariousness of animals, p. 43;
    on the promiscuity of primitive man, p. 51;
    on the vanity of savages, p. 165;
    on the origin of tattooing and other mutilations, p. 172;
    on savage ornaments, p. 185;
    on the origin of circumcision, pp. 203 _sq._;
    on ‘facial perfection,’ pp. 258 _sq._;
    on protuberant jaws, &c., p. 267;
    on Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis as to the origin of exogamy, p. 311;
    on the origin of exogamy, pp. 314 _sq._;
    on love, p. 356;
    on the origin of the form of capture, p. 388;
    on the obtainingm of wives by services, p. 391;
    on the transition from marriage by capture to marriage by purchase,
    p. 401;
    on monogamy as the ultimate form of marriage, p. 509.

  ‘Spiritual relationship,’ prohibition of marriage on the ground of,
    p. 331.

  Spiti, custom of primogeniture in, p. 458.

  Squirrels, marriage and paternal care among, p. 12.

  Starcke, Dr. C. N. , on the origin of the maternal system, p. 108;
    on the custom of the husband going to live with the wife’s family,
    p. 109;
    on the rules of succession, pp. 110, 391;
    on the Levirate, p. 514.

  Stieda, W., on the effects of consanguineous marriage, p. 342;
    on the law of Hofacker and Sadler, pp. 469 _sq._

  Strynø, consanguineous marriages in, p. 344.

  Succession, rules of, pp. 110-120, 540.

  Suckling time, pp. 484, 548.

  Sully, Prof J., on sympathy, p. 362 n.2.

  Sumatra, Malays of, jealousy of the men among the, p. 120;
    race-endogamy of the, p. 364.

  Sumatrans, ‘ambel anak’ among the, p. 109;
    system of kinship depending on locality among the, p. 110 n. 2;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 136;
    purchase of wives no obstacle to matrimony among the, p. 145;
    want of modesty among certain, p. 188;
    dress used by the young women among the, p. 191;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 207;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 263;
    local exogamy among the, pp. 322 _sq._;
    marriage by exchange among the, p. 390;
    marriage by ‘semando’ among the, p. 437 n.;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440;
    proportion between the sexes among the, pp. 462 _sq._;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1. 
    See Bataks, Kubus, Lampong, Lubus, Padang, Rejangs.

  Sundanese, early betrothals among the, p. 214 n. 8. 

  Surinam, aborigines of, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1. 

  Survivals, pp. 3, 6.

  Sweden, periodical fluctuation in the number of births in,
    pp. 31, 32, 34-36, 38;
    age for marriage among women in, p. 146;
    number of people who die single in, _ib._;
    number of married people among the nobility and higher
    _bourgeoisie_ of, p. 148;
    women’s liberty of choice in, during early Middle Ages,
    pp. 236 _sq._;
    class-endogamy in, p. 373;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    excess of female births among the nobility of, p. 471 n. 4. 
    See Uplands-lag.

  Swedes, terms of address among the, p. 91;
    their aversion to marrying Lapps, p. 365.

  Switzerland, divorces of childless couples in, p. 381;
    morning gift in, p. 407 n. 6;
    civil marriage in, p. 428;
    divorce in, p. 530.

  Sympathy, ch. xvi., p. 546.

  Syria, excess of female births in, p. 467.


  T

  Tacullies, jealousy of the men among the, p. 118;
    a widow’s duties among the, p. 126;
    hair-dress of the young, p. 175;
    decorations among the, p. 198 n. 1;
    veil worn by girls among the, p. 200;
    their want of modesty, p. 210;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 359;
    polygyny exceptional among the, p. 441 n. 4. 

  Tagalas (Philippines), wives obtained by service among the,
    p. 391 n. 1. 

  Tahitians, birth of a child followed by marriage among the,
    pp. 23 _sq._;
    alleged promiscuity among the, p. 59 n. 7;
    their wantonness, pp. 67 _sq._;
    chieftainship and property hereditary in the male line among the,
    pp. 99, 100, 112;
    celibacy due to poverty among the, p. 144 n. 3;
    their views regarding continence, p. 151;
    tattooing among the, pp. 177 n. 12, 178 n. 5, 179-181;
    covering used by the, p. 190;
    their ideas of modesty, p. 207;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    female appreciation of manly beauty among the, p. 257;
    their ideal of beauty, pp. 257, 263;
    differences between the sexes among the, p. 260 n. 1;
    nobility among the, p. 369;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 371;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 399;
    no marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 5;
    religious marriage ceremonies among the, p. 422;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 3, 444, 449, 530;
    excess of men among the, pp. 462, 466 n. 1;
    female infanticide among the, p. 466 n. 1;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    female jealousy among the, p. 499 n. 6;
    love among the, p. 503;
    divorce among the, pp. 522, 527, _ib._ n. 1, 530.
    See Areois, Society Islanders.


  Tahus (Northern Mexico), _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 76.

  Takue, speedy remarriage of widows prohibited among the, p. 129 n. 2;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 5;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Talamanca Indians, marry early, p. 137;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1. 

  Talauer Islanders, marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3. 

  Tamanacs, polygyny among the, pp. 443, 444, 497.

  Tamayos, painting of girls among the, p. 176 n. 6. 

  Tana (New Hebrides), immodesty of women due to foreign influence
    in, p. 67;
    hair-dress of the men in, p. 167;
    cicatrices of the natives of, p. 169;
    indecent dress of the men in, p. 194;
    ideal of beauty in, p. 264;
    polygyny in, pp. 441 n. 3, 506;
    nominal authority of the chiefs in, p. 506.

  Tanàla (Madagascar), divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  Tangutans, struggle for women among the, p. 162 n. 1;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    compensation for capture among the, p. 401;
    concubinage among the, p. 445.

  Tapoyers, painting of girls among the, p. 177.

  Tartars, jealousy of the men among the, p. 120;
    widows killed among the, p. 125;
    widows forbidden to remarry among the, p. 127;
    marriage of the dead among the, p. 140;
    celibacy due to poverty among the, p. 144 n. 3;
    their ideal of beauty, p. 262;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    consanguineous marriage among the, p. 296 n. 1;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 385;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393;
    their weddings, p. 418 n. 10;
    religious marriage ceremony among the, p. 425 n. 3;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polygyny among the, p. 492;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1;
    divorce among the, pp. 519, 532 n. 6. 

  —— of the Crimea, marriage by capture among the, p. 386 n. 4. 

  Tartars of Kazan, marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 2. 

  —— of Kazan and Orenburg, barren wives despised among the,
    p. 378 n. 4;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410 n. 11.

  Tarumas, excess of men among the, p. 461.

  Tasmanians, spring-festival among the, p. 29;
    seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 64;
    the lending of wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    their desire for self-decoration, p. 165;
    cicatrices of the, p. 181 n. 4;
    their want of modesty, p. 188;
    dress on festive occasions among some tribes of the, p. 198;
    indecent dances among the, _ib._;
    exogamy among the, p. 300;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 385;
    no marriage ceremony among the, pp. 417 _sq._;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440;
    polyandry (?) among the, p. 451;
    excess of men among the, pp. 462, 467;
    female infanticide rare among the, p. 467;
    divorce among the, p. 518.

  —— on Flinders Island, painting the body among the, p. 176.

  Tassai (New Guinea), natives of, female dress among the, pp. 197, 206.

  Tattooing, ch. ix., p. 541.

  Tedâ, class-endogamy of the, p. 371;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 392 n. 3;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 439, 502;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n. 1;
    position of their women, p. 502.

  Teehurs of Oude, looseness of the marriage tie among the, pp. 53, 55.

  Teeyer (North Malabar), polyandry among the, p. 455.

  Tehuantepec, Isthmians of, monogamous, pp. 435, 501;
    excess of women among the, p. 461;
    conjugal affection among the, p. 501.

  Tehuelches. See Patagonians.

  Teleostei, paternal care among many, p. 10.

  Teneriffe, aborigines of, _jus primae noctis_ among the, p. 76;
    nakedness of the, p. 189.

  Tenimber Group, hair-dress of the young men in the, p. 175;
    coquetry of the young people in the, p. 201.

  Teptyars, marriage by capture among the, p. 386 n. 4. 

  ‘Terrible rite,’ p. 205.

  Tertullian, on celibacy, p. 154.

  Tessaua, fine imposed on the father of a bastard child in, p. 62.

  Tetrao, hybridism in the genus, p. 278.

  Teutons, paternal authority among the, pp. 230, 233 _sq._;
    parents and relations consulted in cases of marriage among
    the, pp. 233 _sq._;
    dependence of women among the, p. 234;
    restriction of paternal authority among the, pp. 236 _sq._;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, _ib._;
    class-endogamy of the, p. 372;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 387;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 396;
    decay of marriage by purchase among the, pp. 404, 406 _sq._;
    dower among the, pp. 406, 407, 413;
    religious marriage ceremonies among the, pp. 426 _sq._;
    divorce among the, pp. 520, 521, 529, 532.
    See Germans, Scandinavians.

  Thlinkets, myth of the jealousy of man among the, p. 118;
    celibacy of slaves among the, pp. 144 _sq._;
    lip-ornament among the, p. 173;
    tattooing of girls among the, p. 177;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 215;
    exogamy among the, p. 298;
    feasts for the dead among the, p. 380;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 441;
    polygyny among the, p. 443;
    polyandry among the, pp. 450 _sq._;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 483 n. 5;
    myths of the, p. 508 n. 1;
    Levirate among the, pp. 511 _sq._, 512 n. 5;
    rule of inheritance among the, p. 512 n. 5;
    divorce among the, p. 532 nn. 2 _sq._, 533 n. 4. 

  Thracians, tattooing among the, p. 169;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 396.

  Thuringia, ceremony of purchase in, p. 397;
    period for marriage in, p. 424 n. 1. 

  Thysanura, colours of the, p. 245.

  Tibetans, kinship through males among the, pp. 102, 112;
    polyandry among the, pp. 116, 453, 456, 473-475, 504 nn. 1, 3;
    celibacy of monks and nuns among the, p. 153;
    monogamy among the, p. 456;
    excess of male births among the, p. 474;
    little addicted to jealousy, p. 515.
    See Caindu.

  Timorese, nakedness of women among certain, p. 188;
    exogamy among the, p. 302;
    divorce among the, p. 524 n. 5. 

  Timor-laut, coquetry of the young people in, p. 201;
    disposal of a girl’s hand in, p. 215;
    class-endogamy in, p. 371 n. 4;
    marriage by purchase in, p. 394.

  Tinguianes (Philippines), monogamous, p. 437 n. 2. 

  Tinneh, Eastern, excess of female births among the, p. 466;
    their women not prolific, p. 490 n. 8;
    polygyny among the, p. 500 n. 2. 
    See Chippewyans.

  Tipperahs, pregnancy must be followed by marriage among the, p. 24;
    unrestrained sexual intercourse, but no promiscuity among the, p. 71;
    bachelors disdained among the, p. 137;
    female dress among the, p. 200;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 7;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 439 n. 11;
    divorce among the, p. 523.

  Tlascala (Mexico), celibates disdained in, p. 139;
    shaving the heads of newly married couples in, p. 176 n.

  Toads, sexual sounds of, p. 247;
    colours of, p. 248.

  Tocqueville, Count de, on the want of sympathy between different
    classes, pp. 369 _sq._

  Todas, group-marriage and polyandry among the, pp. 53, 57, 116,
    452, 455, 458, 472 n. 3, 516;
    kinship through males among the, pp. 101, 112;
    celibacy almost unknown among the, p. 135;
    liberty of choice among the, p. 219 n. 8;
    endogamy of the, pp. 327, 348, 349, 480;
    villages and households of the, p. 327;
    mortality of children among the, p. 349;
    their desire for offspring, pp. 378 _sq._;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    marriage portion among the, p. 415 n. 1;
    excess of men among the, p. 463;
    excess of male births among the, pp. 467, 473, 480;
    divorce among the, pp. 524, 532 n. 6, 534 n. 4. 

  Togiagamutes, the family among the, pp. 46 _sq._

  Togoland, Negroes of, their estimation of female chastity, p. 124;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 438 n. 8. 

  Toltecs, p. 369.

  Tongans, husband’s duties among the, p. 16;
    their ideas of female virtue, p. 71;
    privileges of their chiefs, p. 79;
    rules of succession among the, p. 99;
    celibacy of women rare among the, p. 136;
    making love among the, p. 163;
    tattooing among the, pp. 177 n. 12, 201 n. 4;
    their ideas of decency, p. 207;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 217;
    conjugal affection among the, pp. 358 _sq._;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 3, 444 n. 4;
    divorce among the, pp. 521, 522, 533 n. 4. 
    See Niutabutabu.

  Tonquin, polygyny in, p. 489.

  Torndirrup (Australia), kinship through males among the, p. 101.

  Torres Strait, tribes of, dress among the, pp. 191 n. 4, 196.

  Tôttiyars, group-marriage among the, pp. 53, 57.

  Touaregs, husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220;
    love among the, p. 358;
    marriage portion among the, p. 414 n. 4;
    monogamous as a rule, pp. 435, 439, 502;
    authority of their women, p. 502;
    divorce among the, p. 527 n. 1. 

  —— of Rhat, divorce among the, p. 530 n. 3. 

  ——, Western, their opinions as regards celibacy, p. 135.

  Toungtha, prostitution held in abhorrence by the, p. 71;
    celibacy unknown among the, p. 136;
    dress of girls among the, p. 200;
    monogamous, pp. 436, 507;
    mortality among the, p. 466;
    divorce among the, p. 524 n. 5. 

  Towns in Europe, celibacy in, pp. 146, 148.
    _Cf._ Country districts.

  Trarsa (Western Sahara), their ideal of female beauty, p. 259.

  Trinidad, aborigines of, nakedness of women among the, p. 187 n. 5. 

  Trumaí, curious usage among the, p. 205.

  Tsonontooas, or Senecas, polyandry among the, p. 451.

  Tubori, their ideas of modesty, p. 207.

  Tukopia (Santa Cruz Islands), marriage by capture in, p. 385;
    marriage by purchase in, p. 399 n. 7;
    excess of women in, p. 462;
    female jealousy in, p. 498.

  Tuluvas, their terms for father and mother, p. 86.

  Tunberri (Australia), monogamous, p. 437.

  Tunguses, a seducer bound to marry his victim among the, pp. 62 _sq._;
    supplying guests with wives among the, p. 74;
    mongrels among the, p. 283;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 391 n.;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410 n. 11;
    monogamous as a rule, p. 440 n. 2;
    polygyny among the, p. 444 n. 11.

  Tupinambases, prohibition of incest among the, p. 293.

  Tupis, their terms for father and mother, p. 85;
    bachelors disdained among the, p. 137;
    nakedness of men among the, p. 187 n. 4;
    dress of maidens among the, pp. 196 _sq._;
    ring worn by the men among some of the, p. 201;
    consanguineous marriage among the, p. 296;
    no marriage ceremony among the, p. 417 n. 4;
    polygyny among the, p. 444 n. 1;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Turalinzes, marriage by purchase among the, p. 393.

  Turanian family, system of nomenclature among the, pp. 82 _sq._

  Turkeys, wild, courtship by females among, p. 158 n. 2. 

  Turkish countries, religious endogamy in the, p. 375.

  —— peoples, immorality due to foreign influence among the, p. 69;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1;
    omens among some, p. 423.

  Turkomans, state of morality among the, p. 69;
    standard of female excellence among the, pp. 381 _sq._

  Turko-Tartars, primitive, state of morality among the, p. 69;
    their terms for mother, p. 88;
    monogamous, p. 507.

  Turks, p. 364.

  —— of Central Asia, female chastity among the, p. 62;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    polygyny among the, pp. 444 n. 11, 449.

  Turra (Australia), kinship through males among the, p. 101.

  Tuski, repudiated wives supported by their former husbands among
    the, p. 19;
    early betrothals among the, p. 214;
    infanticide almost unknown among the, p. 312;
    marriage by exchange of presents among the, p. 409 n. 9;
    their weddings, p. 418 n. 13;
    polygyny among the, pp. 489, 493.

  Tylor, Dr. E. B. , his statistical ‘method of investigating the
    development of institutions,’ pp. 4 _sq._;
    on the family among savages, p. 42 n. 1;
    on ‘La Couvade,’ p. 107 n. 1;
    on the maternal system, pp. 109 _sq._;
    on the connection between exogamy and the classificatory system
    of relationship, p. 329;
    on the coexistence of marriage by capture and exogamy, pp. 388 _sq._

  Tyre, marriage with a half-sister at, p. 295.


  U

  Uainumá, their term for father, p. 92.


  Uaraguaçú, their terms for father and mother, p. 85.

  Uaupés, their custom of pulling out the eyebrows, p. 167;
    men more ornamented than women among the, p. 182;
    nakedness of women among the, pp. 187 n. 5, 192 _sq._;
    female dress on festive occasions among the, p. 198;
    decorations among the, _ib._ n. 1;
    their ideal of female beauty, p. 258;
    exogamous as a rule, pp. 322, 325, 347;
    large households of the, p. 325;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 384;
    polygyny among the, pp. 441 n. 4, 443 _sq._;
    divorce scarcely occurs among the, p. 522.

  Uea (Loyalty Islands), female chastity in, p. 64.

  Ukraine, peasants of the, pregnancy must be followed by marriage
    among the, p. 24.

  Ulaua (Solomon Islands), covering of the men in, p. 191 n. 3. 

  Unimak. See Aleuts.

  United States, no parental restraints upon marriage in the, p. 239;
    race-endogamy in the, p. 373;
    excess of females among mulatto children in the, p. 477;
    excess of female children in the families of cross-breeds in the,
    p. 478.

  Uplands-lag, punishment for adultery according to the, p. 122.

  Ural-Altaic peoples, terms for relations among many, pp. 92 _sq._

  Uralian family, system of nomenclature among the, p. 82.

  Usbegs, women’s liberty of choice among the, p. 220 n. 7. 


  V

  Vaitupu (Ellice Islands), tattooing in, p. 201 n. 4. 

  Vans, marriage of brother and sister among the, p. 293.

  Variety, man’s taste for, pp. 488, 530, 548.

  Veddahs, monogamous, pp. 60, 436, 507;
    divorce unknown among the, pp. 60, 517;
    terms of address among the, pp. 90, 94;
    jealousy of the men among the, p. 118;
    their decorations, p. 165;
    marriage with a sister among the, pp. 292, 333, 339 _sq._;
    isolation of families among the, p. 333;
    paucity of children among the, pp. 339 _sq._;
    endogamy of the, p. 364;
    marriage by purchase (?) among the, p. 398;
    marriage ceremony among the, p. 420;
    polyandry abhorrent to the, pp. 515 _sq._

  Veddahs, Rock, husband’s duties among the, p. 17;
    live in families or small septs, pp. 43 _sq._;
    social equality among the, p. 506.

  Vellalah caste in Coimbatore, polyandry among the, p. 454.

  Vera Paz, kinship through males only, in, p. 98.

  Vertebrata, lower, fighting for females among the, p. 159;
    sexual selection among the, p. 253;
    preference given to vigorous males by the females of the, p. 255.

  Victoria, natives of, the family among the, p. 45;
    love among the, p. 359.

  ——, natives of Western, seclusion of the sexes among the, p. 65;
    punishments for illegitimacy among the, _ib._;
    combats for women among the, p. 161;
    prohibition of marriage among the, p. 300;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage among the, p. 309;
    polygyny among the, p. 444;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n. 3;
    divorce among the, p. 523.

  Villermé, L. R. , on the periodical enhancement of the procreative
    power of man, p. 33;
    on differences of stature, p. 265.

  Virchow, Prof. R., on the prognathous type of face, p. 267;
    on marriage between brother and sister, p. 333.

  Virginity, man’s requirement of, from his bride, pp. 123 _sq._

  Vischer, F. Th., on personal beauty, p. 258 n. 5. 

  Vogt, Prof. C., aversion between different animal species,
    p. 253 n. 1;
    on the intermixture of breeds, p. 289.

  Voguls, marriage by capture among the, p. 386 n. 4;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 

  Voisin, Dr. A., on the effects of consanguineous marriage,
    pp. 340, 344.

  Votyaks, lending wives among the, p. 74 n. 1;
    their term for father, pp. 91 _sq._;
    their desire for offspring, p. 379;
    marriage by capture among the, p. 386;
    marriage portion among the, p. 410;
    bigamy among the, p. 450 n. 6;
    divorce exceptional among the, p. 521 n. 9. 


  W

  Wa-chaga, nakedness of the, pp. 189, 193 _sq._;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 384.

  Wadaï, fighting for women in, p. 161.

  Waganda, their punishment for adultery, p. 121;
    celibacy caused by polygyny among the, p. 144;
    exogamy among the, p. 306;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 393;
    excess of women among the, pp. 464, 465 n. 4;
    proportion between the sexes at birth among the, pp. 468, 469, 479;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 484 n.

  Wagner, Moriz, on instinctive aversion to intermarriage, p. 320 n. 2. 

  Waguha, their terms for father, p. 88;
    terms of address among the, pp. 91, 94;
    children named after the father among the, p. 103;
    recognize the part taken by both parents in generation, p. 105;
    celibacy unknown among the, p. 145;
    endogamy of the, p. 366;
    excess of women among the, pp. 464, 465 n. 4;
    divorce among the, pp. 522 _sq._

  Waitahoo (Marquesas Islands), beauty of the tattooing in, p. 181.

  Waitz, Prof. Th., on savage dress, p. 199;
    on deviations from the national type, p. 266.

  Wakamba, marry early, p. 138;
    local exogamy among the, p. 323;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 384;
    marriage on credit among the, p. 394 n. 8;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1;
    divorce among the, p. 532 n. 2. 

  Wake, Mr. C. S. , on instinctive aversion to intermarriage,
    pp. 320 _sq._ n. 2. 

  Walker, Mr. Alex., on the stimulating influence of novelty,
    p. 182 n. 1;
    on love excited by contrasts, p. 354, _ib._ n. 5;
    on preference modified by age, p. 362.

  Walla Wallas (of the Nez Percés), obligatory continence among
    the, p. 483 n. 5. 

  Wallace, Mr. A. R. , on the origin of secondary sexual characters,
    pp. 243, 250 _sq._;
    on racial differences as a result of natural selection,
    p. 273 n. 1;
    on the hairlessness of man, p. 276 n. 2;
    on the infertility of hybrids, p. 279;
    on breeding in-and-in, p. 336;
    on equality in savage society, p. 505.

  Walrus, its substitute for paternal protection, p. 21.

  Wantonness of savages, pp. 61, 66-72.

  Wanyoro, nakedness of girls among the, p. 197 n. 4;
    incest among the, pp. 291, 327;
    recognized grades of relationship among the, p. 327;
    their desire for offspring, p. 377;
    marriage on credit among the, p. 394;
    their weddings, p. 418;
    polygyny among the, p. 434;
    obligatory continence among the, p. 484 n.;
    their women become sterile early, p. 487;
    inheriting widows among the, p. 513 n. 1;
    divorce among the, p. 530 n. 7. 

  Warnkoenig, L. A. , and Stein, L., on the morning gift, p. 407 n. 8. 

  Warraus, polyandry among the, p. 451;
    their women get old early, p. 486;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3. 

  Warua, incest among the, p. 291.

  Washington, Indians of Western, polygyny among the, pp. 443 n. 5, 449;
    their women not prolific, p. 491 n.;
    love among the, p. 503;
    Levirate among the, pp. 510 n. 3, 511 n. 2. 

  Wa-taïta, _jus primae noctis_ among the, pp. 75 _sq._;
    their custom of enlarging the ear-lobes, p. 166;
    marriage with a sister among the, pp. 292, 333;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 384;
    excess of women among the, p. 464.

  Wa-taveita, their want of modesty, pp. 188 _sq._

  Watch-an-dies, said to have a definite pairing season, p. 28;
    their festival of Caa-ro, _ib._;
    their conditions of life, p. 37.

  Watubela Islanders, prohibited degrees among the, p. 302;
    monogamous, p. 437 n. 1;
    separation not allowed among the, p. 517 n. 5. 

  Watuta, nakedness of men among the, p. 189.

  Weasel, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Wedding feasts, pp. 418, 419, 421.

  Wedding-ring, p. 421.

  Weismann’s, Prof. A., theory of heredity applied to the origin of
    the human races, pp. 271-273, 543.

  Welcker, H., on stature and the form of the skull, p. 268.

  Welsh, joint-family of the, p. 326;
    prohibition of marriage among the, _ib._;
    endogamy of the, p. 367;
    ceremony of capture among the, p. 387;
    marriage by purchase among the, pp. 397, 407 _sq._;
    morning gift among the, pp. 407 _sq._;
    marriage portion among the, p. 413.

  Wetter class, endogamy in, p. 371 n. 4;
    female jealousy in, p. 499 n. 6;
    divorce in, p. 523 n. 9. 

  Whales, marriage and paternal care among, p. 12;
    some, have no definite pairing season, p. 27.

  Wheeler, Mr. J. Talboys, on the origin of polyandry, p. 116.

  Widowers, forbidden to remarry for a certain period after the
    wife’s death, p. 129.

  Widows, killed, pp. 125 _sq._;
    duties of, towards deceased husbands, pp. 126 _sq._;
    forbidden to marry again, pp. 127 _sq._;
    forbidden to remarry for a certain period after the husband’s
    death, pp. 128-130.

  Wieland, C. M. , on preference modified by age, p. 362.

  Wife, marriage dissolved by the, pp. 526-529, 534.

  Wife-purchase, p. 382.

  Wilken, Prof. G. A. , on the promiscuity of primitive man,
    pp. 51, 61 n. 2, 78 n. 3;
    on the maternal system among the ancient Arabs, p. 102 n. 4;
    on the origin of exogamy and the prohibition of marriage between
    kindred, p. 316 n. 1;
    on endogamy and incest among primitive men, p. 353 n. 1. 

  Winnebah, want of conjugal affection in, p. 357.

  Winterbottom, T., on the origin of the maternal system, p. 108.

  Wintun (California), a wife who is abandoned may destroy her child,
    among the, p. 24;
    struggle of women for men among the, p. 164;
    female dress among the, p. 189;
    do not buy their wives, p. 398;
    superstitious ceremonies among the, p. 485 n. 2;
    mortality of children among the, p. 491 n. 4;
    divorce rare among the, p. 521.

  Wittrock, Prof. V. B. , on marriage between persons with different
    and with similar colours of the eye, p. 355.

  Wives, custom of supplying guests with, pp. 73-75, 130, 131, 539;
    exchange of, p. 75;
    obtained by service, pp. 390-392;
    first, pp. 443-448, 547;
    favourite, pp. 448, 449, 547;
    _status_ of, p. 550.

  Wolf, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12;
    pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Wolofs, marriage not complete till the woman is pregnant, among
    the, p. 23;
    their women get old early, p. 487.

  Women, their liberty of choice, ch. ix.;
    more particular in their choice than men, pp. 253 sq.;
    short prime of savage, pp. 486-488, 548;
    _status_ of, in monogamous communities, pp. 500-502;
    _status_ of, influencing the stability of marriage,
    pp. 533, 535 _sq._

  Wood, Rev. J. G. , on brilliant colours and the power of song as
    complementary to each other among birds, p. 248.

  Wukas (New Guinea), marriage ceremony among the, p. 420 n. 8. 

  Wundt, Prof. W., on custom and religion, p. 180;
    on savage ornaments, p. 185;
    on the feeling of shame, pp. 186, 189;
    on the origin of dress, _ib._

  Wyandots, their system of nomenclature, p. 84;
    monogamous, p. 435;
    Levirate among the, p. 510 n. 3;
    marriage upon trial among the, p. 518.


  Y

  Yaguarundi, marriage and paternal care of the, p. 12.

  Yahgans (Tierra del Fuego), no conspicuous fluctuation in the number
    of births among the, p. 31;
    their conditions of life, pp. 37 _sq._;
    terms for relationships among the, pp. 88, 89, 94;
    children belong to the father’s clan among the, p. 99;
    property hereditary in the male line among the, _ib._;
    celibacy rare among the, p. 135;
    prohibited degrees among the, pp. 299, 318, 325;
    infanticide rare among the, p. 313;
    their households, p. 325;
    proportion between the sexes among the, p. 466;
    polyandry abhorrent to the, p. 515;
    divorce among the, p. 522.
    See Fuegians.

  Yak, wild, pairing season of the, p. 26 n.

  Yaméos, local exogamy among the, pp. 321 _sq._

  Yap (Carolines), male dress in, pp. 190 _sq._

  Yendalines (Indo-China), divorce among the, p. 519.

  Yerkalas, marriage between cousins among the, p. 297.

  Yokuts (California), depravation due to the influence of the whites
    among the, p. 66;
    speedy remarriage of widowers and widows prohibited among the,
    p. 129 nn. 2, 6.

  Ysabel Islanders (Solomon Islands), decorations among the, p. 198 n. 1. 
    See Mahaga.

  Yucatan, excess of women in, p. 461;
    excess of females among Ladino children in, p. 477.

  ——, ancient, succession through males in, p. 98;
    circumcision in, p. 202;
    marriage with a half-sister in, p. 295;
    exogamy in, p. 298;
    relationship by alliance a bar to marriage in, p. 309;
    divorce in, pp. 521, 533 n. 3. 

  Yukonikhotana (Alaska), do not buy their wives, p. 398.

  Yule Islanders, men more decorated than women among the, pp. 183 _sq._;
    position of their women, p. 184;
    marriage by purchase among the, p. 402 n. 1. 

  Yurok (California), marriage on credit among the, p. 394 n. 8;
    validity of marriage among the, p. 402 n. 4;
    monogamous, p. 435;
    divorce among the, p. 532 n. 2. 


  Z

  Zambesi, polygyny down the, p. 495.

  Zapotecs, excess of women among the, p. 461;
    monogamous, p. 501;
    conjugal affection among the, _ib._

  Zulus, kinship through males among the, p. 103;
    celibacy caused by poverty among the, p. 143;
    painting of girls among the, p. 176 n. 6;
    prohibition of consanguineous marriage among the, p. 307;
    local exogamy among the, pp. 307-323;
    their views on consanguineous marriage, p. 350;
    wives obtained by service among the, p. 390 n. 6;
    polygyny among the, pp. 447, 493, 499;
    Levirate among the, p. 511 n.;
    divorce among the, pp. 522, 523, 530 n. 7, 531 n. 2, 532 n. 2. 


                                THE END


          RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.




                                  THE

                       HISTORY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

                                  BY

                          EDWARD WESTERMARCK

        LECTURER ON SOCIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINGFORS

                 _WITH PREFACE BY DR. A. R.  WALLACE_

                     Third Edition. 8vo. 14s. net.


           Some Opinions of the Press on the First Edition:—


_Edward B. Tylor in_ =The Academy=, _October 3, 1891_.

“A volume which at once takes an important place in the much debated
problem of primitive society.... The distinguishing character of
Dr. Westermarck’s whole treatise is his vigorous effort to work the
biology-side and the culture-side of anthropology into one connected
system; and there can be no doubt of the value of the resulting
discussions, which will develop further as the inquiry goes on in this
direction.”


=Spectator=, _February 13, 1892_.

“Mr. Wallace’s eulogium of the author’s clearness of style and command
of English will be echoed by every reader. But the book is much more
than a clever literary performance. It is by far the most important
contribution to our knowledge of a profoundly interesting chapter in
human history that has yet appeared.... Not a page is without its
interest.”


=Athenæum=, _August 8, 1891_.

“We are inclined to concur in Mr. Wallace’s opinion. It must be added
that the work is written in excellent English, that it deals with
delicate and difficult questions in a tone of faultless taste, that its
style is clear and its matter exceedingly well arranged, and that it is
readable from beginning to end.”


=Mind=, _October, 1891_.

“The author’s equipment, logical as well as psychological, for his
task is of a very exceptional order.”


=Westminster Review=, _August, 1891_.

“A very able volume on the subject of human marriage, which, in our
opinion, is calculated to set the world thinking again with a view to
correcting preconceived ideas.”


=Times=, _July 2, 1891_.

“Dr. Westermarck brings to the treatment of his subject the
accumulated results of very extensive study and the dialectical
resources of a powerful and logical mind.... In this judgment (Mr.
Wallace’s) we fully concur.... Mr. Westermarck propounds views which
are at once novel and ingenious, and supports them with great variety
of illustrations and great cogency of reasoning.”


=Scotsman=, _July 6, 1891_.

“Scientific precision has rarely been attained in a style more
agreeable and elegant by any indigenous writer. Mr. Westermarck’s
book would have been deeply interesting even if it had been less well
written.... The results of his erudition form a mountain of wealth.”


=St. James’s Gazette=, _July 20, 1891_.

“Of the value of his (the author’s) researches ... we cannot speak
too highly. His book is in every way deserving of the high eulogy
pronounced on it by Mr. Wallace.”


=Manchester Guardian=, _July, 1891_.

“Mr. Westermarck has established his position among the first of
historical anthropologists, he has thrown light upon many of the
unsolved mysteries in the history of the human race, and he has swept
out of the way several theories which have hitherto blocked the path to
a right solution of the main question at issue.... The book affords a
model for future investigators in this field. It is no small compliment
to English anthropology that the author has chosen to write his book in
English.”


=Anti-Jacobin=, _July 18, 1891_.

“Certainly the most valuable of recent contributions to the literature
of a deeply interesting theme.”


_From a leading article in_ =Liverpool Daily Post=, _July 24, 1891_.

“There is every reason to suppose that this deeply interesting book
will find a host of readers even among those who are attracted by facts
for their own sake rather than for the theories that may be drawn from
them.”


=Guardian=, _November 11, 1891_.

“Not only profoundly learned but delightfully readable.”


=Warrington Guardian=, _September 16, 1891_.

“A monumental book.”


=National Observer=, _August 1, 1891_.

“An invaluable contribution to science, ... and we confidently
recommend Mr. Westermarck’s _History of Human Marriage_, not only to
all anthropologists, but to all them that love good reading.”


=Sussex Daily News=, _October 7, 1891_.

“One of the most readable works in the whole range of scientific
writing.... A comparatively unknown student until the publication of
this work, Dr. Westermarck has now taken his position in the very
front rank of historical anthropologists. No library of any scientific
pretentions can dispense with the _History of Human Marriage_, and
every public library in the country should possess a copy.”


=The Critic= (_New York_), _September, 12, 1891_.

“A work of the first importance.... The excellence of expression
corresponds to the elevation of sentiment apparent throughout.”


_L. Marillier, in_ =Revue générale des Sciences=, _September 15, 1892_.

“Le livre de M. Westermarck est, sans contredit, l’une des meilleurs
monographies sociologiques qui aient été faites, et c’est à l’heure
actuelle l’ouvrage le plus complet, le plus riche en informations que
l’on possède sur cette question du mariage et celui où l’on trouve la
plus sûre et la plus pénétrante critique.”


_M. Boule, in_ =L’Anthropologie=, _November-December, 1892_.

“Je ne connais pas un volume où plus de faits, plus de recherches,
plus de science, soient accumulés.”


_René de Kérallain, in_ =Revue générale du Droit, de la Législation et
de la Jurisprudence=, _May-June, 1893_.

“M. Westermarck s’est trouvé du coup écrire un livre qui s’est placé
au premier rang du genre, qui a surpris ses contradicteurs et qui déjà
fait autorité.... Selon nous, ce livre doit faire époque.”


_Prof. Lujo Brentano, in_ =Zeitschrift für Social und
Wirthschaftsgeschichte=, 1893.

“Ein Werk von erstaunlicher Gelehrsamkeit und ungewöhnlichem
Scharfsinn.... Voll und ganz stimme ich Alfred R. Wallace bei.”




FOOTNOTES:

[1] McLennan, ‘Studies in Ancient History,’ p. 1. 

[2] Post, ‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit,’ p. 17. In
his later works, however, Dr. Post has changed his opinion (see,
especially, ‘Studien zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Familienrechts,’
p. 58).

[3] Morgan, ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,’ p. 479.

[4] _Ibid._, p. 480.

[5] McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 5. 

[6] ‘Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland,’ vol. xviii. pp. 245-269.

[7] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ p. 487.

[8] Muir, ‘Original Sanskrit Texts,’ vol. ii. p. 327.

[9] Goguet, ‘The Origin of Laws, Arts, and Sciences,’ vol. iii. pp.
311, 313.

[10] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  22.

[11] Goguet, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 19.

[12] v. Düben, ‘Lappland och Lapparne,’ p. 330.

[13] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. ix. p. 16.

[14] Günther, ‘Introduction to the Study of Fishes,’ p. 163.

[15] Wood, ‘Illustrated Natural History,’ vol. iii. p. 3. 

[16] Espinas, ‘Des sociétés animales,’ p. 416.

[17] Milne Edwards, ‘Leçons sur la physiologie et l’anatomie
comparée,’ vol. viii. p. 496.

[18] Espinas, p. 417.

[19] The ostrich forms, however, a curious exception. The male sits on
the eggs, and brings up the young birds, the female never troubling
herself about either of these duties (Brehm, ‘Bird-Life,’ p. 324).

[20] _Ibid._, p. 285. These statements concerning birds are taken from
Brehm’s ‘Thierleben,’ vol. iv., the same author’s ‘Bird-Life,’ and
Hermann Müller’s ‘Am Neste.'

[21] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. iii. p. 679.

[22] _Ibid._, vol. iii. pp. 593, 594, 599.

[23] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 578.

[24] Rengger,‘Naturgeschichte der Säugethiere von Paraguay,’ p. 354.

[25] Brehm, vol. iii. p. 206.

[26] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 256. Espinas, p. 447.

[27] Brehm, vol. iii. p. 124.

[28] Rengger, p. 240.

[29] Brehm, vol. ii. p. 270.

[30] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 263.

[31] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 39.

[32] _Ibid._, vol. i., p. 347.

[33] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  387.

[34] Rengger, pp. 147, _et seq._

[35] Brehm, vol i. p.  535.

[36] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  224.

[37] Rengger, p. 62.

[38] _Ibid._, pp. 20, 38.

[39] Schomburgk, ‘Reisen in Britisch-Guiana,’ vol. iii. p. 767.

[40] Brehm, vol. i. p.  228.

[41] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. i. p.  97.

[42] ‘Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society,’ vol. xvi. p. 177.

[43] Mohnike, ‘Die Affen auf den indischen Inseln,’ in ‘Das Ausland,’
1872, p. 850. See also Hartmann, ‘Die menschenähnlichen Affen,’ p. 230.

[44] Wallace, ‘The Malay Archipelago,’ vol. i. p.  93.

[45] Savage, ‘Description of _Troglodytes Gorilla_,’ pp. 9, _et seq._

[46] Du Chaillu, ‘Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa, p.
349.

[47] Reade, ‘Savage Africa,’ p. 214.

[48] _Ibid._, pp. 218, 214.

[49] v. Koppenfells, ‘Meine Jagden auf Gorillas,’ in ‘Die
Gartenlaube,’ 1877, pp. 418, _et seq._

[50] Savage, ‘On _Troglodytes Niger_,’ in ‘Boston Journal of Natural
History,’ vol. iv. p. 385.

[51] ‘Die Gartenlaube,’ 1877, p. 418.

[52] Waitz, ‘Anthropologie der Naturvölker,’ vol. iii. p. 109. Carver,
‘Travels through the Interior Parts of North America,’ p. 367.

[53] Powers, ‘Tribes of California,’ p. 222.

[54] Heriot, ‘Travels through the Canadas,’ p. 338.

[55] Azara, ‘Voyages dans l’Amérique méridionale,’ vol. ii. p. 22.

[56] King and Fitzroy, ‘Voyages of the _Adventure_ and _Beagle_,’ vol.
ii. p. 182.

[57] v. Tschudi, ‘Reisen durch Südamerika,’ vol. ii. p. 283.

[58] Lumholtz, ‘Among Cannibals,’ p. 161.

[59] Fison and Howitt, ‘Kamilaroi and Kurnai,’ p. 206.

[60] Meyer, ‘Manners and Customs of the Encounter Bay Tribe,’ in
Wood’s, ‘The Native Tribes of South Australia,’ p. 186.

[61] Angas, ‘Polynesia,’ p. 373.

[62] Martin, ‘Account of the Natives of the Tonga Islands,’ vol. ii.
p. 167.

[63] Pritchard, ‘Polynesian Reminiscences,’ p. 134.

[64] Johnston, ‘Maoria,’ pp. 28, _et seq._

[65] Kotzebue, ‘Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea,’ vol. iii. p.
173.

[66] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  14.

[67] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  139.

[68] Letourneau, ‘Sociology,’ p. 386.

[69] Wilson and Felkin, ‘Uganda and the Egyptian Soudan,’ vol. ii. p.
90.

[70] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 209.

[71] Emerson Tennent, ‘Ceylon,’ vol. ii. p. 441.

[72] Rosset, ‘On the Maldive Islands,’ in ‘Journal of the
Anthropological Institute,’ vol. xvi. pp. 168, _et seq._

[73] Stewart, ‘Notes on Northern Cachar,’ in ‘Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. p. 614.

[74] Emerson Tennent, vol. ii. pp. 458, _et seq._ note 1.

[75] Schwaner, ‘Borneo,’ vol. i. p.  199.

[76] Fytche, ‘Burma,’ vol. ii. p. 73.

[77] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 958.

[78] Rossbach, ‘Untersuchungen über die römische Ehe,’ p. 32, &c.

[79] Dall, ‘Alaska and its Resources,’ p. 196.

[80] Buchanan, ‘Sketches of the History, Manners, and Customs of the
North American Indians,’ p. 323.

[81] Im Thurn, ‘Among the Indians of Guiana,’ p. 221. _Cf._ v.
Martius, ‘Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika’s,’ vol. i. pp. 247, 645,
688.

[82] Wilkes, ‘United States Exploring Expedition,’ vol. v. p.  363.
Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ pp. 216, 221, &c.

[83] Dalton, ‘Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal,’ p. 40.

[84] Bickmore, ‘Travels in the East Indian Archipelago,’ p. 205.

[85] Strabo, ‘Γεωγραφικά,’ book xv. p. 727.

[86] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 515.

[87] Livingstone, ‘Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa,’
p. 147.

[88] Freycinet, ‘Voyage autour du monde,’ vol. ii. pp. 227, _et seq._

[89] Baker, ‘The Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia,’ p. 125.

[90] Hooper, ‘Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski,’ p. 100.

[91] Endemann, ‘Mittheilungen über die Sotho-Neger,’ in ‘Zeitschrift
für Ethnologie,’ vol. vi. p. 40.

[92] Jellinghaus, ‘Sagen, Sitten und Gebräuche der Munda-Kolhs in
Chota Nagpore,’ _ibid._, vol. iii. p. 370.

[93] ‘Union d’un homme et d’une femme, faite dans les formes légales’
(Larousse, ‘Grand dictionnaire universel de XIX^e siècle,‘ vol. x. p. 
1174).

[94] ‘Die Verbindung zweyer Personen verschiedenen Geschlechts zum
lebenswierigen wechselseitigen Besitz ihrer Geschlechtseigenschaften’
(Kant, ‘Die Metaphysik der Sitten,’ vol. i. p.  107).

[95] Schäffner, ‘Geschichte der Rechtsverfassung Frankreichs,’ vol.
iii. p. 186.

[96] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. iii. p. 649.

[97] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 479.

[98] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 400.

[99] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  299.

[100] The Orang-utan is said to be not full-grown till fifteen years of
age (Mohnike, in ‘Das Ausland,’ 1872, p. 850). _Cf._ Fiske, ‘Outlines
of Cosmic Philosophy,’ vol. ii. pp. 342, _et seq._

[101] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1872, p. 894.

[102] ‘Science,’ vol. vii. p. 172.

[103] Hyades, in ‘Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn,’ vol. vii. pp.
377, _et seq._

[104] Moore, ‘Marriage Customs, Modes of Courtship,’ &c., p. 292.

[105] Klemm, ‘Allgemeine Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit,’ vol. ii.
p. 75.

[106] Rowney, ‘The Wild Tribes of India,’ pp. 203, _et seq._ v.
Siebold, ‘Die Aino auf Yesso,’ p. 31. Gray, ‘China,’ vol. ii. p. 304.

[107] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 80.

[108] Burckhardt, ‘Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys,’ p. 153.

[109] Nachtigal, ‘Sahara und Sudan,’ vol. ii., p. 177.

[110] Bock, ‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 186.

[111] Erman, ‘Ethnographische Wahmehmungen an den Küsden des
Berings-Meeres,’ in ‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. iii. p. 162.

[112] Harkness, ‘The Neilgherry Hills,’ p. 116.

[113] Bérenger-Féraud, ‘Le mariage chez les Nègres Sénégambiens,’ in
‘Revue d’Anthropologie,’ 1883, pp. 286, _et seq._

[114] Blumentritt, ‘Versuch einer Ethnographic der Philippinen,’ pp.
27, _et seq._

[115] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 103.

[116] _Ibid._, p. 103.

[117] St. John, ‘Wild Tribes of the North-West Coast of Borneo,’ in
‘Transactions of the Ethnological Society,’ new series, vol. ii.
p.237. Low, ‘Sarawak,’ p. 195. Wilken, ‘Plechtigheden en gebruiken
bij verlovingen en huwelijken bij de volken van den Indischen
Archipel,’ in ‘Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde van
Nederlandsch-Indië,’ ser. v. vol. iv. p. 442.

[118] Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 157.

[119] Lewin, ‘Wild Races of South-Eastern India,’ p. 202.

[120] v. Zmigrodzki, ‘Die Mutter bei den Völkern des arischen
Stammes,’ pp. 246-248. _Cf._ Man, ‘On the Aboriginal Inhabitants
of the Andaman Islands,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p.81
(Andamanese).

[121] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 239.

[122] Schoolcraft,‘Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge,’ vol. v. p.  272.

[123] Wagner, ‘Handwörterbuch der Physiologie,’ vol. iv. p. 862.
Gruenhagen, ‘Lehrbuch der Physiologie,’ vol. iii. p. 528. _Cf._
Haycraft, ‘Some Physiological Results of Temperature Variations,’ in
‘Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,’ vol. xxix. p. 130.

[124] Janke, ‘Die willkürliche Hervorbringung des Geschlechts,’ pp.
220-222.

[125] Gruenhagen, vol. iii. p. 528.

[126] Thus, the bat pairs in January and February (Brehm,
‘Thierleben,’ vol. i. p.  299); the wild camel in the desert to the
east of Lake Lob-nor from the middle of January nearly to the end of
February (Prejevalsky ‘From Kulja to Lob-nor,’ p. 91); the _Canis
Azarae_ and the Indian bison in winter (Rengger, _loc. cit._ p. 147).
(Forsyth, ‘The Highlands of Central India,’ p. 108); the wild-cat and
the fox, in February (Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. i. pp. 453, 662); the
weasel, in March (_ibid._, vol. ii. p. 84); the kulan, from May to July
(_ibid._, vol. iii. p. 19); the musk-ox, at the end of August (_ibid._,
vol. iii. p. 377); the elk, in the Baltic provinces, at the end of
August, and, in Asiatic Russia, in September or October (_ibid._,
vol. iii. p. 111); the wild yak in Tibet, in September (Prejevalsky,
‘Mongolia,’ vol. ii. p. 192); the reindeer in Norway, at the end of
September (Brehm, vol. iii. p. 123); the badger, in October (_ibid._,
vol. ii. p. 149); the _Capra pyrenaica_, in November (_ibid._, vol.
iii. p. 311); the chamois, the musk-deer, and the orongo-antelope, in
November and December (_ibid._, vol. iii. pp. 274, 95. Prejevalsky,
‘Mongolia,’ vol. ii. p. 205); the wolf, from the end of December to
the middle of February (Brehm, vol. i. p. 534).

[127] Brehm, vol. iii. pp. 275, 302. Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. ii.
pp. 199, 206.

[128] Brehm, vol. i. pp. 370, 404, 431; vol. ii. pp. 6, 325, 420; vol.
iii. pp. 111, 158, 159, 578, 599.

[129] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. ii. p. 313.

[130] _Ibid._, vol. iii. pp. 699, 723.

[131] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 482.

[132] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 440.

[133] _Ibid._, vol. i. pp. 119, 147, 182, 228. Schomburgk, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 767.

[134] Brehm, vol. iii. pp. 480. It is also remarkable that the birds on
the Galapagos Islands, which are situated almost on the equator, seem
to have no definite breeding season (Markham, ‘Visit to the Galapagos
Islands,’ in ‘Proceed. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 753).

[135] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 214.

[136] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1872, p. 850. Hartmann, _loc. cit._ p. 230.
Huxley, ‘Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature,’ p. 33.

[137] Burton, ‘Gorilla Land,’ vol i. p.  248.

[138] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 224.

[139] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 206.

[140] Foreman, ‘The Philippine Islands,’ p. 212.

[141] This statement, however, seems to be an exaggeration (_cf._ Curr,
‘The Australian Race,’ vol. i. pp. 310, _et seq._).

[142] Oldfield, ‘The Aborigines of Australia,’ in ‘Trans. Ethn.
Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iii. p. 230.

[143] Bonwick, ‘Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians,’ p. 198.

[144] Dalton, _loc. cit._, pp. 196, _et seq._

[145] _Ibid._, p. 300.

[146] Watson and Kaye, ‘The People of India,’ vol. i. no. 2. Rowney,
_loc. cit._ p. 76.

[147] Shortt, ‘Contribution to the Ethnology of Jeypore,’ in ‘Trans.
Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vi. p. 269.

[148] _Idem_, ‘Account of the Hill Tribes of the Neilgherries,’ in
‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 282.

[149] Bancroft, ‘Native Races of the Pacific States,’ vol. i. pp. 551,
_et seq._

[150] Fritsch, ‘Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrika’s,’ p. 328.

[151] Rowley, ‘Africa Unveiled,’ p. 165.

[152] Kovalevsky, ‘Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia,’ pp. 10,
_et seq._

[153] Westropp and Wake, ‘Ancient Symbol Worship,’ p. 26.

[154] Mannhardt, ‘Wald-und Feldkulte,’ vol. i. ch. v. §§ 8-11,
especially pp. 449, 450, 469, 480, _et seq._ See also Kulischer,
‘Die geschlechtliche Zuchtwahl bei den Menschen in der Urzeit,’ in
‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. viii. pp. 152-156.

[155] Wargentin, ‘Uti hvilka Månader flera Människor årligen födas
och dö i Sverige,’ in ‘Kongl. Vetenskaps-academiens Handlingar,’ vol.
xxviii. pp. 249-258.

[156] Wappäus, ‘Allgemeine Bevölkerungsstatistik,’ vol. i. p.  237.

[157] Sormani, ‘La fecondità e la mortalità umana in rapporto alle
stagioni ed ai clima d’Italia;’ quoted by Mayr, ‘Die Gesetzmässigkeit
im Gesellschaftsleben,’ p. 242.

[158] Mayr, p. 240. Beukemann, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung über die
Vertheilung der Geburten nach Monaten,’ pp. 15-22.

[159] Haycraft, in ‘Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh,’ vol. xxix. pp. 119,
_et seq._

[160] Mayr, _loc. cit._, p. 241.

[161] Beukemann, _loc. cit._ p. 26.

[162] Wargentin, in ‘Kongl. Vet.-acad. Handl.,’ vol. xxviii. p. 252.
Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  237.

[163] Wappäus, vol. i. pp. 250, 237.

[164] Hill, ‘The Life Statistics of an Indian Province,’ in ‘Nature,’
vol. xxxviii., p. 250.

[165] See, for instance, Ploss, ‘Das Weib,’ vol. i. p.  414; Wappäus,
vol. i. pp. 239, 247.

[166] Rousselet, ‘India and its Native Princes,’ p. 173.

[167] Reclus, ‘Nouvelle géographie universelle,’ vol. viii. p. 70.

[168] Tod, ‘Annals and Antiquities of Rajast’han,’ vol. i. p.  495.

[169] Villermé. quoted by Quetelet, ‘Treatise on Man,’ p. 21.

[170] Beukemann, _loc. cit._ pp. 18, 28.

[171] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 206.

[172] _Ante_, p. 27.

[173] _Cf._ Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  354.

[174] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. ii. p. 149.

[175] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 124.

[176] Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  241.

[177] Wargentin, in ‘Kongl. Vet.-acad. Handl.,’ vol. xxviii. p. 254.

[178] Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  242. Bertillon, ‘Natalité
(démographie),’ in ‘Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences
médicales,’ ser. ii. vol. xi. p. 479.

[179] Beukemann, _loc. cit._ p. 59.

[180] Hill, in ‘Nature,’ vol. xxxviii. p. 250.

[181] Professor Nicholson says (‘Sexual Selection in Man,’ p. 9) that
Darwinism _fails_ to assign any adequate cause for this.

[182] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 113.

[183] Oldfield, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iii. pp. 269, _et
seq._

[184] Darwin, ‘The Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication,’ vol. ii. p. 255.

[185] Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  247.

[186] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  246. Quetelet, _loc. cit._ p. 20. Bertillon,
in ‘Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences médicales,’ ser. ii. vol.
xi. p. 480.

[187] Wappäus, vol. i. p.  343.

[188] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. iii. p. 333.

[189] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 43.

[190] _Ibid._, vol. iii. pp. 549, 557.

[191] Müller, _loc. cit._ pp. 2, 86, 104. I myself know of a canary
that laid eggs as early as March.

[192] Peschel, ‘The Races of Man,’ pp. 229, _et seq._

[193] Giraud-Teulon, ‘Les origines du mariage et de la famille,’ p.
148. Lippert, ‘Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit,’ vol. ii. pp. 54,
_et seq._ Von Hellwald, ‘Die menschliche Familie,’ p. 207: ‘Was
später der Vater, das ist der Oheim zur Zeit des Mutterrechtes und des
Matriarchats.’ Kovalevsky, ‘Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de
la famille et de la propriété,’ pp. 15, 16, 21.

[194] Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._ pp. 199, _et seq._

[195] Kovalevsky, ‘Tableau des origines de la famille,’ pp. 21, _et
seq._

[196] Bastian, ‘Die Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der
Erde,’ p. 181.

[197] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1026.

[198] Munzinger, ‘Ostafrikanische Studien,’ p. 528.

[199] Cain, ‘The Bhadrachellam and Rekapalli Taluqas,’ in ‘The Indian
Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 34.

[200] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 150.

[201] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  268. _Cf._ Bartram, ‘The
Creek and Cherokee Indians,’ in ‘Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,’ vol.
iii. pt. i. p.  65.

[202] Codrington, ‘The Melanesians,’ p. 34. _Cf._ Curr, _loc. cit._
vol. i. pp. 60, 62, 69.

[203] Kautsky, ‘Die Entstehung der Ehe und Familie,’ in ‘Kosmos’ vol.
xii. p. 198.

[204] _Cf._ Tylor, ‘Primitive Society,’ in ‘The Contemporary Review,’
vol. xxi. pp. 711, _et seq._

[205] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  166.

[206] Savage, ‘Description of _Troglodytes Gorilla_,’ p. 9. 

[207] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 220.

[208] Du Chaillu, _loc. cit._ p. 349.

[209] ‘Die Gartenlaube,’ 1877, p. 418.

[210] Savage, in ‘Boston Journal of Natural History,’ vol. iv. pp.
384, _et seq._

[211] Du Chaillu, p. 358.

[212] Hartmann, _loc. cit._ p. 221: ‘Dieses Thier lebt in einzelnen
Familien oder in kleinern Gruppen von solchen beieinander.'

[213] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Psychology,’ vol. ii. pp. 558, _et
seq._

[214] Savage, in ‘Boston Journal of Natural History,’ vol. iv. p. 384.
_Cf._ v. Koppenfels, in ‘Die Gartenlaube,’ 1877, p. 419.

[215] Spencer, vol. ii. p. 558.

[216] Herr Kautsky is certainly mistaken when he says (‘Kosmos,’ vol.
xii. p. 193), ‘Nicht Familien, sondern Stämme sind es, denen wir bei
den Völkern begegnen, die sich ihre ursprünglichen Einrichtungen noch
bewahrt haben.'

[217] Pridham, ‘Account of Ceylon,’ vol. i. p.  454. _Cf._ Hartshorne,
‘The Weddas,’ in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 320.

[218] Bailey, ‘The Wild Tribes of the Veddahs of Ceylon,’ in ‘Trans.
Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 281.

[219] Stirling, ‘Residence in Tierra del Fuego,’ in ‘The South
American Missionary Magazine,’ vol. iv. p. 11.

[220] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  124.

[221] Hyades, ‘Ethnographie des Fuégiens,’ in ‘Bulletins de la
Société d’Anthropologie de Paris,’ ser. iii. vol. x. p.  333.

[222] Bove, ‘Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco,’ p. 134. Lovisato, ‘Appunti
etnografici sulla Terra del Fuoco,’ in Guido Cora’s ‘Cosmos,’ vol.
viii. p. 150.

[223] Bridges, ‘Manners and Customs of the Firelanders,’ in ‘A Voice
for South America,’ vol. xiii. p. 204.

[224] Salvado, ‘Mémoires historiques sur l’Australie,’ pp. 265, _et
seq._ _Idem_, ‘Voyage en Australie,’ p. 178.

[225] Stanbridge, ‘The Tribes in the Central Part of Victoria,’ in
‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. i. pp. 286, _et seq._

[226] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 278.

[227] Fritsch, _loc. cit._ pp. 443, _et seq._

[228] Thulié, ‘Instructions sur les Bochimans,’ in ‘Bull. Soc.
d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. iv. pp. 409, _et seq._ Lichtenstein,
‘Travels in Southern Africa,’ vol. i. p.  48.

[229] Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 194.

[230] v. Martius, ‘Civil and Natural Rights among the Aboriginal
Inhabitants of Brazil,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc.,’ vol. ii. p. 192.

[231] v. Tschudi, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 283.

[232] v. Martius, ‘Beiträge zur Ethnographic Amerika’s,’ vol. i. pp.
244, 400, 247.

[233] Bates, ‘The Naturalist on the River Amazons,’ vol. ii. p. 376.

[234] _Ibid._, vol. ii. pp. 381, 377, _et seq._; vol. i. p.  328.

[235] Southey, ‘History of Brazil,’ vol. ii. p. 373.

[236] v. Spix and v. Martius, ‘Travels in Brazil,’ vol. ii. p. 244.

[237] Petroff, ‘The Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska,’
p. 135.

[238] Ahlqvist, ‘Die Kulturwörter der westfinnischen Sprachen,’ p. 220.

[239] Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 49, 194.

[240] King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 177, _et seq._

[241] Hunter, ‘Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson
and Norfolk Island,’ p. 62.

[242] Meyer, _loc. cit._ p. 191.

[243] Brough Smyth, ‘The Aborigines of Victoria,’ vol. i. pp. 146, _et
seq._

[244] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 207, _et seq._

[245] _Cf._ Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. §§ 24, 27.

[246] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  72.

[247] Lubbock, ‘The Development of Relationships,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. i. p.  2.

[248] Bachofen, ‘Das Mutterrecht,’ pp. xxi., xx., 10. _Idem_,
‘Antiquarische Briefe,’ pp. 20, _et seq._ McLennan, _loc. cit._
pp. 92, 95. Morgan, _loc. cit._ pp. 480, 487, _et seq._ _Idem_,
‘Ancient Society,’ pp. 418, 500-502. Lubbock _loc. cit._ pp.
86, 98, 104. Bastian, _loc. cit._ p. xviii. Giraud-Teulon, _loc.
cit._ p. 70. Lippert, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 7.  Post, ‘Die
Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit,’ pp. 16, _et seq._ _Idem_,
‘Die Grundlagen des Rechts,’ pp. 183, _et seq._ _Idem_, ‘Studien
zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Familienrechts,’ pp. 54, _et seq._
Wilken, ‘Over de primitieve vormen van het huwelijk en den oorsprong
van het gezin,’ in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol ii. p. 611. Kohler,
in ‘Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft,’ vol. iv. p.
267. Engels, ‘Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des
Staats,’ p. 17. Mr. Herbert Spencer, though inferring (‘The Principles
of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  635) that even in prehistoric times
promiscuity was checked by the establishment of individual connections,
thinks that in the earliest stages it was but in a small degree thus
qualified.

[249] Fiske, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 345. Kulischer, in ‘Zeitschrift
für Ethnologie,’ vol. viii. pp. 140, _et seq._ Gomplowicz, ‘Grundriss
der Sociologie,’ p. 107. Bevel, ‘Woman in the Past, Present, and
Future,’ p. 9. 

[250] Herodotus, ‘Ιστορία,’ book i. ch. 216. Strabo, _loc. cit._ book
xi. p. 513.

[251] Herodotus, book iv. ch. 180.

[252] Solinus, ‘Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium,’ ch. xxx. § 2.

[253] Nicolaus Damascenus, ‘Ἐθῶν συναγω γή,’ §§ 3, 14.

[254] Wolkov, ‘Rites et usages nuptiaux en Ukraine,’ in
‘L’Anthropologie,’ vol. ii. p. 164.

[255] Garcilasso de la Vega, ‘The Royal Commentaries of the Yncas,’
vol. ii. p. 443.

[256] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp. 86-95.

[257] Belcher, ‘The Andaman Islands,’ in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S. 
vol. v. p. 45.

[258] Poole, ‘Queen Charlotte Islands,’ p. 312.

[259] Baegert, ‘The Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Californian
Peninsula,’ in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1863, p. 368.

[260] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp. 87, _et seq._

[261] Buchanan, ‘Journey from Madras,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of
Voyages and Travels,’ vol. viii. p. 736. Lubbock, p. 87.

[262] Watson and Kaye, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. no. 85.

[263] Dubois, ‘Description of the People of India,’ p. 3. 

[264] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 240.

[265] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ pp. 36, 51, 53. Ridley,
‘Kámilarói,’ pp. 161, _et seq._

[266] Schürmann, ‘The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,’ in Wood’s
‘The Native Tribes of South Australia,’ p. 223.

[267] King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 182.

[268] Wilken, in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. pp. 610, _et seq._
_Idem_, ‘Over de verwantschap en het huwelijks-en erfrecht bij de
volken van het maleische ras,’ pp. 20; 82 note.

[269] Bastian, ‘Ueber die Eheverhältnisse,’ in ‘Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie,’ vol. vi. p. 406.

[270] _Idem_, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. lxi., note 36.

[271] _Idem_, ‘Die Culturländer des Alten America,’ vol. ii. p. 654,
note 4.

[272] Quoted by Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._ p. 72.

[273] Baegert, in ‘Smith Rep.,’ 1863, p. 368.

[274] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  239.

[275] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp. 104, et seq. Morgan in his
‘Introduction’ to Fison and Howitt’s ‘Kamilaroi and Kurnai,’ p. 10.
Kohler, ‘Ueber das Recht der Australneger,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vii. p. 344. Kovalevsky, ‘Tableau des origines de
la famille,’ pp. 13, _et seq._

[276] Fison and Howitt, p. 60.

[277] _Ibid_., pp. 159, _et seq._

[278] Howitt, ‘Australian Group Relations,’ in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1883,
p. 817.

[279] As regards the Melanesians, Dr. Codrington remarks (_loc. cit._
pp. 22, _et seq._): ‘Speaking 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.'

[280] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  126.

[281] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  142.

[282] Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 404.

[283] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 135.

[284] Burchell, ‘Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa,’ vol.
ii. p. 60.

[285] Barrow, ‘Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa,’ vol.
i. p.  276.

[286] Woldt, ‘Capitain Jacobsen’s Reise an der Nordwestküste
Amerikas,’ pp. 20, 21, 28, _et seq._

[287] Ratzel, ‘Völkerkunde,’ vol. ii. p. 430.

[288] Schwaner, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  231, note: ‘De Koeteinezen
verhalen, dat hunne Ot geene huwelijken sluiten, geen woningen hebben,
en als de dieren des wouds door hen gejaagd worden.'

[289] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  230.

[290] Richardson, ‘Arctic Searching Expedition,’ vol. i. p.  383.
Kirby, ‘Journey to the Youcan,’ in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1864, p. 419.
Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  131.

[291] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  693.

[292] Schomburgk, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 459, _et seq._ Brett, ‘The
Indian Tribes of Guiana,’ p. 98.

[293] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 472.

[294] Dalton, ‘The “Kols” of Chota Nagpore,‘ in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’
N. S.  vol. vi. p. 25.

[295] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 81.

[296] Post, ‘Afrikanische Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. p.  304.

[297] With reference to the Tahitians, Forster says (‘Voyage round
the World,’ vol. ii. p. 132), ‘We have been told a wanton tale of
promiscuous embraces, where every woman is common to every man: but
when we inquired for a confirmation of this story from the natives,
we were soon convinced that it must, like many others, be considered
as a groundless invention of a traveller’s gay fancy.’ Regarding the
Peruvian natives alleged to live in a state of promiscuity, Garcilasso
de la Vega assures us (_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 443) that he saw them
with his own eyes when on his way to Spain, for the ship stopped on
their coast for _three_ days.

[298] Pliny, ‘Historia Naturalis,’ book v. ch. 8: ‘Garamantes,
matrimoniorum exsortes, passim cum foeminis degunt.... Blemmyis
traduntur capita abesse, ore et oculis pectori affixis.'

[299] Rowney, _loc. cit._ pp. 140, 142, 143.

[300] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 293.

[301] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 85, _et seq._

[302] Post, ‘Die Grundlagen des Rechts,’ p. 187. _Cf._ Wilken, in ‘De
Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. p. 1195.

[303] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  206.

[304] Proyart, ‘History of Loango,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of
Voyages,’ vol. xvi. p. 568.

[305] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 261.

[306] Forbes, ‘Dahomey and the Dahomans,’ vol. i. p.  26.

[307] Barth, ‘Reisen in Nord-und Central-Afrika,’ vol. ii. p. 18.

[308] Chavanne, _loc. cit._ p. 315.

[309] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 326.

[310] Baker, _loc. cit._ p. 124.

[311] Munzinger, p. 243. For certain other African peoples, see Moore,
_loc. cit._ p. 221; Munzinger, pp. 145, 146, 208; d’Escayrac de
Lauture, ‘Die Afrikanische Wüste,’ p. 132.

[312] Hanoteau and Letourneux, ‘La Kabylie et les coutumes Kabyles,’
vol. ii. pp. 148, 187.

[313] Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 240.

[314] Klemm, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 166.

[315] Liebich, ‘Die Zigeuner,’ p. 50, note 1.

[316] Georgi, ‘Beschreibung aller Nationen des russischen Reichs,’ p.
311.

[317] Klemm, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 26.

[318] Prejevalsky, ‘From Kulja to Lob-nor,’ p. 112.

[319] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  343.

[320] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde van
Nederlandsch-Indië,’ ser. v. vol. iv. p. 444.

[321] Low, _loc. cit._ pp. 300, 247.

[322] St. John, ‘Life in the Forests of the Far East,’ vol. i. pp. 52,
_et seq._

[323] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 66.

[324] Meyer, ‘Die Igorrotes von Luzon,’ in ‘Verhandlungen der
Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte,’
1883, pp. 384, _et seq._ Blumentritt, _loc. cit_. p. 27. For other
tribes of the Indian Archipelago, see Marsden, ‘The History of
Sumatra,’ p. 261; and Matthes, ‘Bijdragen tot de Ethnologie van
Zuid-Celebes,’ p. 6. 

[325] Earl, ‘Papuans,’ p. 81. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p.
629. Finsch, ‘Neu-Guinea,’ pp. 77, 82, 92, 101.

[326] Bonwick, _loc. cit._ p. 60.

[327] Finsch, p. 101.

[328] Bonwick, pp. 59, 11.

[329] Erskine, ‘The Islands of the Western Pacific,’ p. 341.

[330] _Ibid._, p. 255.

[331] Codrington, _loc. cit._ p. 235.

[332] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 138.

[333] Turner, ‘Nineteen Years in Polynesia,’ p. 184.

[334] Quoted by Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 318.

[335] Dawson, ‘Australian Aborigines,’ pp. 33, 28.

[336] Quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155.

[337] Egede, ‘Description of Greenland,’ p. 141.

[338] Cranz, ‘The History of Greenland,’ vol. i. p.  145.

[339] Hearne, ‘Journey to the Northern Ocean,’ p. 311.

[340] Catlin, ‘Illustrations of the Manners, Customs, and Condition of
the North American Indians,’ vol. i. p.  121.

[341] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  654.

[342] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  514.

[343] See Meares, ‘Voyages,’ p. 251; Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p.
112.

[344] Dobrizhoffer, ‘Account of the Abipones,’ vol. ii. p. 153.

[345] Nansen, ‘The First Crossing of Greenland,’ vol. ii. p. 329.

[346] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 381.

[347] Lord, ‘The Naturalist in Vancouver Island,’ vol. ii. p. 233.

[348] Woldt, _loc. cit._ p. 28.

[349] King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 173.

[350] Musters, ‘At Home with the Patagonians,’ p. 197.

[351] Vancouver, ‘Voyage of Discovery,’ vol. i. pp. 171, _et seq._

[352] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 108. Brenchley,
‘Jottings during the Cruise of _H.M.S. Curaçoa_ among the South Sea
Islands,’ p. 208. _Cf._ Meade, ‘A Ride through the Disturbed Districts
of New Zealand,’ p. 163 (Maoris).

[353] Ellis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  270.

[354] Stephens, ‘The Aborigines of Australia,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc.
N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 480.

[355] Sibree, ‘The Great African Island,’ p. 252.

[356] Krauss, ‘Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven,’ ch. xii. pp. 197-227.

[357] Ahlqvist, _loc. cit._ p. 214.

[358] Vámbéry, ‘Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen Volkes,’ p.
72.

[359] Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 444.

[360] Drury, ‘Adventures during Fifteen Years’ Captivity on the Island
of Madagascar,‘ p. 323.

[361] Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 484.

[362] v. Oettingen, ‘Moralstatistik,’ p. 317.

[363] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 199.

[364] _Ibid._, pp. 199, 216.

[365] _Ibid._, p. 327.

[366] _Cf._ Barth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 18; v. Holten, ‘Das Land
der Yurakarer,’ in ‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. ix. p. 109;
Hunter, ‘The Annals of Rural Bengal,’ vol. i. p.  205.

[367] _Cf._ Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 114; vol. iii. pp. 111,
343; vol. vi. pp. 125, 774; Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 415; Lewin, _loc.
cit._ p. 348; Martin, _loc. cit._ vol ii. p. 175; Riedel, ‘De sluik-en
kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua,’ pp. 5, 42; Marsden,
_loc. cit._ p. 261.

[368] Lewin, p. 193.

[369] _Ibid._, p. 203.

[370] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 248.

[371] Watt, ‘The Aboriginal Tribes of Manipur,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 358.

[372] St. John, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  53.

[373] Rogers, ‘Scotland Social and Domestic,’ p. 109.

[374] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 536.

[375] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book i. ch. 199.

[376] Strabo, _loc. cit._ book xi. p. 532.

[377] Lubbock, pp. 535-537.

[378] McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 341.

[379] Herodotus, book iv. ch. 172. Pomponius Mela, ‘De Situ Orbis,’
book i. ch. 8.

[380] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 442.

[381] Diodorus Siculus, ‘Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική,’ book v. ch. 1.

[382] v. Langsdorf, ‘Voyages and Travels,’ vol. i. p.  153.

[383] McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 341. The case stated by Garcilasso de la
Vega must, however, be excepted.

[384] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 132. Post, ‘Die
Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit,’ pp. 34, _et seq._ Le Bon,
‘L’homme et les sociétés,’ vol. ii. p. 292. Lippert, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 17. Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss,’ vol. vii. p. 327.

[385] It occurs among the Kafirs (v. Weber, ‘Vier Jahre in Afrika,’
vol. ii. p. 218), several Central African peoples (Reade, _loc. cit._
p. 262. Du Chaillu, _loc. cit._ p. 47. Merolla da Sorrento, ‘Voyage
to Congo,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xvi. p. 272.
Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 114), the Aleuts (Dall, _loc. cit._ p.
399. Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 92, _et seq._ Georgi, _loc.
cit._ p. 372), Eskimo (Bancroft, vol. i. p.  65), Crees (Mackenzie,
‘Voyages to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans,’ p. xcvi.), Comanches
(Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  684), Apaches (Bancroft, vol. i.
p. 514), some Californians (Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 153), the aborigines
of Surinam (Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 267), and Brazil (v. Martius, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p. 118), Sinhalese (Pridham, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
250), Dyaks of Sidin (Western Borneo) and Orang-Saki (Wilken, in
‘Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië,’
ser. v. vol. iv. p. 451), the Australians (Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol.
i. p.  93. Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 195. Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr.
f. vgl. Rechtswiss,’ vol. vii. pp. 326, _et seq._ Curr, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  110), Tasmanians (Bonwick, _loc. cit._ p. 75), Papuans
(Zimmermann, ‘Die Inseln des indischen und stillen Meeres,’ vol. ii.
p. 183), Caroline Islanders (Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 212),
and some other Pacific Islanders (Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ p. 194. Post,
‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft,’ p. 35), as also the Votyaks and
certain Siberian peoples (Buch, ‘Die Wotjäken,’ p. 48). This list
might easily be enlarged.

[386] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 111. Regnard, ‘Journey to
Lapland,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. i. pp. 166, _et
seq._ Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 267. Marco Polo, ‘The Kingdoms and Marvels
of the East,’ vol. ii. p. 34. Post, ‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft,’
pp. 34, _et seq._ Coxe, ‘The Russian Discoveries between Asia and
America,’ p. 245.

[387] Rochon, ‘Voyage to Madagascar,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of
Voyages,’ vol. xvi. p. 747.

[388] Sauer, ‘Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia,’ p. 49.

[389] Sproat, ‘Scenes and Studies of Savage Life,’ p. 95.

[390] Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  356.

[391] Du Chaillu, _loc. cit._ p. 47.

[392] Lyon, ‘The Private Journal,’ &c., p. 354. Hearne, _loc. cit._
p. 129. Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  92. Steller, ‘Beschreibung
von Kamtschatka,’ p. 347. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 308; vol. vi.
pp. 130, 131, 622. Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 172. Zimmermann,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  247.

[393] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 140.

[394] Marco Polo, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 34.

[395] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol ii. p. 316. _Cf._ Mathew, in
‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 404.

[396] Johnston, ‘The Kilima-njaro Expedition,’ p. 431.

[397] McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 337, note. _Cf._ Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy.
Soc. N. S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 404.

[398] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 698. ‘Revue des deux Mondes,’ 1883,
June 1, p. 688.

[399] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 382.

[400] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 113, 428, 485.

[401] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 671.

[402] _Ibid._, vol. i. pp. 584, _et seq._ Bastian, in ‘Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie,’ vol. vi. p. 408, note.

[403] Bontier and Le Verrier, ‘The Canarian,’ Introduction, p. xxxv.
_Cf._ Glas, ‘The History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary
Islands,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xvi. p. 819.

[404] Barth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 571, note *.

[405] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book iv. ch. 168.

[406] Navarette, ‘The Great Empire of China,’ in Awnsham and
Churchill’s ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,’ vol. i. p.  320.

[407] Hamilton, ‘New Account of the East Indies,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. viii. p. 374.

[408] Sugenheim, ‘Geschichte der Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft und
Hörigkeit in Europa,’ p. 104. Philip VI. and Charles VI. could not, in
the fourteenth century, induce the Bishops of Amiens to give up the
old custom, “dass jedes neuvremählte Paar ihrer Stadt und Diöcese die
Erlaubniss zur ehelichen Beiwohnung in den drei ersten Nächten nach der
Trauung von ihnen mittelst einer bedeutenden Abgabe erkaufen musste.”

[409] Schmidt, ‘Jus primae noctis,’ pp. 379, &c.

[410] See Professor Kohler’s criticism in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
Rechtswiss.,’ vol. iv. pp. 279-287.

[411] Kulischer, ‘Die communale “Zeitehe,”‘ in ‘Archiv. für
Anthropologie,’ vol. xi. pp. 228, _et seq._

[412] Bachofen, ‘Das Mutterrecht,’ pp. 12, 13, 17, 18,
&c. Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._ pp. 32, &c. Kulischer, in
‘Archiv für Anthropologie,’ vol. xi. p. 223. Post, ‘Die
Geschlechtsgenossenschaft,’ p. 37. Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 537. Wilken,
in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. p. 1196. See Schmidt, ‘Das
Streit über das jus primae noctis,’ in ‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’
vol. xvi. pp. 44, _et seq._

[413] Holub, ‘Seven Years in South Africa,’ vol. ii. pp. 160, _et seq._

[414] Bastian, ‘Der Mensch in der Geschichte,’ vol. iii. p. 302.
Burton, ‘Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome,’ vol. ii. p. 67.

[415] Bosman, ‘Description of the Coast of Guinea,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xvi. p. 480.

[416] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 161.

[417] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 45.

[418] Moore, p. 182.

[419] Marco Polo, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 213.

[420] Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  29.

[421] Yate, ‘Account of New Zealand,’ p. 96.

[422] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 184.

[423] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 359.

[424] ‘Ѕалнск? сељскаго св?ще?н?ка,’ in ‘Русская Сгарина,’ vol.
xxvii. pp. 63, 77.

[425] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 140.

[426] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 113, _et seq._

[427] Hamilton, _loc. cit._ p. 374.

[428] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp. 133, 537-539. Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._
pp. 43-53.

[429] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 539.

[430] See Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._ p. 44.

[431] McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 343.

[432] Juan and Ulloa, ‘Voyage to South America,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xiv. p. 521.

[433] Regnard, _loc. cit._ p. 166.

[434] St. Andrew St. John, ‘The Hill Tribes of North Aracan,’ in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. ii. p. 239.

[435] Morgan, ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human
Family,’ p. 12.

[436] ‘Malayan,’ as Mr. Wallace remarks, is a bad term, as this system
does not occur among true Malays.

[437] Morgan, pp. 450, _et seq._

[438] _Idem_, ‘Ancient Society,’ pp. 403, _et seq._ _Idem_, ‘Systems
of Consanguinity and Affinity,’ pp. 482, _et seq._

[439] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 184.

[440] _Ibid._, p. 196.

[441] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ &c., p. 488.

[442] As the second form he assumes the ‘Punaluan family,’ which was
founded upon intermarriage of several sisters and female cousins with
each other’s husbands (or several brothers and male cousins with each
other’s wives) in a group, the joint husbands (or wives) not being
necessarily akin to each other, although often so (‘Ancient Society,’
p. 384).

[443] _Ibid._, p. 502. _Cf._ Morgan, ‘Systems,’ &c., pp. 487, _et seq._

[444] Buschmann, ‘Ueber den Naturlaut,’ in ‘Philologische und
historische Abhandlungen der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin,’ 1852, pp. 391-423. Independently of him Sir J. Lubbock has
compiled a similar table in ‘The Origin of Civilization,’ pp. 427-432.

[445] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 10, 9.

[446] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 18.

[447] Hunter, ‘Comparative Dictionary of the Languages of India and
High Asia,’ p. 122.

[448] von der Gabelentz, ‘Die melanesischen Sprachen,’ vol. ii. p. 139.

[449] Hunter, pp. 122, 143.

[450] von der Gabelentz, vol. ii. p. 52.

[451] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  215.

[452] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  172.

[453] Klaproth, ‘Asia Polyglotta,’ p. 281.

[454] Barth, ‘Central-afrikanische Vokabularien,’ p. 212.

[455] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 293.

[456] von den Steinen, ‘Durch Central-Brasilien,’ p. 341.

[457] von der Gabelentz, vol. i. p.  71.

[458] Barth, p. 214.

[459] von der Gabelentz, vol. ii. p. 52.

[460] Preyer, ‘Die Seele des Kindes,’ p. 321.

[461] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 431.

[462] von den Steinen, _loc. cit._ p. 341.

[463] Schomburgk, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 318. Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’
pp. 126, 186.

[464] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ &c., pp. 295, 313, 339, 348, 358, 362, 368,
374.

[465] Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. ix. p. 366.

[466] Robertson Smith, ‘Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,’ p. 117.

[467] Vámbéry, ‘Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen Volkes,’ p.
65.

[468] Müller, ‘Comparative Mythology,’ in ‘Oxford Essays,’ 1856, pp.
14, _et seq._ _Idem_, ‘Biographies of Words,’ p. xvi.

[469] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 433. _Cf._ Sayce, ‘Principles of
Comparative Philology,’ p. 211.

[470] _Cf._ McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 259; Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ p. 188.

[471] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ &c., p. 132.

[472] Davy, ‘Account of the Interior of Ceylon,’ p. 117.

[473] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ &c., p. 453, note.

[474] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 127.

[475] Barth, ‘Central-afrikanische Vocabularien,’ p. 216. Vámbéry,
‘Die primitive Cultur,’ &c., p. 69.

[476] Barth, p. 216.

[477] Sibree, _loc. cit._ pp. 244, et seq.

[478] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 258.

[479] Casalis, ‘The Basutos,’ p. 207.

[480] Ahlqvist, _loc. cit._ p. 209.

[481] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 431. Nordqvist, ‘Tschuktschisk
ordlista,’ in Nordenskiöld, ‘Vega-expeditionens vetenskapliga
iakttagelser,’ vol. i. pp. 386, 390.

[482] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 247, _et seq_.

[483] Salvado, ‘Mémoires,’ p. 277. _Cf._ Collins, ‘New South Wales,’
vol. i. p. 544.

[484] Nicolaus Damascenus, _loc. cit._ § 3.

[485] Deecke, ‘Die deutschen Verwandtschaftsnamen,’ p. 79.

[486] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 116.

[487] Ahlqvist, p. 209.

[488] Dixon, ‘The Tsuishikari Ainos,’ in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’
vol. xi. pt. i. p.  43.

[489] Vámbéry, ‘Die primitive Cultur,’ &c., p. 65.

[490] Ahlqvist, p. 212.

[491] Ahlqvist, _loc. cit._ p. 211.

[492] von den Steinen, _loc. cit._ p. 341.

[493] Ahlqvist, p. 210. von der Gabelentz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  172.

[494] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ p. 452, note. _Cf._ the German ‘Junge.'

[495] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 91, _et seq._

[496] Eyre, ‘Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central
Australia,’ vol. ii. p. 214.

[497] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  143.

[498] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 247.

[499] Bridges, in ‘A Voice for South America,’ vol. xiii. p. 212.

[500] Mr. A. J.  Swann, in a letter dated Kavala Island, Lake
Tanganyika, December 14th, 1888.

[501] Hartshorne, in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 320.
According to M. Le Mesurier (‘The Veddás of Ceylon,’ in Jour. Roy. As.
Soc. Ceylon Branch,‘ vol. ix. p. 347), the Rock or Hill Veddahs use
the word for brother, ‘aluwa,’ when they speak of or to any person with
whom they are in friendship.

[502] Mr. Bridges, in a letter dated Downeast, Tierra del Fuego, August
28th, 1888.

[503] In dealing with the pretended group-marriages of the Australians,
we have noted the distortion of facts to which Mr. Morgan’s hypothesis
has given rise. Nowhere has this distortion appeared in an odder way
than in Professor Bernhöft’s pamphlet, entitled ‘Verwandtschaftsnamen
und Eheformen der nordamerikanischen Volksstämme.’ The author, misled
by the systems of nomenclature, asserts that even now group-marriages
are extremely common (have ‘eine ungeheure Verbreitung’) not only
among the Australians, but also throughout America and Africa,
and in many parts of Asia (pp. 8, 16). In a paper of more recent
date (‘Altindische Familien-Organisation,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
Rechtswiss.,’ vol. ix. p. 7), however, Professor Bernhöft admits that
the actual practice has _mostly_ become different from that which
the terms indicate, and that the progress to individual marriage has
already often taken place.

[504] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp. 196, _et seq._ Morgan, ‘Systems,’ p. 35
note.

[505] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ p. 36, note.

[506] ‘Das Mutterrecht.'

[507] McLennan, _loc. cit._ p. 88.

[508] See, besides the works of Bachofen and McLennan, Lubbock,
_loc. cit._ pp. 151-156; Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._ ch. vii.-x.;
_Idem_, ‘La Mère chez certains peuples de l’antiquité;’ Bastian,
‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ pp. 183, _et seq._; Lippert, ‘Die Geschichte
der Familie,’ sec. i.; _Idem_, ‘Kulturgeschichte,’ vol. ii.
ch. ii.; Dargun, ‘Mutterrecht und Raubehe,’ pp. 2-9; Post,
‘Geschlechtsgenossenschaft,’ pp. 93, _et seq._; _Idem_, ‘Der
Ursprung des Rechts,’ pp. 37, _et seq._; _Idem_, ‘Baustiene,’ vol.
i. pp. 77, _et seq._; Starcke, ‘The Primitive Family,’ sec. i. ch.
i.-v.; Wilken, in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1881, vol. li. pp. 244-254;
Friedrichs, ‘Ueber den Ursprung des Matriarchats,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. viii. pp. 382, _et seq._; Frazer, ‘Totemism,’
pp. 70-72; Letourneau, ‘L’évolution du mariage et de la famille,’ ch.
xvi.-xviii.; Wake, ‘The Development of Marriage and Kinship,’ ch.
viii., _et seq._

[509] _Cf._ Hale, in ‘Science,’ vol. xix. p. 30.

[510] Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  176.

[511] Heriot, _loc. cit._ pp. 343, _et seq._

[512] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 371 (Yokuts). Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv.
p. 242.

[513] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 182, 194.

[514] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 234.

[515] Sproat, _loc. cit._ pp. 98, 116.

[516] Frazer, _loc. cit._ p. 71.

[517] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Ancient Mexicans, &c., pp. 5,
_et seq._

[518] v. Humboldt, ‘Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New
Continent,’ vol. vi. p. 41. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 383.

[519] Buckley, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. iii. p. 31.

[520] Waitz, vol. iii. pp. 471, _et seq._ Spencer, ‘Descriptive
Sociology,’ American Races, p. 10.

[521] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 352, _et seq._ Wallace,
‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 499.

[522] Hyades, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. x. p.  334.

[523] Cook, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  412.

[524] Morgan, ‘Systems,’ &c., pp. 579, 583.

[525] Ellis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  260.

[526] Cook, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 172.

[527] Ellis, ‘Tour through Hawaii,’ pp. 391, _et seq._

[528] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 247. Waitz-Gerland, _loc.
cit._ vol. vi. p. 203.

[529] Gill, ‘Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,’ p. 36.

[530] Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. ix. p. 366.

[531] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 209, _et seq._ Cheyne,
‘Islands in the Western Pacific Ocean,’ p. 109. Waitz-Gerland, _loc.
cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 119.

[532] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 244.

[533] Hickson, ‘A Naturalist in North Celebes,’ pp. 285, _et seq._
Wilken, ‘Over de verwantschap, etc., bij de volken van het maleische
ras,’ p. 21.

[534] Wilken, p. 21.

[535] Kohler, ‘Das Recht der Papuas auf Neu-Guinea,’ in ‘Zeitschr.
f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vii. pp. 373, 375. Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc.
d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 395. Chalmers, ‘Pioneering in New
Guinea,’ p. 188.

[536] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  85.

[537] Taylor, ‘Te Ika a Maui,’ p. 326. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol.
vi. p. 210.

[538] According to Mr. Frazer (_loc. cit._ p. 70), the proportion of
tribes with female to those with male descent is as four to one.

[539] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ pp. 276, 285. Waitz-Gerland, vol.
vi. p. 777. Eyre, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 328. Frazer, p. 70.

[540] Taplin, ‘The Narrinyeri,’ in Wood’s, ‘The Native Tribes of
South Australia,’ pp. 12, 51.

[541] Gason, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 186.

[542] Grey, ‘Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in North-West
and Western Australia,’ vol. ii. pp. 226, 236.

[543] Marshall, ‘A Phrenologist amongst the Todas,’ p. 206.

[544] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Asiatic Races, pp. 10, _et
seq._

[545] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 274.

[546] Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 167.

[547] Hunter, ‘The Annals of Rural Bengal,’ vol. i. p.  202.

[548] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Asiatic Races, p. 11.

[549] Burckhardt, ‘Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys,’ p. 75. Wilken’s
‘Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern’ and Professor Robertson
Smith’s (_loc. cit._ p. 151) suggestion that the maternal system
alone prevailed among the ancient Arabs, must be regarded as a mere
hypothesis. _Cf._ Redhouse, ‘Notes on Prof. E. B.  Tylor’s “Arabian
Matriarchate.”‘

[550] Wake, _loc. cit._ p. 271.

[551] _Cf._ Dargun, _loc. cit._ p. 5. 

[552] Batchelor, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. x. p.  212.

[553] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 458. Dalton, _loc. cit._
pp. 54, 57, 63 (Jyntias, Khasias, Garos). Dargun, p. 5, note.

[554] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 522. _Cf._ Burton, ‘First
Footsteps in East Africa,’ p. 123.

[555] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  169.

[556] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 469.

[557] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 421.

[558] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 230.

[559] Andersson, ‘Lake Ngami,’ p. 228. Chapman, ‘Travels in the
Interior of South Africa,’ vol. i. p.  341.

[560] Conder, ‘The Native Tribes in Bechuana-Land,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 85. Livingstone, _loc. cit_. p. 185.

[561] In a letter dated Imbizane River, Natal, October 10th, 1888.

[562] In a letter dated Port Elizabeth, Cape Colony, October 1st, 1888.

[563] Maclean, ‘Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs,’ pp. 71, 116. v.
Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 220. _Cf._ Waitz, _loc. cit_. vol. ii.
p. 391. Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 92.

[564] Starcke, _loc. cit._ p. 75. Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’
African Races, p. 7. 

[565] Andersson, p. 333.

[566] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Types of Lowest Races, &c.,
p. 10. For other instances of male descent in Africa, see Post,
‘Afrikanische Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. pp. 26-28.

[567] Maine, ‘Dissertations on Early Law and Custom,’ p. 149.

[568] Bachofen, ‘Das Mutterrecht,’ and ‘Antiquarische Briefe.’
McLennan, _loc. cit._ pp. 118-120, 195-246. _Idem_, ‘The Patriarchal
Theory.’ Giraud-Teulon, ‘Les origines du mariage,’ ch. xiv., xvi.

[569] Tacitus, ‘Germania,’ ch. xx.

[570] Schrader, ‘Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples,’ p. 395.

[571] Müller, ‘Biographies of Words,’ p. xvii.

[572] Mr. Horatio Hale thinks (‘Science,’ vol. xix. p. 30) that in
North America the paternal and maternal systems are both primitive.

[573] _Cf._ Friedrichs, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. viii.
pp. 371, &c.

[574] Maine, _loc. cit._ p. 202.

[575] _Cf._ Lippert, ‘Die Geschichte der Familie,’ pp. 5, 8, 9, &c.

[576] Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 378.

[577] Cameron, ‘Notes on some Tribes of New South Wales,’ in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiv., p. 352.

[578] Howitt, in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1883, p. 813.

[579] Wilkinson, ‘The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,’
vol. i. p.  320.

[580] Ribot, ‘L’hérédité psychologique,’ p. 362.

[581] Maine, _loc. cit._ p. 203.

[582] _Cf._ Tylor, ‘Researches into the Early History of Mankind,’
pp. 295, _et seq._; Kohler, in ‘Kritische Vierteljahrschrift für
Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft,’ N. S.  vol. iv. pp. 182, _et seq._

[583] _Cf._ Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp. 150, _et seq._

[584] Belt, ‘The Naturalist in Nicaragua’ p. 322.

[585] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  273.

[586] Hooker, ‘Himalayan Journals,’ vol. ii. p. 276.

[587] Quoted by Starcke, _loc. cit._ p. 69, note 4.

[588] _Ibid._, pp. 27, 28, 35, 36, 40, 41, &c.

[589] Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ pp. 184, 192, _et seq._ It is remarkable,
he says (p. 187), that while all children, among the Efatese, belonged,
by the family name, to the mother’s family, each child had its own
name, and any one bearing the name at once knew the father’s family
thereby.

[590] Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 181.

[591] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 298. Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 382.
Schoolcraft, ‘The Indian and his Wigwam,’ p. 72.

[592] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 383.

[593] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  136. _Cf._ Livingstone, _loc.
cit._ pp. 622, _et seq._

[594] Hickson, ‘Notes on the Sengirese,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. xvi. p. 138.

[595] Hooker, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 276.

[596] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 262.

[597] Starcke, _loc. cit._ p. 80.

[598] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 258.

[599] Early Arabians (Robertson Smith, _loc. cit._ pp. 74, _et seq._),
Sumatrans (Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 225), Sinhalese (McLennan, ‘Studies
in Ancient History,’ pp. 101, _et seq._).

[600] Küchler, ‘Marriage in Japan,’ in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol.
xiii. p 115.

[601] Starcke, _loc. cit._ p. 36.

[602] Grey, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 226, 231. Lubbock, _loc. cit._ pp.
136, _et seq._

[603] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 406.

[604] McCall Theal, ‘History of the Emigrant Boers,’ p. 16.

[605] Medhurst, ‘Marriage, Affinity, and Inheritance in China,’ in
‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p. 29.

[606] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ pp. 484, 490. Proyart, _loc. cit._ p. 571.

[607] Marshall, _loc. cit._ pp. 206, _et seq._

[608] Kearns, ‘The Tribes of South India,’ p. 35.

[609] Wake, _loc. cit._ p. 271.

[610] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  637, note.

[611] _Cf._ Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 421. Phillips, ‘The Lower Congo,’
in ‘Jour. Anth. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 229. Grade, in ‘Aus allen
Welttheilen,’ vol. xx. p. 5.  Powell, ‘Wanderings in a Wild Country,’
p. 60.

[612] Maine, _loc. cit._ pp. 204, _et seq._

[613] _Ibid._, pp. 204, _et seq._ note.

[614] Mantegazza, ‘Die Hygieine der Liebe,’ p. 405.

[615] Quoted by Witkowski, ‘La génération humaine,’ p. 218.

[616] ‘Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle to Tibet,’ &c., note
to p. 74.

[617] Wilson, ‘The Abode of Snow,’ p. 215.

[618] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  82. _Cf._ Erman, in
‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. iii. p. 163.

[619] Lisiansky, ‘Voyage Round the World,’ p. 83.

[620] Bontier and Le Verrier, _loc. cit._ p. 139.

[621] Harkness, _loc. cit._ pp. 122, _et seq._

[622] de Ujfalvy, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. p.  227.

[623] Hamilton, _loc. cit._ pp. 374, _et seq._

[624] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 395.

[625] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 394.

[626] Le Bon, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 289, _et seq._ Kautsky, in
‘Kosmos,’ vol. xii. p. 262.

[627] Giraud-Teulon, ‘Les origines de la famille,’ p’ 79, note.

[628] Le Bon, vol. ii. p. 293.

[629] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  125.

[630] Breton, ‘Excursions in New South Wales,’ &c., p. 231. Wilkes,
vol. ii. p. 195. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 774. Schürmann,
_loc. cit._ p. 223. Salvado, ‘Mémoires,’ p. 280.

[631] Grey, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 252.

[632] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 100, 109.

[633] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn, Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 292.

[634] Holmberg, ‘Ethnographische Skizzen über die Völker des
russischen Amerika,’ in ‘Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ,’ vol.
iv. pp. 332, _et seq._ Dali, _loc. cit._ p. 421.

[635] Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 158. Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
383. Hardisty, ‘The Loucheux Indians,’ in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1866,
p. 312. Dixon, ‘Voyage round the World,’ pp. 225, _et seq._ Harmon,
‘Journal of Voyages and Travels,’ p. 293. Franklin, ‘Journey to the
Shores of the Polar Sea,’ p. 67. _Cf._ Waitz, vol. iii. p. 328; Hearne,
_loc. cit._ p. 310; Mackenzie, _loc. cit_. p. 147; Hooper, _loc. cit._
p. 390.

[636] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 343.

[637] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 412.

[638] Adair, _loc. cit._ p. 143.

[639] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 209.

[640] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  693.

[641] v. Schütz-Holzhausen, ‘Der Amazonas,’ p. 70.

[642] v. Martius, vol i. p.  322. Keane, ‘On the Botocudos,’ in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 206.

[643] v. Spix and v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 241.

[644] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 128.

[645] _Ibid._, i. p.  82.

[646] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  239.

[647] Moncelon, in ‘Bull Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. ix. p. 368.
Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 115.

[648] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p. 329.

[649] Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ p. 194.

[650] Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 315.

[651] Riedel, _loc. cit._ pp. 5, 335, 448. _Cf._ Modigliani, ‘Un
viaggio a Nías,’ p. 471 (Nias).

[652] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p. 144.

[653] Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 348, et seq.

[654] Chavanne, _loc. cit._ p. 315.

[655] Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. xx. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 516.

[656] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 479.

[657] Forbes, ‘Dahomey and the Dahomans,’ vol. i. p.  25. _Cf._ Barth,
‘Reisen,’ vol. iv. p. 498; ‘Globus,’ vol. xli. p. 237; Bosman, p. 480.

[658] Le Bon, ‘La civilisation des Arabes,’ p. 434. This rule is not,
however, strictly observed among the lower classes in Arabia (Palgrave,
‘Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia,’ vol. i. pp. 271, _et
seq._), nor by the Mohammedans of Africa (d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc.
cit._ p. 63. Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 511. Chavanne, p. 349).

[659] Lane, ‘The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians,’ vol. i.
p. 138.

[660] Polak, ‘Persien,’ vol. i. p.  224.

[661] Balfour, ‘The Cyclopædia of India,’ vol. iii. p. 252.

[662] Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. viii. p. 361
(New Caledonians).

[663] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  201.

[664] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 661.

[665] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 61.

[666] Some Californian tribes (Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 75, 246,
270), the Comanches (Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 132),
Guanas (Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 95), Patagonians (Falkner,
‘Description of Patagonia,'p. 126), Kaupuis in Manipur (Watt, in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 355), Ladrone Islanders (Moore,
_loc. cit._ p. 187), the ancient people of Honduras (de Herrera, ‘The
General History of the West Indies,’ vol. iv. p. 140).

[667] North American Indians (Schoolcraft, vol. i. p.  236; vol. ii.
p. 132; vol. v. pp. 683, 684, 686. Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 375. Adair,
_loc. cit._ p. 145. Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  514), Africans
(Wake, ‘The Evolution of Morality,’ vol. ii. p. 128, note 2. Waitz,
vol. ii. p. 115), Gonds and Korkús (Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 149),
Kolyas (Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 358), inhabitants
of Nepaul (Smith, ‘Five Years’ Residence at Nepaul,‘ vol. i. p. 
153), South Slavonians (Krauss, _loc. cit._ pp. 569, _et seq._),
Egyptians (Wilkinson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  304).

[668] Liebich, _loc. cit._ p. 50, note 3.

[669] ‘Uplands-Lagen,’ Aerfdæ Balkær, ch. vi.

[670] Adair, pp. 144, _et seq._ Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 245.

[671] Crees (Schoolcraft, vol. v. p.  167), Chibchas (Waitz, vol. iv.
p. 367), Abyssinians (Lobo, ‘Voyage to Abyssinia,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xv. pp. 25, _et seq._), Kolyas (Watt, in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst,’ vol. xvi. p. 358), &c.

[672] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 95.

[673] Keating, ‘Expedition to the Source of St. Peter’s River,’ vol.
ii. pp. 169, _et seq._

[674] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 339. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 505.

[675] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  632.

[676] Squier, ‘The Archæology and Ethnology of Nicaragua,’ in ‘Trans.
Am. Ethn. Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. p.  127. Acosta, ‘The Natural and
Moral History of the Indies,’ vol. ii. p. 370.

[677] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen tot te taal-, land-en volkenkunde van
Nederlandsch-Indië,’ ser. v. vol. iv. pp. 446-448. Bink, in ‘Bull.
Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 397.

[678] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 95. Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 80.
Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 127.

[679] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 547. _Cf._ Waitz, vol. ii. p. 389;
Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  740; Park, ‘Travels in the Interior
of Africa,’ p. 221 (Mandingoes); Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 151, note *
(Arabs of Upper Egypt).

[680] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 113. Post, ‘Afrikanische
Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. pp. 396, _et seq._ Johnston, ‘The People of
Eastern Equatorial Africa,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. p. 11.
_Cf._ Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 45.

[681] Grade, in ‘Aus. allen Welttheilen,’ vol. xx. p. 5. 

[682] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 522.

[683] d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._ p. 192.

[684] ‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxii. vv. 15-17.

[685] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  209.

[686] Manzoni, quoted by Janke, _loc. cit._ p. 555. _Cf._ Burckhardt,
_loc. cit._ p. 63.

[687] Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 461

[688] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  213.

[689] Klemm, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 26.

[690] Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 79, 104, 237, 238, 283.

[691] _Ibid._, p. 232.

[692] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xix.

[693] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 133.

[694] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 226; vol. v. p.  217.

[695] Mackenzie, _loc. cit._ p. xcviii.

[696] Seemann, ‘The Voyage of Herald,’ vol. i. p.  316.

[697] Acosta, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 313.

[698] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 359. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 192,
193, 419.

[699] Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 391.

[700] In Bali this practice was carried to the utmost excess (Crawfurd
‘History of the Indian Archipelago,’ vol. ii., p. 241. Zimmermann,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  19).

[701] Navarette, _loc. cit._ p. 77.

[702] Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. pp. 130, 640, _et seq._

[703] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 96. Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. pp. 359, 377. Seemann, ‘Viti,’ pp. 192, 398. Williams, ‘Missionary
Enterprises in the South Sea Islands,’ p. 557. Pritchard, _loc. cit._
p. 372.

[704] Inglis, ‘Missionary Tour in the New Hebrides,’ in ‘Journal of
the Ethnological Society of London,’ vol. iii. p. 63.

[705] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 435. _Cf._ Richardson, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 31.

[706] Hardisty, in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1866, p. 319.

[707] Bouche, ‘La Côte des Esclaves,’ p. 218.

[708] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 280.

[709] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ p. 173.

[710] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 191; vol. vi. p.
130.

[711] de Rubruquis, ‘Travels into Tartary and China,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. vii. p. 33. Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._
vol. vi. p. 57.

[712] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  305.

[713] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  215.

[714] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 152.

[715] Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 391.

[716] Dubois, _loc. cit._ pp. 99, 164.

[717] Malcolm, ‘Essay on the Bhills,’ in ‘Trans. Roy. Asiatic Soc.
Gr. Britain and Ireland,’ vol. i. p.  86.

[718] Krauss, _loc. cit._ p. 578.

[719] Pausanias, ‘Ἑλλάδος περιήγησις,’ book ii. ch. 21.

[720] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 262.

[721] Fulton, ‘The Laws of Marriage,’ pp. 204, _et seq._ St. Paul, ‘1
Timothy,’ ch. v. vv. 11, 12, 14, _et seq._

[722] Gibbon, ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire,’ vol. i. p.  319.

[723] Adair, _loc. cit._ p. 186.

[724] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  269.

[725] Stewart, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. p. 621.

[726] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ pp. 488, 387.

[727] Schomburgk, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  227. Lord, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 235. Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  95.

[728] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 255. v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 34.
Falkner, _loc. cit._ p. 119. Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p.
238 (Dacotahs). Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 383 (Yokuts). Munzinger, _loc.
cit._ pp. 208, 241 (Takue, Marea). Finsch, _loc. cit._ p. 82 (certain
Papuans).

[729] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 325 (Californians). Ashe, ‘Travels in
America,’ p. 250 (Shawanese). Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 369 (Eskimo at
Igloolik).

[730] Munzinger, p. 387.

[731] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 63.

[732] Greenlanders (Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  148), Eskimo at
Igloolik (Lyon, _loc. cit._ 369), Aleuts (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  93, note 133, Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 159), Indians of Oregon
(Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p. 655), Dacotahs (_ibid._, vol. iii.
p. 238), Yokuts (Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 383), Shawanese (Ashe, _loc.
cit._ p. 250), Chibchas (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 367), Macusís
(v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  649), Ainos (Dall, _loc. cit._ p.
524. Bickmore, ‘Notes on the Ainos,’ in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S. 
vol. vii. p. 20. v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 34), Igorrotes of Luzon
(Meyer, in ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1883, p. 385. Blumentritt,
_loc. cit._ p. 28), Old Kukis (Stewart, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’
vol. xxiv. p. 620).

[733] Adair, _loc. cit._ pp. 186, _et seq._

[734] Fries, ‘Grönland,’ p. 76.

[735] _Cf._ Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 225 (Basutos); Rochon, _loc. cit._
p. 747 (people of Madagascar); Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 126 (natives
of Northern Queensland); Letourneau, ‘L’évolution du mariage et de la
famille,’ pp. 258, _et seq._

[736] In Fernando Po (Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 61) and among the Fulah
(Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 472).

[737] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 195.

[738] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 44. ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1028.

[739] Franklin, _loc. cit._ pp. 67, _et seq._

[740] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 82.

[741] Bonwick, ‘The Last of the Tasmanians,’ p. 308.

[742] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  110. _Cf._ Lumholtz, _loc. cit._
pp. 345, _et seq._

[743] Grey, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 252, _et seq._

[744] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 525.

[745] Lisiansky, p. 128.

[746] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 413.

[747] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  218.

[748] Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 349.

[749] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 163.

[750] Giraud-Teulon, ‘Les origines du mariage et de la famille,’ p. 70.

[751] As a curious exception to this rule, Dr. Brehm (‘Bird-Life,’ p.
289) mentions a bereaved hen sparrow, who, though she had eggs to hatch
and young to rear, would not take a second mate.

[752] Among the Kaniagmuts and Aleuts (Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 402), as
also occasionally among other North American tribes, certain men were
dressed and brought up like women, and never married; whereas, among
the Eastern Eskimo, there are some women who refuse to accept husbands,
preferring to adopt masculine manners, following the deer on the
mountains, trapping and fishing for themselves (_ibid._, p. 139).

[753] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 339.

[754] Ashe, _loc. cit._ p. 250.

[755] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 238.

[756] Adair, _loc. cit._ p. 187.

[757] ‘Science,’ vol. vii. p. 172.

[758] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 21.

[759] Burchell, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 58. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol. ii. p.
565.

[760] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 424.

[761] Caillié, ‘Travels through Central Africa,’ vol. i. p.  348.

[762] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. i. p.  489.

[763] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 284.

[764] Marshall, _loc. cit._ pp. 220, _et seq._

[765] Lewin, _loc. cit._ pp. 193, 175.

[766] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 233.

[767] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 69, note.

[768] Wallace, ‘The Malay Archipelago,’ vol. i. p.  141.

[769] Marsden, _loc. cit._ pp. 256, _et seq._ _Cf._ Schellong,
‘Familienleben und Gebräuche der Papuas,’ in ‘Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie,’ vol. xxi. p. 17 (Papuans of Finschhafen, Kaiser Wilhelm
Land).

[770] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  86.

[771] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 168.

[772] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  xxiv. Curr, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  110.

[773] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 184.

[774] _Cf._ Lansdell, ‘Through Siberia,’ vol. ii. p. 226 (Gilyaks);
Armstrong, ‘The Discovery of the North-West Passage,’ p. 192 (Eskimo);
Wilken, in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. p. 633, note 2 (natives
of the Indian Archipelago).

[775] Man, ‘Sonthalia and the Sonthals,’ p. 101.

[776] v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 215.

[777] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 110.

[778] Southey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  240.

[779] Pritchard, _loc. cit._ pp. 368, 372. Seemann, ‘Viti,’ pp. 399,
_et seq._

[780] Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 320.

[781] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 413. Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol i. p. 
121. _Cf._ Ross, ‘The Eastern Tinneh,’ in ‘Smithsonian Report,’
1866, p. 305 (Chippewyans); Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 132
(Comanches); vol. iii. p. 238 (Dacotahs).

[782] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  632.

[783] Bovallius, ‘Resa i Central-Amerika,’ vol i. p.  248.

[784] Morelet, ‘Reisen in Central-Amerika,’ p. 257.

[785] v. Spix and v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 248.

[786] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 60, 61, 94.

[787] Bove, _loc. cit._ p. 132.

[788] Parkyns, ‘Life in Abyssinia,’ vol. ii. p. 41.

[789] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 324. Petherick, ‘Egypt, the Soudan and
Central Africa,’ p. 396.

[790] Chavanne, _loc. cit._ p. 401. Krapf, ‘Travels in East Africa,’
p. 354. ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  168.

[791] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 145, _et seq._

[792] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 284.

[793] Hodgson, ‘The Kócch, Bodo and Dhimál People,’ in ‘Jour. As.
Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xviii. pt. ii. p. 734.

[794] Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. i. p.  205. _Cf._ Man, _loc. cit._
p. 20.

[795] Hunter, vol. iii. p. 82.

[796] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 125.

[797] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. pp. 366, _et
seq._

[798] Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 64.

[799] Neale, ‘Residence in Siam,’ p. 155.

[800] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 69.

[801] Huc, ‘Travels in Tartary,’ vol. i. p.  184.

[802] Batchelor, ‘The Ainu of Japan,’ p. 141.

[803] Prejevalsky, ‘From Kulja to Lob-nor,’ pp. 111, _et seq._

[804] Bickmore, _loc. cit._ p. 278. _Cf._ Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c.,
ser. v. vol. i. p.  143.

[805] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 195.

[806] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  107.

[807] Stone, ‘Port Moresby and Neighbourhood,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo.
Soc.,’ vol. xlvi. p. 55. Ploss, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  392.

[808] Klemm, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pp. 46, _et seq._ Bancroft, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. pp. 251, _et seq._

[809] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 306, _et seq._

[810] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 882.

[811] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  186.

[812] _Ibid._, vol. i. pp. 216, _et seq._

[813] Marco Polo, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 234, _et seq._

[814] Ross, ‘History of Corea,’ p. 313.

[815] d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._ p. 67.

[816] Niebuhr, ‘Travels in Arabia,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of
Voyages,’ vol. x. p.  151. _Cf._ Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 64 (Arabs).

[817] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  205.

[818] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  213.

[819] Andree, ‘Zur Volkskunde der Juden,’ pp. 140, _et seq._

[820] Michaelis, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,’ vol. i. p.  471.

[821] Mayer, ‘Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Römer,’ pp. 286,
353. Lichtschein, ‘Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmudischer Auffassung,’
p. 6. 

[822] Fustel de Coulanges, ‘The Ancient City,’ p. 63. Hearn, ‘The
Aryan Household,’ pp. 69, 71. Mayne, ‘Treatise on Hindu Law and
Usage,’ pp. 68, _et seq._

[823] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. ii. vv. 66, _et seq._ Monier Williams,
‘Indian Wisdom,’ p. 246. _Cf._ Mayne, p. 69.

[824] Muir, ‘Religious and Moral Sentiments,’ p. 110.

[825] Dubois, _loc. cit._ pp. 99-101.

[826] Geiger, ‘Civilization of the Eastern Irānians,’ vol. i. p.  60.

[827] Müller, ‘The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,’
vol. ii. pp. 300, _et seq._ Smith, ‘Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities,’ p. 735. Fustel de Coulanges, _loc. cit._ pp. 63, et seq.
Hearn, _loc. cit._ p. 72.

[828] Plato, ‘Νόμοι,’ book vi. p. 773.

[829] Isaeus, ‘Περὶ τοῦ Ἀπολλοδώρου κλήρου,’ p. 66.

[830] Mommsen, ‘The History of Rome,’ vol. i. p.  62.

[831] Cicero, ‘De Legibus,’ book iii. ch. 3. Fustel de Coulanges, _loc
cit._ p. 63.

[832] Mommsen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 432; vol. iii. p. 440; vol. iv.
p. 547.

[833] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 418.

[834] Mackenzie, ‘Studies in Roman Law,’ p. 104.

[835] Cæsar, ‘De Bello Gallico,’ book vi. ch. 21.

[836] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xx.

[837] _Ibid._, ch. xix.

[838] _Cf._ Klemm, _loc. cit._ vol. x. p.  79.

[839] Mackenzie Wallace, ‘Russia,’ vol. i. p.  138.

[840] _Cf._ v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 216 (Kafirs).

[841] Campbell, ‘The Wild Tribes of Khondistan,’ p. 143.

[842] Watson and Kaye, _loc. cit._ vol. i. no. 18. Dalton, _loc. cit._
p. 192.

[843] Romilly, in ‘Proceed. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ix. p. 8. 

[844] Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  383 (Kutchin). Waitz-Gerland,
_loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 126 (Tahitians). Chavanne, ‘Reisen im
Kongostaate,’ p. 399 (Bafióte tribes). Ross, _loc. cit._ p. 313
(Coreans). Ahlqvist, _loc. cit._ pp. 203, _et seq._ (Tartars). _Idem_,
‘Unter Wogulen und Ostjaken,’ in ‘Acta. Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. xiv.
p. 291 (Ostyaks).

[845] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  102.

[846] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 291. Palmer, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 281. Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 35. Mr. Curr
states (_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  110) that, as a rule, wives are not
obtained by the Australian men until they are at least thirty years of
age.

[847] Hardisty, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 312.

[848] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  224.

[849] Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 125. Wilkes, vol. v. p.  74.
Romilly, ‘The Western Pacific,’ pp. 69, _et seq._

[850] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 420.

[851] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. ii. pp. 171, _et seq._

[852] Lubbock, _loc. cit._ p. 131. _Cf._ Bosman, _loc. cit._ pp. 419,
424 (Negroes of the Gold Coast).

[853] Marsden, _loc. cit._ pp. 256, _et seq._

[854] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 140, note.

[855] Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 267.

[856] Haushofer, ‘Lehr-und Handbuch der Statistik,’ pp. 404-406.

[857] Wilkens, in ‘Nationaloekonomisk Tidsskrift,’ vol. xvi. p. 90.

[858] Haushofer, p. 396. Wappäus, vol. ii. p. 229. v. Oettingen, _loc.
cit._ p. 120.

[859] ‘Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Registrar-General,’ pp. viii.
_et seq._

[860] v. Oettingen, pp. 125, _et seq._ Block, ‘Statistique de la
France,’ vol. i., p. 69.

[861] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 60.

[862] Haushofer, _loc. cit._ pp. 400, _et seq._ ‘Forty-seventh Ann.
Rep. Reg.-Gen., p. viii. _Cf._ Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 216.

[863] Speaking of the Santals, Sir W. W.  Hunter remarks ('Rural
Bengal,’ vol i. p.  205), ‘In the tropical forest, a youth of sixteen
or seventeen is as able to provide for a family as ever he will be; and
a leaf hut, with a few earthen or brazen pots, is all the establishment
a Santal young lady expects.’ This holds good not only for the savages
of the tropics.

[864] Bickmore, _loc. cit._ p. 278.

[865] Niebuhr, _loc. cit._ p. 151.

[866] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 337.

[867] ‘Forty-sixth Ann. Rep. Reg.-Gen.,’ p. ix.

[868] A report, in ‘Nya Pressen,’ 1887, no. 339, of a lecture
delivered by Professor Vallis at Helsingfors.

[869] ‘Forty-ninth Ann. Rep. Reg.-Gen.,’ p. viii.

[870] Haushofer, _loc. cit._ pp. 404, _et seq._

[871] Ploss, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  384.

[872] ‘Why is Single Life becoming more General?’ in ‘The Nation,’
vol. vi. p. 190.

[873] Walker, ‘Beauty,’ pp. 34, _et seq._

[874] Forel, ‘Les Fourmis de la Suisse,’ quoted in Darwin’s ‘Life and
Letters,’ vol. iii. p. 191.

[875] Ribot, _loc. cit._ p. 150.

[876] ‘The Nation,’ vol. vi. p. 191.

[877] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 367.

[878] Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ p. 181.

[879] Cook, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 164.

[880] Ashe, _loc. cit._ p. 250.

[881] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 31.

[882] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  113.

[883] Guillemard, ‘The Cruise of the _Marchesa_,’ p. 389. Kohler, in
‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vii. p. 372.

[884] Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 32. Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 245.

[885] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 130.

[886] Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Reichtswiss.,’ vol. v. p.  343.

[887] v. Schroeder, ‘Die Hochzeitsgebräuche der Esten,’ pp. 192-194.

[888] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 261.

[889] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 143, note.

[890] Seemann, ‘Mission to Viti,’ p. 191.

[891] Lafitau, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  576.

[892] _Cf._ Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 241 (Naudowessies); Lumholtz, _loc.
cit._ p. 345 (natives of Queensland); Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii.
p. 172 (people of Radack); Schellong, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol.
xxi. p. 18 (Papuans of Finschhafen); Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 96 (Alfura
of Ceram); Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 94 (Andamanese).

[893] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 387.

[894] Falkner, _loc. cit._ p. 117.

[895] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  734. Waitz, vol. iv. p. 152.

[896] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 291-299, 305.

[897] Acosta, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 333, _et seq._

[898] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 307.

[899] Pomponius Mela, _loc. cit._ book iii. ch. 6.

[900] Monier Williams, ‘Buddhism,’ pp. 88, 99.

[901] Rhys Davids, ‘Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,’ p.
148.

[902] Oldenberg, ‘Buddha,’ pp. 350, _et seq._

[903] Wilson, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[904] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p. 18.

[905] Monier Williams, ‘Buddhism,’ p. 88.

[906] Dubois, _loc. cit._ pp. 99, _et seq._

[907] Josephus, ‘Ἰουδαϊκή ἅλωσις,’ book ii. ch. 8, § 2. Solinus, _loc.
cit._ ch. xxxv. §§ 9, _et seq._

[908] St. Paul, ‘1 Corinthians,’ ch. vii. v. 38.

[909] _Ibid._, ch. vii. vv. 1, 2, 9.

[910] Mayer, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 289, _et seq._

[911] Lecky, ‘History of European Morals,’ vol. ii. p. 122. Milman,
‘History of Latin Christianity,’ vol. i. p.  152.

[912] Gibbon, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 318, _et seq._

[913] Draper, ‘History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,’
vol. i. p. 415.

[914] Fulton, _loc. cit._ pp. 140, 142.

[915] Lea, ‘Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church,’ p. 66.

[916] Gieseler, ‘Text-Book of Ecclesiastical History,’ vol. ii. p. 275.

[917] Sachs, ‘Text-Book of Botany,’ p. 897.

[918] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. pp. 343, _et seq._

[919] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  343.

[920] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  344.

[921] ‘Sir R. Heron states that with pea-fowl, the first advances are
always made by the female; something of the same kind takes place,
according to Audubon, with the older females of the wild turkey’
(_ibid._, vol. ii. p. 134).

[922] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 86.

[923] Rengger, _loc. cit._ p. 11.

[924] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 261.

[925] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 64. _Cf._ _ibid._, pp. 142, 233 (Bhúiyas,
Muásís).

[926] Batchelor, _loc. cit._ p. 324.

[927] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 127.

[928] Shooter, ‘The Kafirs of Natal,’ p. 52.

[929] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 457.

[930] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. pp. 459, 501.

[931] Haeckel, ‘Generelle Morphologie,’ vol. ii. p. 244.

[932] Hearne, _loc. cit._ pp. 104, _et seq._

[933] Richardson, _loc. cit._ v. ii. pp. 24, _et seq._ _Cf._ Mackenzie,
_loc. cit._ p. 145; Ross, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 310.

[934] Hooper, _loc. cit._ p. 303. _Cf._ Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p.
319 (Greenlanders).

[935] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 224. Powers, _loc. cit._ pp.
221, _et seq._

[936] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 132.

[937] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 94.

[938] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 412, 509.

[939] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 195. Bastian,
‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 176, note 1. Salvado, ‘Mémoires,’ p. 279.

[940] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[941] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 184.

[942] Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 36. _Cf._ Ridley, ‘The Aborigines of
Australia,’ p. 6.

[943] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  601.

[944] Dieffenbach, ‘Travels in New Zealand,’ vol. ii. pp. 36, _et seq._

[945] Taylor, _loc. cit._ p. 337.

[946] Pritchard, _loc. cit._ pp. 55, 269.

[947] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  72.

[948] Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 48.

[949] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. iii. p. 352.

[950] Steller, _loc. cit._ p. 348. _Cf._ ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 738
(Tanguts).

[951] Samuelson, ‘India, Past and Present,’ p. 48.

[952] Pausanias, _loc. cit._ book iii. ch. 12.

[953] Pindar, ‘Πύθια,’ ode ix. v. 117.

[954] Pausanias, book iii. ch. 12.

[955] Homer’s ‘Odyssey,’ Books xxi.-xxiv. (edited by Hamilton),
Preface, p. 5.

[956] Krauss, _loc. cit._ pp. 163, _et seq._

[957] Young, ‘Tour in Ireland,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of
Voyages,’ vol. iii. p. 860.

[958] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 257.

[959] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 174. _Cf._ Fritsch, _loc. cit._
p. 445 (Bushmans).

[960] Hooper, _loc. cit._ p. 390.

[961] Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 238, _et seq._

[962] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. pp. 601, _et
seq._

[963] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  90.

[964] Klemm, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 207.

[965] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  64.

[966] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 443.

[967] Hawkesworth, ‘Voyages,’ vol. ii. p. 55.

[968] Eyre, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 209.

[969] Spencer, vol. i. p.  64.

[970] Sherwill, ‘Tour through the Rájmahal Hills,’ in ‘Jour. As. Soc.
Bengal,’ vol. xx. p. 584.

[971] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  17.

[972] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 62.

[973] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. ii. p. 514. Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p.
577.

[974] v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 115. v. Martius, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  351. Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 514.

[975] Finsch, _loc. cit._ p. 39. ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 26.
Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 569, _et seq._

[976] Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 227.

[977] v. Martius, vol. i. pp. 319, 620.

[978] Johnston, _loc. cit._ pp. 429, et seq.

[979] Beechey, ‘Voyage to the Pacific,’ vol. i. p.  38. For the
artificial enlargement of the ear-lobe, see also Park Harrison, in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. ii. pp. 190-198.

[980] Crawford, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 216, _et seq._

[981] Sturt, ‘Expedition into Central Australia,’ vol. ii. pp. 9, 61.
Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 570.

[982] Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 259.

[983] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 301.

[984] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 308.

[985] Baker, ‘The Albert N’yanza,’ vol. i. p.  198.

[986] Hearne, _loc. cit._ p. 306, note.

[987] Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 23.

[988] Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 343. King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 138. v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  271. Wallace, ‘Travels on
the Amazon,’ p. 483.

[989] Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 351.

[990] Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. i. p.  185.

[991] Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 227.

[992] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  230.

[993] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 738.

[994] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 356.

[995] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. p.  316. Labillardière, ‘Voyage
in Search of La Pérouse,’ vol. ii. p. 266.

[996] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 369.

[997] Lacassagne, ‘Les tatouages,’ p. 9.  Cæsar, _loc. cit._ book v.
ch. 14. Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book v. ch. 6.

[998] Beechey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  39.

[999] Parkyns, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 29.

[1000] Agassiz, ‘Journey in Brazil,’ p. 320.

[1001] Freycinet, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 580. _Cf._ Beechey, vol.
i. p.  140.

[1002] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 210.

[1003] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 310.

[1004] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 475.

[1005] Williams and Calvert, ‘Fiji and the Fijians,’ p. 137.

[1006] Gason, ‘The Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,’ in
Wood’s, ‘The Native Tribes of South Australia,’ p. 267.

[1007] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. pp. 317, _et seq._

[1008] Squier, in ‘Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. p. 
129.

[1009] Williams and Calvert, _loc. cit._ p. 138. Pritchard, _loc. cit._
p. 391. Seeman, ‘Viti,’ p. 113. Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 355.

[1010] Wilkes, vol. v. p.  88. v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 15.

[1011] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 132, et seq. Nordenskiöld, ‘Grönland,’ p.
468.

[1012] ‘A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards
with superstitious respect, believing that there exists between him and
every member of the class an intimate and altogether special relation’
(Frazer, _loc. cit._ p. 1).

[1013] Frazer, _loc. cit._ pp. 26-30.

[1014] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 36-39.

[1015] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 38.

[1016] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. ii. p. 72.

[1017] Colquhoun, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[1018] Keyser, ‘Our Cruise to New Guinea,’ pp. 44, _et seq._

[1019] Mackenzie, _loc. cit._ p. cxx. Powers, loc. cit. p. 109.
Beechey, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 401. Agassiz, _loc. cit._ p. 318. v.
Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 484, 501, &c. ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p.
434. Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 38.

[1020] Quoted by Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 293, note.

[1021] Spencer, vol. ii. pp. 183-186.

[1022] _Cf._ v. Barth, ‘Ostafrika,’ p. 32.

[1023] v. Martius, vol. i. pp. 321, 738. ‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p. 89.
Bonwick, ‘Daily Life of the Tasmanians,’ p. 24. Bancroft, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  159. Heriot, p. 305.

[1024] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 237, _et seq._

[1025] Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 249, _et seq._

[1026] Colquhoun, _loc. cit._ p. 76.

[1027] Meyer, _loc. cit._ p. 189.

[1028] Anderson, ‘Notes of Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia,’ p. 136.

[1029] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  275.

[1030] Armstrong, _loc. cit._ p. 194. Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 243.
Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 301. Dixon, _loc.
cit._ p. 187. v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 115. Holmberg
says expressly that the men undergo this operation to make themselves
agreeable to the young women.

[1031] Franklin, ‘Second Expedition,’ p. 118. Holub, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  35. Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. ii. p. 225.

[1032] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. pp. 250, 365.

[1033] v. Humboldt, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 224. ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p.
317. Powell, ‘Wanderings in a Wild Country,’ p. 254.

[1034] Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 533. Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 285. Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  328. Wilson and Felkin,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 62. ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 16.
Andersson, _loc. cit._ p. 226. Ploss, ‘Das Kind,’ vol. ii. p. 264.
Breton, _loc. cit._ p. 233. Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. pp. 786, _et seq._

[1035] Man, ‘Account of the Nicobar Islanders,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xv. p. 441.

[1036] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 215, _et seq._

[1037] Tuckey, ‘Expedition to Explore the River Zaire,’ pp. 80, _et
seq._

[1038] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 211.

[1039] _Cf._ Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 493; v. Weber, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 197.

[1040] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 240.

[1041] Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 292.

[1042] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 288.

[1043] Moseley, ‘On the Inhabitants of the Admiralty Islands,’ in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. p. 400. Short hair is often regarded
as a symbol of chastity. Every Buddhist ‘novice’—that is, a person
admitted to the first degree of monkhood—has to cut off his hair, in
order to prove that ‘he is ready to give up the most beautiful and
highly-prized of all his ornaments for the sake of a religious life’
(Monier Williams, ‘Buddhism,’ p. 306); and, in Mexico, the religious
virgins, as also men who decided upon a life of chastity, had their
hair cut (Acosta, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 333; Bancroft, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. pp. 251, _et seq._). A similar idea probably underlies the
custom which requires that women, when they marry, shall be deprived
of their hair, the husband trying in this way to preserve the fidelity
of his wife (see Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 354; Waitz-Gerland,
_loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 567; Palmer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol.
xiii. p. 286; de Rubruquis, _loc. cit._ p. 32; Heriot, _loc. cit._
p. 335); whilst many men in New Guinea and Bornu deprive their wives
of all ornaments (‘Ymer,’ vol. vi. p. 154; Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol.
iii. p. 31, note). Even at Sparta and Athens, as well as among the
Anglo-Saxons, the bride or newly-married wife had her hair cut short
(Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 290). Mr. Wright suggests (‘Womankind in
Western Europe,’ p. 68) that, among the people last mentioned, this was
done in order to show that she had accepted a position of servitude
towards her husband, as the cutting of hair in either sex indicated
slavery. But that this explanation cannot be applied to every case of
hair-cutting appears from the fact, reported by Heriot (_loc. cit._ p.
333), that, among the Tlascalans, it was customary to shave the head
of a newly-married couple, both man and woman, ‘to denote that all
youthful sports ought in that state to be abandoned.'

[1044] Sparrman, ‘Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope,’ vol. ii. p. 80.

[1045] Bonwick, ‘Daily Life of the Tasmanians,’ pp. 25, _et seq._

[1046] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  217.

[1047] Angas, ‘South Australia Illustrated,’ no. 22.

[1048] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 28.

[1049] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 10, 127, _et seq._ (Charruas and
Payaguas). Ploss, ‘Das Kind,’ vol. ii. p. 259 (Manáos and Tamayos).
‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 45 (Zulus); &c.

[1050] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 246.

[1051] Nieuhoff, ‘Voyages and Travels into Brazil,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xiv. p. 878.

[1052] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  98.

[1053] Armstrong, _loc. cit._ p. 195. Bancroft, vol. i. p.  47.

[1054] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 276.

[1055] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  217.

[1056] Dobrizhoffer, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 20.

[1057] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 97.

[1058] Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 148.

[1059] Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 189.

[1060] Schadenberg, ‘Die Negritos der Philippinen,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 136.

[1061] Fijians (Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 355), Samoans
(_ibid._, vol. ii. p. 141), Kingsmill Islanders (_ibid._, vol. v. p. 
103), Tahitians (Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  262),
natives of Eimeo (Montgomery, ‘Journal of Voyages and Travels,’ vol.
i. p.  127), Tongans (Pritchard, _loc. cit._ p. 393), Nukahivans (v.
Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  118), Gambier Islanders (Beechey,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  139).

[1062] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 739, 785, 787.

[1063] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 39. _Cf._ Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol.
i. p.  314 (New Zealanders).

[1064] Mauch, ‘Reisen im Inneren von Süd-Afrika,’ in Petermann’s
‘Mittheilungen,’ Ergänzungsband viii. no. 37, pp. 38, _et seq._

[1065] Taylor, _loc. cit._ p. 321.

[1066] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 88.

[1067] Pritchard, _loc. cit._ pp. 144, _et seq._

[1068] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  262 (Tahiti).
Montgomery, _loc. cit._ vol i. p.  127 (Eimeo). Angas, ‘Polynesia,’ p.
328 (Marquesas Islands). _Idem_, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. p.  314 (New
Zealand). Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 61 (Burma). Man, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 331 (Andaman Islands). St. John, ‘The
Ainos,’ _ibid._, vol. ii. p. 249 (Ainos of Yesso).

[1069] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 67.

[1070] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol i. p.  72.

[1071] Palmer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 286.

[1072] Barrington, ‘The History of New South Wales,’ p. 11.

[1073] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  402.

[1074] Finsch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. pp. 308, _et seq._

[1075] Chalmers, _loc. cit._ p. 166.

[1076] Bock, ‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 170.

[1077] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 90. Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol.
i. p.  266.

[1078] Ellis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 262, _et seq._

[1079] Wundt, ‘Ethik,’ p. 93.

[1080] _Cf._ Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 71; Bock, ‘Temples and
Elephants,’ p. 170; Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 251; Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 331.

[1081] Beechey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  139. Yate, _loc. cit._ pp. 147,
_et seq._

[1082] Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 14, _et seq._

[1083] Darwin, ‘Journal of Researches,’ pp. 481, _et seq._ Beechey,
vol. i. p.  39.

[1084] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 573. Jones, ‘The
Grammar of Ornament,’ p. 13, note. _Cf._ the tattooed circle round
the mouth of the Jurís (Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 510)
and the female Arecunas (Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 268); the rings round
the eyes of the women in the Admiralty Islands (Moseley, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. p. 401), of the Australians (Angas, ‘South
Australia Illustrated’), and the Patagonians (King and Fitzroy, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 135); the cicatrices like parallel ridges upon the
chest, thighs, and shoulders of the Tasmanians (Bonwick, ‘Daily Life,’
p. 24); and the tattoos on the hands and feet of Egyptian women (Lane,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 54, 57).

[1085] After this chapter had been prepared for the press, I
became acquainted with Herr Joest’s magnificent work on tattooing
(‘Tätowiren, Narbenzeichnen und Körperbemalen’). Herr Joest, who
is an experienced ethnographer, has come to the same conclusion as
myself regarding the origin of this practice. He says that ‘der
hauptsächliche Trieb, welcher beide Geschlechter bewegt, sich zu
tätowiren, _der_ ist, ihre Reize in den Augen des andern Geschlechts
zu erhöhen’ (p. 56). He also observes:—‘Je weniger sich ein Mensch
bekleidet, desto mehr tätowirt er sich, und je mehr er sich bekleidet,
desto weniger thut er letzteres’ (pp. 56, _et seq._).

[1086] Mr. Walker observes (‘Beauty,’ p. 41) that ‘an essential
condition of all excitement and action in animal bodies, is a greater
or less degree of novelty in the objects impressing them.'

[1087] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 305.

[1088] Dobrizhoffer, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 15.

[1089] Schweinfurth, ‘Im Herzen von Afrika,’ vol. ii. pp. 7, _et seq._

[1090] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. ii. p. 475.

[1091] Franklin, ‘Second Expedition,’ p. 197 (_cf._ Mackenzie, _loc.
cit._ p. 126). Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  235.

[1092] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 281. _Cf._ v. Martius,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  597.

[1093] d’Albertis, ‘New Guinea,’ vol. i. p.  200. _Cf._ Waitz-Gerland,
_loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 570.

[1094] Moseley, ‘Notes by a Naturalist on the _Challenger_,’ p. 461.
_Idem_, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. p. 399. Romilly, _loc. cit._
p. 115.

[1095] Campbell, ‘A Year in the New Hebrides,’ p. 145. Strauch,
‘Bemerkungen über Neu-Guinea,’ &c., in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol.
ix. p. 43. Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 105.

[1096] Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 735. Bonwick, in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 204. Breton, _loc. cit._ pp. 210, _et seq._

[1097] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 372, _et seq._
Lubbock, _loc. cit_. p. 54. Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 219.
Mackenzie, _loc. cit._ pp. 126, _et seq._

[1098] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  35.

[1099] Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 411.

[1100] d’Albertis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 415, 418. Strauch, in
‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. ix. pp. 43, 62.

[1101] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 120, 575, 626.

[1102] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 267. Williams and Calvert, _loc.
cit._ p. 145. Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 332.

[1103] Elliott, ‘Report on the Seal Islands of Alaska,’ pp. 21, _et
seq._

[1104] Beechey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  138.

[1105] Bove, _loc. cit._ p. 129. Proyart, _loc. cit._ p. 575.

[1106] Mackenzie, _loc. cit._ p. xciv. _Cf._ Harmon, _loc. cit._ pp.
319, _et seq._

[1107] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 290-295.

[1108] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  275.

[1109] Tylor, ‘Anthropology,’ p. 243.

[1110] Moseley, _loc. cit._ p. 412.

[1111] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  121.

[1112] Wundt, _loc. cit._ p. 127.

[1113] Baegert, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1863, p. 361.

[1114] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 348.

[1115] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 210. Ling Roth, in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 275. Waitz, vol. iv. p. 193, note. v. Humboldt,
_loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 230. Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’
p. 513. v. Schütz-Holzhausen, _loc. cit._ p. 179. Maximilian zu
Wied-Neuwied, ‘Travels in Brazil,’ p. 59. Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 83.

[1116] Charruas, Pampas, Tupis, Payaguas (Azara, vol. ii. pp. 12, 42,
74, 126), and often the Nutkas (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  182)
and Patwin (Powers, p. 220).

[1117] Aborigines of Trinidad (Columbus, ‘The History of the Life and
Actions of Christopher Colon,’ in Pinkerton, ‘Collection of Voyages,’
vol. xii. p. 101), Mundrucüs, Maurauás, Jurís (v. Martius, _loc. cit._
vol. i. pp. 388, 427, 504), Uaupés, and Curetús (Wallace, ‘Travels on
the Amazon,’ pp. 492, 509).

[1118] Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 499. King and Fitzroy, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  23. Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  121. Bove, _loc.
cit._ p. 129. Armstrong, _loc. cit._ p. 33. Darwin, ‘Journal of
Researches,’ p. 228.

[1119] Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. pp.
391, _et seq._ Breton, _loc. cit._ pp. 211, _et seq._ Labillardière,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 27, _et seq._ Bonwick, ‘Daily Life,’ &c.,
pp. 104, _et seq._ Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 737. Palmer,
in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 281, note. Sir G. Grey remarks
that he never saw a cloak or covering worn north of lat. 29° (Curr,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  93).

[1120] Bonwick, ‘Daily Life,’ pp. 24, 104. Breton, p. 398.
Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 812.

[1121] Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 183.

[1122] Forbes, ‘The Kubus of Sumatra,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol.
xiv. p. 122.

[1123] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 5. 

[1124] Labillardière, vol. ii. pp. 287, 289.

[1125] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 274.

[1126] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 277; vol. v. p.  46 (Drummond’s
Island). Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 215, note (Pelew Islands).

[1127] Nukahiva (Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 85), Pelli of the Caroline
Group (Kotzebue, vol. iii. p. 191), New Britain (Powell, _loc. cit._ p.
250. d’Albertis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  255), the Duke of York Group
(Powell, pp. 74, _et seq._), many parts of New Guinea and neighbouring
islands (d’Albertis, vol. ii. p. 380. Earl, _loc. cit._ p. 48. Gill,
‘Life in the Southern Isles,’ p. 203. Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 568).

[1128] Gill, p. 230.

[1129] Forbes, ‘Tribes of Timor,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii.
p. 406.

[1130] Man, _ibid._, vol. xii. p. 330.

[1131] Johnston, _loc. cit._ p. 433.

[1132] _Ibid._, p. 437. Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 299.

[1133] Kretzschmar, ‘Südafrikanische Skizzen,’ p. 225. Chapman, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  78. Barrow, loc. cit. vol. i. p.  276.

[1134] Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, ‘Tre år i Kongo,’ vol. i. p.  15.

[1135] Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 305.

[1136] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 53.

[1137] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  36.

[1138] Wilson and Felkin, vol. ii. p. 96.

[1139] Schweinfurth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  322.

[1140] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  163.

[1141] Cameron, ‘Across Africa,’ vol. i. pp. 285, _et seq._

[1142] Last, in ‘Proceed. Royal Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. v. p.  530.

[1143] Johnston, p. 413, note.

[1144] Bontier and Le Verrier, _loc. cit._ pp. 138, 139, xxxv.

[1145] Wundt, _loc. cit._ p. 127.

[1146] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 233.

[1147] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 446.

[1148] Heriot, _loc. cit._ pp. 306, _et seq._

[1149] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 642; 702, 703, note; 579.

[1150] v. Spix and v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 76.

[1151] Macgillivray, ‘The Voyage of _Rattlesnake_,’ vol. i. p.  146.

[1152] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. p.  85.

[1153] Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. pp. 16, _et seq._
_Idem_, ‘Journal of a Voyage round the World,’ p. 44.

[1154] Seemann, ‘Viti,’ p. 168.

[1155] Cheyne, _loc. cit._ p. 144.

[1156] Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 383.

[1157] New Caledonia, New Hebrides, Ulaua (Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._
vol. vi. pp. 561, 565).

[1158] Torres Islands, New Guinea (Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 567).

[1159] Admiralty Islands (Labillardière, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 279,
_et seq._ Moseley, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. pp. 397, _et
seq._).

[1160] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 52.

[1161] Godwin-Austen, ‘Gāro Hill Tribes,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. ii. p. 394.

[1162] Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  169.

[1163] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  155.

[1164] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 276, _et seq._

[1165] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 524.

[1166] ‘Nur das Verborgene reizt,’ says Dr. Zimmermann (_loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 84), ‘und Diejenigen welche auf den Gesellschafts-Inseln
die verhüllende Kleidung und den heimlichen Genuss und das Verbergen
der natürlichen Gefühle einführten, haben gewiss die Sitten nicht
verbessert.'

[1167] Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 383.

[1168] Hunter, ‘Historical Journal,’ &c., p. 477.

[1169] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 296.

[1170] Rowley, _loc. cit._ p. 146.

[1171] Snow, ‘Two Years’ Cruise off Tierra del Fuego,‘ vol. ii. p. 51.

[1172] Speaking of the naked women of New Ireland, he says (_loc. cit._
vol. ii. pp. 103, _et seq._), ‘In der That muss ich auch sagen, dass
nach kurzer Zeit, nach einer durchaus nicht lange dauernden Gewöhnung
an diese Sache, man gar nichts anstössiges mehr in diesem gänzlichen
Mangel an Kleidung findet.... Ich habe sehr häufig bemerkt, dass ein
Kleid irgend einer Dame, welches nicht nach der allgemeinen Mode
geschnitten war, mir stärker auffiel als mir der gänzliche Mangel an
Bekleidung der Eingeborenen der tropischen Inseln aufgefallen ist; dazu
kommt noch, dass die Leute dem Beobachter durchaus keine Veranlassung
geben, an etwas unschickliches zu denken. Eine Europaërin, wenn sie auf
eine so glückliche Insel verschlagen und ihrer Kleidung beraubt wäre,
würde selbst nach jahrelangem Aufenthalt in solchen Regionen sich die
Hände vor die Brust oder irgend einen anderen Theil halten und gerade
durch dies Verbergenwollen würde sie die Aufmerksamkeit gegen das zu
Verbergende lenken.'

[1173] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 546.

[1174] Johnston, _loc. cit._ p. 437.

[1175] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 349.

[1176] Forster, _loc. cit_. vol. ii. pp. 230, 276, _et seq._

[1177] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  154.

[1178] Lewin, _loc. cit._ pp. 116, _et seq._

[1179] Gumilla, ‘Histoire naturelle, civile et géographique de
l’Orenoque,’ vol. i. pp. 188, _et seq._

[1180] v. Humboldt, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 230.

[1181] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 357.

[1182] Quoted by Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 174.

[1183] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. ii. pp. 467, _et seq._

[1184] Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 392.

[1185] Barrington, _loc. cit._ pp. 23, _et seq._

[1186] Freycinet, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 748.

[1187] Palmer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. pp. 286; 281, note.

[1188] Snow, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 46.

[1189] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  49; vol. ii. pp. 19, _et
seq._

[1190] Southey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 240, _et seq._ _Cf_ v. Martius,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 111.

[1191] Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 15. _Cf._ Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  275.

[1192] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 19.

[1193] Wanyoro (Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 49; ‘Emin
Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 82), New Caledonians (Turner, ‘Samoa,’
p. 342), Papuans of Dorey (Finsch, _loc. cit._ p. 96), aborigines of
Hayti (Ling Roth, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 275), Fuegians
(Snow, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 46).

[1194] Wilson and Felkin, vol. ii. p. 62. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol. ii. p. 97
(Baris); Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 6 (Kafirs).

[1195] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  263.

[1196] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 355. Seemann, ‘Viti,’ p. 351.

[1197] Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 280. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._
vol. vi. p. 562. Cf. Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 27 (Abors).

[1198] Tacullies (Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 305), Uaupés (Wallace,
‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 281), Oráons (Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 250),
Ysabel Islanders (Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 604), Samoans
(Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 121), Papuans of Humboldt Bay (Finsch, _loc.
cit._ p. 139). As to the indecent character of savage dances, see,
for instance, Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 754 (Australians); Turner,
p. 95 (Samoans); Ehrenreich, ‘Ueber die Botocudos,’ in ‘Zeitschr.
f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xix. p. 33 (Botocudos); Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 57
(Californians).

[1199] Bonwick, ‘Daily Life,’ pp. 27, 38.

[1200] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 472.

[1201] Wallace, pp. 281, 493. v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  597.

[1202] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  235.

[1203] Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 269.

[1204] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 42. Riedel, _loc. cit._
p. 463. Burton, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 123. Möller, Pagels, and
Gleerup, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 128. Reade, _loc. cit._ pp. 45, 245,
_et seq._ Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 221. Chapman, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  36. Caillié, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  351. ‘Globus,’ vol.
xli. p. 237.

[1205] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. pp. 98, _et seq._ _Cf._ Bonney,
‘The Aborigines of the River Darling,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. xiii. p. 127; Cameron, _ibid._, vol. xiv. p. 358; Bonwick, ‘The
Australian Natives,’ _ibid._, vol. xvi. p. 209.

[1206] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 300.

[1207] v. Humboldt, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 10.

[1208] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 41.

[1209] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. ii. p. 473. _Cf._ Möller, Pagels, and
Gleerup, vol. i. p.  269.

[1210] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 207.

[1211] _Ibid._, p. 192.

[1212] Stricker, ‘Der Fuss der Chinesinnen,’ in ‘Archiv für
Anthropologie,’ vol. iv. p. 243.

[1213] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ pp. 477, _et seq._

[1214] Man, _loc. cit._ pp. 80, _et seq._

[1215] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 289. Cf. Hearne, _loc. cit._ pp. 314, _et
seq._

[1216] Moore, _loc. cit._ pp. 259, _et seq._ _Cf._ Buchanan, _loc.
cit._ p. 323.

[1217] Moseley, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. pp. 397, _et seq._
Labillardière, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 279, _et seq._

[1218] Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 365. Dr. Brown,
however, thinks that this custom serves another end.

[1219] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  211.

[1220] Atooi (Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. pp.
192, 232), Tonga (Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 266), Samoa
(Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 34), Vaitupu (_ibid._, vol.
v. pt ii. p. 188), Fiji (Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol iii. p. 355). The
natives of Ponapé have their lower extremities most richly tattooed,
and, to quote Dr. Finsch (‘Die Bewohner von Ponapé,’ in ‘Zeitschr.
f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. pp. 311, 314), ‘als Bassis und Mittelpunkt
der Zeichnung dieser Partien ist ein viereckiges Feld zu betrachten,
welches die Gegend des Venusberges bedeckt und von der Behaarung
unmittelbar beginnend, etwas über denselben hinausreicht.'

[1221] Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 293. _Cf._ Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. pp. 189, _et seq._ (Papuans).

[1222] Andree, ‘Die Beschneidung,’ in ‘Archiv für Anthropologie,’ vol.
xiii. p. 74. The following statements, when other references are not
given, are borrowed from this paper.

[1223] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 217.

[1224] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 560, _et seq._

[1225] Lafitau, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  412.

[1226] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  582, note.

[1227] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 517.

[1228] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 958.

[1229] Parkyns, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 38.

[1230] Andree, in ‘Archiv f. Anthr.,’ vol. xiii. p. 58.

[1231] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. ii. p. 216.

[1232] Andree, in ‘Archiv f. Anthr.,’ vol. xiii. p. 75. Bastian,
‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. xx.

[1233] See, for instance, Burton, ‘Notes on the Dahoman,’ in ‘Memoirs
Read before the Anthr. Soc. of London,’ vol. i. p.  318; Waitz-Gerland,
vol. vi. pp. 41, 784; Müller,‘Allgemeine Ethnographie,’ pp. 337, _et
seq._; Reade, _loc. cit._ pp. 539, _et seq._; Modigliani, _loc. cit._
p. 702.

[1234] Andree, in ‘Archiv f. Anthr.,’ vol. xiii. p. 78.

[1235] Sturt, _loc. cit._ vol ii. p. 140.

[1236] Spencer, ‘Sociology,’ vol. ii. p. 67.

[1237] Galton, ‘The Narrative of an Explorer in Tropical South
Africa,’ pp. 192, _et seq._ Andersson, _loc. cit._ p. 465.

[1238] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 160. Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  39.

[1239] Spencer, vol. ii. p. 67.

[1240] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  60. _Cf._ Eyre, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 315; Oldfield, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iii. p. 256.

[1241] _Cf._ Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 320 (Copts); Sibree, _loc.
cit._ p. 217 (people of Madagascar); Maclean, _loc. cit._ p. 157
(Kafirs).

[1242] Andree, in ‘Archiv f. Anthr.,’ vol. xiii. p. 75.

[1243] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 65, note.

[1244] Andree, in ‘Archiv f. Anthr.,’ vol. xiii. p. 77.

[1245] Maclean, _loc. cit._ p. 157.

[1246] Cook, ‘Journal of a Voyage,’ p. 106.

[1247] Atooi, of the Sandwich Islands (_idem_, ‘Voyage to the Pacific
Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 233), Nukahiva (Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ pp. 85, _et
seq._), &c. (Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 28, 565, 576).

[1248] ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1885, p. 96.

[1249] The same kind of mutilation, spoken of by Mr. Curr as ‘the
terrible rite,’ occurs among several other Australian tribes (Curr,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 75; Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’
vol. xxiii. p. 411).

[1250] Schürmann, _loc. cit._ p. 231.

[1251] Finsch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 316.

[1252] Abyssinians (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 504), Barea
(Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 528), Negroes of Benin and Sierra Leone
(Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 526. Griffith, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol.
xvi. p. 308, _et seq._), Mandingoes (Waitz, vol. ii. p. 111), Bechuanas
(Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  398), Kafirs (v. Weber, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 218), Malays of Java (Ploss, ‘Das Weib,’ vol. i. p.  146),
Indians of Peru (_ibid._, vol. i. p.  146).

[1253] Ploss, vol. i. p.  143.

[1254] Finsch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 316.

[1255] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  263.

[1256] Forster, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 383.

[1257] v. Humboldt, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 12, _et seq._

[1258] Lubbock, ‘Prehistoric Times,’ p. 477.

[1259] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 267.

[1260] Letourneau, ‘Sociology,’ p. 59.

[1261] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 301.

[1262] Ebers, ‘Durch Gosen zum Sinai,’ p. 45.

[1263] ‘Dr. E. Vogel’s Reise nach Central-Afrika,’ in Petermann’s
‘Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ geographischer Anstalt,‘ 1857, p.
138.

[1264] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 172.

[1265] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  209.

[1266] La Pérouse, ‘Voyage round the World,’ vol ii. p. 142.

[1267] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ pp. 85, _et seq._

[1268] Moseley, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. p. 398. _Cf._
Labillardière, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 279, _et seq._

[1269] Forbes, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiv. pp. 125, _et seq._

[1270] Bain, ‘The Emotions and the Will,’ p. 211.

[1271] Fries, _loc. cit._ p. 109.

[1272] Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 305.

[1273] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 171.

[1274] _Ibid._, p. 171.

[1275] Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 364, _et seq._ Dall, _loc. cit._ pp.
139, 397.

[1276] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 286.

[1277] Kane, ‘Arctic Explorations,’ vol ii. p. 114. On the East Coast
of Greenland, according to Dr. Nansen (_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  338;
vol. ii. p. 277), the Eskimo, men and women alike, when indoors, are
completely naked with the exception of the ‘nâtit,’ a narrow band
about the loins, of dimensions ‘so extremely small as to make it
practically invisible to the stranger’s inexperienced eye.’ Many,
indeed, assume some covering when Europeans enter their dwellings, but
Dr. Nansen thinks this must be rather from affectation, and a desire to
please their visitors, than from any real feeling of modesty (_ibid._,
vol. ii. pp. 277, _et seq._).

[1278] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 175.

[1279] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. pp. 330, _et seq._

[1280] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 356.

[1281] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 86.

[1282] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  99.

[1283] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 105.

[1284] Semper, ‘Die Palau-Inseln,’ p. 68.

[1285] Since the appearance of the first edition of this work I have
become acquainted with Mr. Johnston’s book on ‘The River Congo,’ where
he says (p. 418), ‘Clothing was first adopted as a means of decoration
rather than from motives of decency. The private parts were first
adorned with the appendages that were afterwards used by a dawning
sense of modesty to conceal them.'

[1286] Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 263. For early engagements among other
Eskimo tribes, see Hall, ‘Arctic Researches,’ p. 567; ‘Das Ausland,’
1881, p. 698; Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  146; Waitz, _loc. cit._
vol. iii. p. 308.

[1287] Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 23. Mackenzie, _loc. cit._
p. cxxiii.

[1288] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 276, _et seq._ (Inland
Columbians). Mayne, ‘Four Years in British Columbia and Vancouver
Island,’ p. 276 (Nutkas).

[1289] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  322.

[1290] Falkner, _loc. cit._ p. 124. King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. pp. 152, _et seq._

[1291] Shoshones (Lewis and Clarke, ‘Travels to the Source of the
Missouri River,’ p. 307), Arawaks (Schomburgk, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p.
460. Brett, _loc. cit._ pp. 99, _et seq._), Macusís (v. Martius, vol.
i. p.  645).

[1292] Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 314.

[1293] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 424.

[1294] Burchell, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 58, 564. Beecham, ‘Ashantee
and the Gold Coast,’ p. 126.

[1295] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol vi. p. 772. Wilkes, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 195. Sturt, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 284, _et seq._ Bonney,
in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. pp. 129, 301. Cameron, _ibid._,
vol. xiv. p. 352.

[1296] Finsch, _loc. cit._ pp. 102, 116. Guillemard, _loc. cit._ p. 389.

[1297] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. p.  314.

[1298] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. pp. 267, 270.

[1299] In the Kingsmill Islands (Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  102),
Fiji (_ibid._, vol. iii. p. 92), Hudson’s Island (Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p.
290), Nukahiva (Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 127), Solomon
Islands (Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 90), New Caledonia
(Turner, p. 340), New Britain (Powell, _loc. cit._ p. 85), Java (‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 569), Buru (Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 21), and among
the Bataks, Sundanese, and other Malay peoples (Hickson, _loc. cit._ p.
270. Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. pp. 161-167).

[1300] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 167.

[1301] Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 109.

[1302] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p. 144.

[1303] Hooper, _loc. cit._ p. 209.

[1304] Andree, _loc. cit._ p. 141.

[1305] Kutchin (Hardisty, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 312), Chippewas
(Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 157), Iroquois (Morgan, ‘League of
the Iroquois,’ p. 320), Simoos (Bovallius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 301).

[1306] Guarayos (v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  217), Hos (Dalton,
_loc. cit._ pp. 201, _et seq._), Maoris (Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._
vol. vi. p. 125), Fijians (Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 91).

[1307] See _ante_, p. 40.

[1308] Forbes, ‘On the Ethnology of Timor-laut,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 11.

[1309] Oldfield, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iii. p. 248.

[1310] Schoolcraft, ‘The Indian in his Wigwam,’ p. 72. _Cf._ Catlin,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  120; Adair, _loc. cit._ p. 141.

[1311] Buchanan, _loc. cit._ p. 184.

[1312] Sauer, _loc. cit._ p. 177. Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci.
Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 314. Macfie, ‘Vancouver Island and British
Columbia,’ p. 447. Wilkes, vol. iv. p. 457 (Indians of the Interior of
Oregon).

[1313] Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 157, _et seq._

[1314] Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 158.

[1315] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  269.

[1316] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  549, note 206.

[1317] Shawanese (Ashe, _loc. cit._ p. 249), Comanches (Waitz, _loc.
cit._ vol. iv. p. 216), Patagonians (Musters, _loc. cit._ p. 186).

[1318] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 92.

[1319] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p. 91.

[1320] Bridges, in ‘A Voice for South America,’ vol. xiii. p. 184.
_Cf._ King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 182.

[1321] Fries, _loc. cit._ p. 111 (Greenlanders). Brett, _loc. cit._ p.
354 (Caribs). Dobrizhoffer, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 207 (Abipones).
King and Fitzroy, vol. ii. p. 153 (Patagonians).

[1322] Hannon, _loc. cit._ p. 341 (Blackfeet, Chippewyans, Crees, &c.).
Schoolcraft, vol. v. p.  683 (Comanches).

[1323] Schoolcraft, vol. iii. p. 238.

[1324] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  108.

[1325] Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 10.

[1326] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ pp. 234, 242.

[1327] Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 407.
Cf. Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 34 (tribes of Western Victoria); Lumholtz,
_loc. cit._ p. 213 (natives of Northern Queensland).

[1328] Fison and Howitt, pp. 276, 280, 289, 348-354.

[1329] Taylor, _loc. cit._ p. 299.

[1330] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 167. _Cf._ Zimmermann, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  456.

[1331] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ pp. 295, _et seq._

[1332] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. pp. 267, 270, _et seq._
_Cf._ Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 99, _et seq._

[1333] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 172. Waitz-Gerland, vol. v.
pt. ii. p. 105.

[1334] Romilly, in ‘Proc. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ix. p. 10.

[1335] Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol ix. p.
368. In Samoa (Turner, ‘Samoa,’ pp. 95, _et seq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ pp.
92, 132; Turner, ‘Nineteen Years in Polynesia,’ p. 188; Pritchard,
_loc. cit._ pp. 135, _et seq._) and the Kingsmill Islands (Wilkes,
_loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  101), elopements frequently take place, and
the parents, however mortified they may be, have to submit. In Fiji,
according to Wilkes (vol. iii. p. 92. _Cf._ Pritchard, pp. 269,
_et seq._; Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 632), forced marriages are
comparatively rare in the higher classes.

[1336] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  159.

[1337] Boyle, ‘Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo,’ p. 236. _Cf._
Brooke, ‘Ten Years in Sarawak,’ vol. i. p.  69.

[1338] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  90.

[1339] Hickson, _loc. cit._ p. 272.

[1340] Riedel, _loc. cit._ pp. 447, 302.

[1341] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 235. Crawfurd, vol. iii. pp. 129, _et
seq._

[1342] Colquhoun, ‘Burma and the Burmans,’ p. 12. Fytche, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 69. MacMahon, ‘Far Cathay,’ p. 275 (Indo-Burmese border
tribes).

[1343] Anderson, ‘Mandalay to Momien,’ p. 301.

[1344] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 347. _Cf._ _ibid._, pp. 145, 146, 179, 285.

[1345] Kols, Abors (Rowney, _loc. cit._ pp. 67, 159), Santals (_ibid._,
p. 76. _Cf._ Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 215; ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  xxiv.;
Man, _loc. cit._ p. 102; Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. i. pp. 205, _et
seq._), Todas (Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p.
242. _Cf._ Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 212).

[1346] Miris, Khasias, Koch, Muásís (Dalton, pp. 29, 57, 91, 125),
Oráons (Rowney, p. 81), Kolyas (Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol.
xvi. pp. 358, _et seq._), Butias (Cunningham, ‘Notes on Moorcroft’s
Travels in Ladakh,’ in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 
204).

[1347] Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 355 (Kaupuis).
Dalton, pp. 192, 299, _et seq._ (Hos, Boad Kandhs). Spencer,
‘Descriptive Sociology, Asiatic Races,’ p. 8 (Savaras of Jeypore).

[1348] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 254.

[1349] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 393.

[1350] v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 30.

[1351] Steller, _loc. cit._ p. 345.

[1352] Sauer, _loc. cit._ p. 127.

[1353] v. Haxthausen, _loc. cit._ p. 402.

[1354] Usbegs (Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 369), Kalmucks (Moore,
_loc. cit._ p. 181), Aenezes (Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 61).

[1355] Ross, _loc. cit._ p. 315.

[1356] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 181.

[1357] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 408. _Cf._ Reade,
_loc. cit._ pp. 260, 390, 453, 554.

[1358] Beecham, _loc. cit._ p. 125 (Ashantees). Soyaux, ‘Aus
West-Afrika,’ pp. 152, 161 (Negroes of Loango). Merolla da Sorrento,
_loc. cit._ p. 236 (Negroes of Sogno). Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 419
(Negroes of the Gold Coast).

[1359] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 61.

[1360] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 103.

[1361] Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 293, 298. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol.
ii. p. 206.

[1362] Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  261. Leslie, ‘Among the
Zulus and Amatongas,’ p. 194. According to other authorities, however,
the Kafir girl herself is seldom or never consulted about the matter
(Maclean, _loc. cit._ p. 69), though it generally happens that, after
repeated elopements with the man of her own choice, the father gives up
his original intention as to the disposal of her (Shooter, _loc. cit._
pp. 57, 60. _Cf._ v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 331, _et seq._;
vol. ii. p. 217).

[1363] Thunberg, ‘Account of the Cape of Good Hope,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xvi. p. 141.

[1364] Burchell, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 59. Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 444.
Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  258.

[1365] Strabo, _loc. cit._ book xv. ch. i. p.  699.

[1366] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book i. ch. 93.

[1367] v. Bohlen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 148, 367, _et seq._ Klemm,
‘Die Frauen,’ vol. i. p.  281. Bachofen, ‘Das Mutterrecht,’ p. 196.
Grimm, _loc. cit._ p. 421, note *.

[1368] ‘The Younger Edda,’ p. 158.

[1369] Letourneau, ‘Sociology,’ p. 378.

[1370] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ pp. 149, et seq.

[1371] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 136. The same view is taken by
Mr. Howitt (_ibid._, p. 358).

[1372] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 291.

[1373] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 354.

[1374] _Ibid._, pp. 343, 348-354.

[1375] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  61.

[1376] That the male children also are so disposed of appears, for
instance, from v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 393 (Mundrucûs), 690
(Arawaks); Lansdell, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 225 (Gilyaks).

[1377] ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. i. p.  403. _Cf._ Guillemard, _loc.
cit._ p. 389 (Nufoor Papuans).

[1378] Ahts (Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 97) and other Indians (Waitz, _loc.
cit._ vol. iii. p. 103), Maravi (_ibid._, vol. ii. pp. 419, et seq.).

[1379] Morgan, ‘League of the Iroquois,’ pp. 321, 323.

[1380] Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 186.

[1381] Kisáns, Mundas, Santals, Máriás (Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 132,
194, 215, 279), Mishmis (Rowlatt, ‘Expedition into the Mishmee Hills,’
in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiv. pt. ii. p. 488), Bhils (Malcolm,
in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc.,’ vol. i. p.  83), Yoon-tha-lin Karens
(Stoll, ‘Notes on the Yoon-tha-lin Karens,’ in ‘The Madras Journal of
Literature and Science,’ N. S.  vol. vi. pp. 61, _et seq._).

[1382] Dalton, p. 252 (Oráons).

[1383] _Ibid._, p. 132.

[1384] Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. iii. p. 72.

[1385] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 83.

[1386] Clavigero, ‘The History of Mexico,’ vol. i. p.  331.

[1387] Clavigero, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  332.

[1388] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 251.

[1389] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Ancient Mexicans, &c., p. 3. 

[1390] Heriot, _loc. cit._ pp. 334, _et seq._

[1391] Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 666.

[1392] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 667. Squier, in ‘Trans. American Ethn.
Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. p.  127.

[1393] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 207.

[1394] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  739.

[1395] Wells Williams, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  646.

[1396] Navarette, _loc. cit._ p. 75. _Cf._ ‘The Lî Kî,’ book xxvii. v.
33.

[1397] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p.
11.

[1398] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  205.

[1399] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  189.

[1400] Rein, ‘Japan,’ p. 422.

[1401] Griffis, ‘The Mikado’s Empire,’ pp. 124, 147, 555.

[1402] Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. pp. 117-119.

[1403] Amír’ Alí, ‘The Personal Law of Mahommedans,’ p. 179.

[1404] Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 190.

[1405] ‘Exodus,’ ch. xxi. vv. 15, 17. ‘Leviticus,’ ch. xx. v. 9. 

[1406] ‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxi. vv. 18-21.

[1407] Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 188. _Cf._ Gans, ‘Erbrecht,’ vol. i. p. 
134.

[1408] Michaelis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  444.

[1409] ‘Genesis,’ ch. xxiv. v. 4; ch. xxviii. vv. 1, _et seq._
‘Exodus,’ ch. xxxiv. v. 16. ‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. vii. v. 3.  ‘Judges,’
ch. xiv. vv. 1-3.

[1410] Wilkinson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  320.

[1411] ‘The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep,’ ch. xlii. xxxix. _Cf._ _ibid._,
ch. xliv.

[1412] ‘Duodecim Tabularum Fragmenta,’ table iv. § 2.

[1413] Plutarch, ‘Ποπλικόλας,’ ch. vii.

[1414] Mommsen, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  64.

[1415] ‘Duodecim Tabularum Fragmenta,’ table iv. § 2. Justinian,
‘Institutiones,’ book i. title ix. § 3.

[1416] Justinian, book i. title x. Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 393.
Mackenzie, ‘Studies in Roman Law,’ p. 104.

[1417] Mackenzie, p. 104, note 4.

[1418] Fustel de Coulanges, _loc. cit._ p. 116.

[1419] Maine, ‘Ancient Law,’ p. 138. Fustel de Coulanges, pp. 115, _et
seq._ Hearn, _loc. cit._ p. 92.

[1420] Justinian, book i. title ix. § 2.

[1421] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ pp. 122, _et seq._

[1422] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. viii. v. 416.

[1423] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ p. 123.

[1424] Nelson, ‘View of the Hindū Law,’ pp. 56, _et seq._

[1425] ‘Rig-Veda Sanhitá,’ mandala i. súkta lxx. v. 5. 

[1426] Zimmer, ‘Altindisches Leben,’ pp. 327, _et seq._

[1427] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 32. _Cf._ Rossbach, _loc. cit._
p. 208.

[1428] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. vv. 39-41.

[1429] Spiegel, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 678.

[1430] v. Bohlen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 146.

[1431] Spiegel, vol. iii. pp. 677, _et seq._

[1432] Fustel de Coulanges, _loc. cit._ p. 115.

[1433] Maine, ‘Ancient Law,’ pp. 136, _et seq._

[1434] Cauvet, ‘De l’organisation de la famille à Athènes,’ in ‘Revue
de législation,’ vol. xxiv. 1845, p. 138.

[1435] Becker, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 446. Hermann-Blümner, ‘Lehrbuch
der griechischen Privatalterthümer,’ p. 261.

[1436] Cauvet, in ‘Revue de législation,’ vol. xxiv. p. 147.

[1437] Müller, ‘The Doric Race,’ vol. ii. p. 298.

[1438] Grimm, ‘Deutsche Rechts Alterthümer,’ pp. 461, 487, _et seq._
Weinhold, ‘Altnordisches Leben,’ p. 473.

[1439] Laboulaye, ‘Recherches sur la condition civile et politique des
femmes,’ p. 80.

[1440] Koenigswarter, ‘Histoire de l’organisation de la famille en
France,’ p. 140.

[1441] Pardessus, ‘Loi Salique,’ p. 456.

[1442] Koenigswarter, p. 139.

[1443] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xxv.

[1444] Olivecrona, ‘Om makars giftorätt i bo,’ p. 143.

[1445] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xviii.

[1446] Weinhold, ‘Die deutschen Frauen in dem Mittelalter,’ vol.
i. p.  303. Wilda, ‘Das Strafrecht der Germanen,’ p. 802. Olivecrona,
_loc. cit._ p. 48.

[1447] Accurse, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, says,
‘Aliæ vero gentes quædam, ut servos tenent filios, ut Sclavi, aliæ ut
prorsus absolutos, ut Francigenæ’ (Koenigswarter, _loc. cit._ p. 224,
note 2).

[1448] Macieiowski, ‘Slavische Rechtsgeschichte,’ vol. iv. p. 404.

[1449] v. Haxthausen, ‘The Russian Empire,’ vol. ii. pp. 229, _et seq._

[1450] Mackenzie Wallace, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 134-136.

[1451] Macieiowski, vol. ii. p. 189.

[1452] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ p. 244, note.

[1453] Krauss, _loc. cit._ pp. 313, 314.

[1454] _Ibid._, p. 320.

[1455] Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 190.

[1456] Lichtschein, _loc. cit._ p. 41.

[1457] Amír’ Alí, _loc. cit._ p. 179.

[1458] _Ibid._, pp. 180-183.

[1459] Amír’ Alí, _loc. cit._ pp. 179, 180, 184.

[1460] Maine, ‘Ancient Law,’ p. 137.

[1461] Mackenzie, ‘Roman Law,’ p. 141. Koenigswarter, _loc. cit._ p.
86. Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 47, _et seq._

[1462] Maine, ‘Ancient Law,’ p. 138. Rossbach, p. 396

[1463] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 396, 400, _et seq._

[1464] Koenigswarter, p. 93.

[1465] Pardessus, _loc. cit._ p. 666.

[1466] Guizot, ‘The History of Civilisation,’ vol. ii. p. 467. A
Council at Orleans, in 541, also forbids ‘any one to marry a girl
without the consent of her parents’ (_ibid._, vol. ii. p. 464).

[1467] Cnut, ‘Dômas,’ Leges Saeculares, ch. lxxiv.

[1468] ‘Westgöta-Lagen,’ Codex Recentior, Kirkyu Balker, ch. lii.
Additamenta, § 8.

[1469] ‘Uplands-Lagen,’ Aerfdæ Balkær, ch. i. § 4.

[1470] Nordström, ‘Svenska samhälls-författningens historia,’ vol.
ii. pp. 15, _et seq._ Wilda, _loc. cit._ p. 803. Weinhold, ‘Deutsche
Frauen,’ vol. i. p.  304. According to Saxo Grammaticus (‘Historia
Danica,’ book v. vol. i. p.  186), a woman was allowed to dispose of
her own hand before the days of King Frotho.

[1471] ‘Der Schwabenspiegel,’ Landrecht, § 55.

[1472] Kraut, ‘Die Vormundschaft,’ vol. i. p.  326.

[1473] Weinhold, vol. i. p.  305.

[1474] Quoted in Spencer’s ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ France, p. 38.

[1475] Quoted by de Ribbe, ‘Les familles et la société en France avant
la Révolution,’ p. 51.

[1476] Bodin, ‘De Republica,’ book i. ch. iv. p. 31.

[1477] Sully, ‘Memoirs,’ vol. v. p.  180.

[1478] Koenigswarter, _loc. cit._ p. 231.

[1479] de Goncourt, ‘La Femme au dix-huitième siècle,’ p. 20.

[1480] ‘Code Civil,’ art. 374.

[1481] _Ibid._, art. 375-383.

[1482] _Ibid._, art. 148.

[1483] ‘Code Civil,’ art. 151.

[1484] Kent, ‘Commentaries on American Law,’ lecture xxvi.

[1485] Diderot and d’Alembert, ‘Encyclopédie,’ vol. xiii. p. 255.

[1486] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 384.

[1487] Nicholson, _loc. cit._ p. 1.  _Cf._ a criticism of ‘The Descent
of Man,’ in ‘The Athenæum,’ 1871, March 4th.

[1488] Darwin, vol. ii. p. 252.

[1489] Müller, ‘The Fertilisation of Flowers,’ p. 14.

[1490] Wallace, ‘Tropical Nature,’ p. 223.

[1491] ‘The Colours of Plants and the Origin of the Colour-Sense,’ in
‘Tropical Nature,’ pp. 221-248. ‘Darwinism,’ ch. x.

[1492] Wallace, ‘Tropical Nature,’ pp. 193-195.

[1493] _Ibid._, p. 187.

[1494] Wallace, ‘Tropical Nature,’ p. 213.

[1495] _Idem_, ‘Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection,’ pp.
73, _et seq._

[1496] _Ibid._, pp. 259-261.

[1497] Fraser, in ‘Nature,’ vol. iii. p. 489.

[1498] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  485.

[1499] Wallace, ‘Darwinism,’ p. 270.

[1500] The Gallinaceæ, however, form an exception; though almost wholly
terrestrial, they have the most pronounced sexual colours. But they are
active and wander much.

[1501] Wallace, ‘Tropical Nature,’ pp. 230, _et seq._

[1502] Gould, ‘Handbook to the Birds of Australia,’ vol. ii. p. 383.

[1503] Wood, _loc.cit._ vol. ii. p. 257.

[1504] Prejevalsky, ‘From Kulja to Lob-nor,’ pp. 92, 94.

[1505] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. iii. p. 94.

[1506] Gould, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 382, _et seq._

[1507] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  62.

[1508] Burdach, ‘Physiologie,’ vol. i. p.  277.

[1509] Wallace, ‘Darwinism,’ p. 284.

[1510] _Ibid._, p. 294.

[1511] Wallace, ‘Darwinism,’ p. 293.

[1512] Mr. Belt (_loc. cit._ p. 112) has seen the female of _Florisuga
mellivora_ sitting quietly on a branch, and two males displaying their
charms in front of her. ‘One would shoot up like a rocket, then
suddenly expanding the snow-white tail like an inverted parachute,
slowly descend in front of her, turning round gradually to show off
both back and front.... The expanded white tail covered more space than
all the rest of the bird, and was evidently the grand feature in the
performance.'

[1513] See Wallace, ‘Darwinism,’ p. 285.

[1514] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. pp. 67, 74.

[1515] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. pp.
102-104.

[1516] According to Professor Vogt (‘Lectures on Man,’ p. 421), the
aversion between allied species in the wild state is more frequently
overcome by the males than by the females; and, in crosses between
wild and domesticated animals, the female generally belongs to the
domesticated species or race (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire
naturelle générale,’ vol. iii. p. 177).

[1517] Taylor, _loc. cit._ pp. 293, _et seq._

[1518] Merolla da Sorrento, _loc. cit._ p. 236.

[1519] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  141.

[1520] de Quatrefages, ‘The Human Species,’ p. 267.

[1521] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 8, note 8.

[1522] Nott and Gliddon, ‘Types of Mankind,’ p. 401.

[1523] Kerry-Nicholls, ‘The Maori Race,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. xv. p. 195.

[1524] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  612.

[1525] Leguével de Lacombe, ‘Voyage à Madagascar,’ vol. ii. pp.
121-123.

[1526] Apollodorus Atheniensis, ‘ Βιβλωθήκη,’ book iii. ch. ix. § 2.

[1527] _Cf._ Castrén, in ‘Litterära Soiréer,’ 1849, p. 12.

[1528] Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 216. _Cf._ Wilkes, _loc.
cit.__ vol. v. p.  363; Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 40, _et seq._ (Nagas of
Upper Assam).

[1529] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 251.

[1530] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 310.

[1531] Mitchell, ‘Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia,’
vol. i. p. 307.

[1532] v. Humboldt, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 233.

[1533] Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 161.

[1534] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 373, _et seq._

[1535] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[1536] Hume, ‘Essays,’ vol. i. p.  268.

[1537] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  227. _Cf._ Sproat, _loc. cit._
p. 29; Heriot, l_oc. cit._ p. 348.

[1538] Palmer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 280, note.

[1539] Williams, ‘Narrative of Missionary Enterprises,’ p. 539. _Cf._
Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  81; King and Fitzroy,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 527.

[1540] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 305.

[1541] Prichard, ‘Researches into the Physical History of Mankind,’
vol. iv. p. 519.

[1542] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 493. For other instances
of different ideas of beauty, see Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol.
ii. pp. 374-381.

[1543] Bombet, ‘The Lives of Haydn and Mozart,’ p. 278.

[1544] Spencer, ‘Essays,’ vol. ii. pp. 156, 162. Mr. Spencer’s view on
this point bears a close resemblance to that of Vischer, the Hegelian,
according to whom the Indo-European race alone is really beautiful
(Vischer, ‘Aesthetik,’ vol. ii. pp. 175, _et seq._).

[1545] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Asiatic Races, p. 29.

[1546] v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  174; vol. ii. p. 200. Barrow,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 390.

[1547] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 74.

[1548] Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 186.

[1549] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 454. _Cf._ _ibid._, p. 340.

[1550] This rule does not hold good for all races. Speaking of the
natives of King George’s Sound, Cook remarks (‘Voyage to the Pacific
Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 303) that ‘the women are nearly of the same size,
colour, and form, with the men; from whom it is not easy to distinguish
them.’ Ellis states (‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  81) that,
among the Tahitians, the difference between the stature of the male
and female sex is not so great as that which often prevails in Europe.
Diodorus Siculus says (_loc. cit._ book v. ch. xxxii. § 2) that the
Gallic women were as tall as the men; and Dr. Fritsch asserts (_loc.
cit._ p. 398) the same with reference to the Bushman women of South
Africa. Among the Californian Shastika, according to Mr. Powers (_loc.
cit._ p. 244), the women are even ‘larger and stronger-featured, and
in every way more respectable,’ than the men. _Cf._ Burton, ‘First
Footsteps,’ p. 118 (Somals).

[1551] Ploss, ‘Das Weib,’ vol. i. pp. 9, _et seq._

[1552] v. Humboldt, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 236, _et seq._

[1553] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire des anomalies,’ vol. i. p. 
268. Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 381. Mantegazza, ‘Rio
de la Plata e Tenerife.’ Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 27.

[1554] Martineau, ‘Types of Ethical Theory,’ vol. ii. p. 157.
Delaunay, ‘Sur la beauté,’ in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol.
viii. p. 198.

[1555] Davy, _loc. cit._ pp. 110, _et seq._

[1556] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire des anomalies,’ vol. i. p. 
268.

[1557] Castrén, ‘Nordiska resor och forskningar,’ vol. i. p.  229.

[1558] Prichard, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. pp. 434, _et seq._

[1559] de Rubruquis, _loc. cit._ p. 33.

[1560] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 543.

[1561] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 38; 259, note *.

[1562] v. Humboldt, ‘Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain,’
vol. i. p.  154, note. For other evidence for v. Humboldt’s theory,
see—besides Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man’—Waitz, l_oc. cit._ vol. iv.
pp. 62, _et seq._; vol. vi. pp. 543, 571; _Idem_, ‘Introduction to
Anthropology,’ p. 305; Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 11.

[1563] Macfie, _loc. cit._ p. 441. Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 348. Catlin,
‘Last Rambles amongst the Indians,’ pp. 145, _et seq._

[1564] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  81. Angas,
‘Polynesia,’ p. 272. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 27.

[1565] Marsden, _loc. cit._ pp. 44, _et seq._

[1566] Andersson, _loc. cit._ p. 196.

[1567] Welcker, ‘Die Füsse der Chinesinnen,’ in ‘Archiv. f. Anthr.,’
vol. v. p. 149. Katscher, ‘Bilder aus dem chinesischen Leben,’ p. 51.

[1568] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 377.

[1569] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. pp. 280, 304.

[1570] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 305.

[1571] Sibree, _loc. cit._ pp. 111, 210.

[1572] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  23. For additional evidence,
see Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 183; Zimmermann, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 92; Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 452, 455.

[1573] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 383.

[1574] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 307.

[1575] Angas, ‘Polynesia,’ pp. 381, _et seq._ Cheyne, _loc. cit._ p.
105.

[1576] Crawfurd, vol. i. p.  23.

[1577] Marco Polo, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 291.

[1578] v. Humboldt, ‘Political Essay,’ p. 141.

[1579] _Cf._ Lawrence, ‘Lectures on Physiology,’ &c., p. 474.

[1580] Godron, ‘De l’espèce et des races,’ vol. ii. p. 310.

[1581] _Ibid._, vol. ii. pp. 175, _et seq._

[1582] Quetelet, _loc. cit._ pp. 59, _et seq._ _Cf._ Ranke, ‘Der
Mensch,’ vol. ii. pp. 77-79, 116, _et seq._

[1583] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 86.

[1584] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire des anomalies,’ vol. i. pp.
158, 159, 182-185. _Cf._ Ranke, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 131-136.

[1585] Lawrence, _loc. cit._ p. 400.

[1586] Virchow, ‘Untersuchungen über die Entwickelung des
Schädelgrundes,’ p. 121.

[1587] Spencer, ‘Essays,’ vol. ii. pp. 153, _et seq._

[1588] Schaaffhausen, ‘On the Primitive Form of the Human Skull,’ in
‘The Anthropological Review,’ vol. vi. p. 416.

[1589] _Ibid._, p. 419.

[1590] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ pp. 53, _et seq._ _Cf._
de Quatrefages, _loc. cit._ p. 254.

[1591] ‘Edinburgh Medical Journal,’ vol. xxxi. pt. ii. p. 852.

[1592] Joest, in ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1885, p. 475. _Cf._
Peschel, _loc. cit._ pp. 19, _et seq._

[1593] ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1885, p. 377.

[1594] _Cf._ Pouchet, ‘The Plurality of the Human Race,’ p. 92;
Virchow, in ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1885, p. 213.

[1595] ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1885, p. 475, note.

[1596] Squier, ‘The States of Central America,’ p. 56.

[1597] Godron, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 276.

[1598] Mayer, ‘Die Mechanik der Wärme,’ p. 98.

[1599] Tylor, ‘Anthropology,’ p. 86.

[1600] de Quatrefages, _loc. cit._ p. 255.

[1601] Rohlfs, ‘Henry Noël von Bagermi,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’
vol. iii. p. 255.

[1602] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 526.

[1603] _Ibid._, p. 526.

[1604] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 92.

[1605] Wallace, in ‘The Academy,’ vol. ii. p. 182.

[1606] Quoted by Schaaffhausen, in ‘The Anthropological Review,’ vol.
vi. p. 418.

[1607] _Cf._ Schaaffhausen, ‘Darwinism and Anthropology,’ _ibid._, vol
vi. pp. cviii., _et seq._

[1608] M. Elisée Reclus (quoted by de Quatrefages, _loc. cit._ p. 255)
makes a curious mistake when he asserts that, at the end of a given
time, whatever be their origin, all the descendants of whites or of
negroes who have immigrated to America will become Redskins.

[1609] Weismann, ‘Essays upon Heredity,’ &c., p. 81.

[1610] Weismann, _loc. cit._ pp. 81, &c. Godron, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 299.

[1611] Rauber, ‘Homo sapiens ferus,’ pp. 69-71.

[1612] Poiret, ‘Voyage en Barbarie,’ vol. i. p.  31.

[1613] Mr. Wallace (‘Contributions to the Theory of Natural
Selection,’ Essay ix.), so far as I know, is the only investigator who
has tried to explain, by the principle of natural selection, the origin
of human racial distinctions.

[1614] A negro child is not born black, but becomes so after some
shorter or longer time (Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 342.
Caillié, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  351). The children of dark races are
usually fairer than the adults (Darwin, vol. ii. p. 342. Moseley, in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vi. p. 385).

[1615] Camper, ‘Kleinere Schriften,’ vol. i. p.  44.

[1616] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 384, _et seq._

[1617] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 383.

[1618] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. p.  316.

[1619] Speaking of the Rejangs of Sumatra, Marsden says (_loc. cit._
p. 206), ‘The quick, and to them inexplicable, revolutions of our
fashions are subject of much astonishment, and they naturally conclude
that those modes can have but little intrinsic merit which we are so
ready to change.'

[1620] Earl, _loc. cit._ p. 48.

[1621] Williams, ‘Missionary Enterprises,’ pp. 538, _et seq._

[1622] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 403, _et seq._

[1623] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 410.

[1624] Mr. Wallace, in his ‘Contributions to the Theory of Natural
Selection’ (p. 359), believes that ‘a superior intelligence has
guided the development of man in a definite direction,’ and considers
(pp. 348, _et seq._) that the hairless condition of the skin comes
under this head. Again, Mr. Belt’s experience in tropical countries
has led him to the conclusion that, in such parts at least, there is
one serious drawback to the advantage of having the skin covered with
hair:—‘It affords cover for parasitical insects, which, if the skin
were naked, might more easily be got rid of’ (Belt, _loc. cit._ p. 209).

[1625] Collins, who wrote sixty years before ‘The Origin of Species,’
makes the following observation regarding the natives about Botany
Bay and Port Jackson (New South Wales):—‘Their sight is peculiarly
fine, indeed their existence very often depends upon the accuracy of
it; for a short-sighted man ... would never be able to defend himself
from their spears, which are thrown with amazing force and velocity’
(Collins, ‘Account of the English Colony in New South Wales,’ vol. i.
pp. 553, _et seq._).

[1626] v. Humboldt, ‘Political Essay,’ vol. i. pp. 152, _et seq._
Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ pp. 113, _et seq._ Brough
Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 30, note; Salvado, ‘Mémoires,’ pp. 274,
_et seq._; Collins, vol. i. p.  553 (Australians). Rengger, _loc. cit._
pp. 9, _et seq._ (Indians of Paraguay).

[1627] Lawrence, _loc. cit._ pp. 422, _et seq._

[1628] Reade, _loc. cit._ pp. 545, 549. Johnston, _loc. cit._ p. 436.

[1629] Duvernoy, art. ‘Propagation,’ in ‘Dictionnaire universel
d’histoire naturelle,’ vol. x. p.  546.

[1630] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire naturelle générale,’ vol.
iii. p. 180.

[1631] _Ibid._, vol. iii. pp. 175, 185, _et seq._ de Quatrefages, _loc.
cit._ p. 67.

[1632] Vogt, ‘Lectures on Man,’ p. 414.

[1633] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, vol. iii. p. 191.

[1634] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire naturelle,’ vol. iii. pp.
169-175.

[1635] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. p.
189.

[1636] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, vol. iii. p. 208. Blumenbach,
‘Anthropological Treatises,’ p. 73.

[1637] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, vol. iii. pp. 213, _et seq._

[1638] Wallace, ‘Darwinism,’ pp. 160, _et seq._

[1639] Darwin, ‘The Origin of Species,’ vol. ii. pp. 44, &c. _Cf._
Godron, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  209.

[1640] The greater or less degree of sterility of hybrids, although, as
Mr. Darwin remarks (‘The Origin of Species,’ vol. ii. p. 46), a very
different case from the difficulty of uniting two pure species, yet, to
a certain extent, runs parallel with it.

[1641] Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Histoire naturelle,’ vol. iii. pp.
168, 169, &c.

[1642] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. p.
180.

[1643] ‘Exodus,’ ch. xxii. v. 19. ‘Leviticus,’ ch. xviii. v. 23; ch.
xx. v. 15. ‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxvii. v. 21. Pliny, _loc. cit._ book
viii. ch. 42. Virgil, ‘Bucolica,’ Ecloga iii. v. 8. 

[1644] Janke, _loc. cit._ p. 276. Mackenzie, ‘Voyages,’ p. xcvii. v.
Kraft-Ebing, ‘Psychopathia sexualis,’ pp. 135, _et seq._

[1645] See Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 125, 126, 128.

[1646] _Cf._ Blumenbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 80, _et seq._; Steller, _loc.
cit._ p. 289, note.

[1647] Périer, ‘Essai sur les croisements ethniques,’ in ‘Mémoires
Soc. d’Anthr.,’ vol. i. p.  216. Jacquinot, in Dumont d’Urville,
‘Voyage au Pole Sud,’ Zoologie, vol. ii. p. 92.

[1648] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. pp.
102, _et seq._

[1649] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 381.

[1650] de Quatrefages, _loc. cit._ p. 273.

[1651] Topinard, ‘Anthropology,’ p. 371.

[1652] Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 238.

[1653] Topinard, p. 372.

[1654] Périer, in ‘Mém. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ vol. ii. p. 340.

[1655] Topinard, _loc. cit._ p. 383.

[1656] Prichard, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  149.

[1657] Godron, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 360, note 2.

[1658] Knox, ‘The Races of Men,’ pp. 497, &c.

[1659] Nott and Gliddon, _loc. cit._ pp. 397, _et seq._

[1660] Broca, ‘The Phenomena of Hybridity,’ p. 60. Pouchet, _loc.
cit._ p. 101.

[1661] Prichard, ‘The Natural History of Man,’ p. 18.

[1662] Godron, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 363.

[1663] de Quatrefages, _loc. cit._ p. 264.

[1664] Broca, p. 48.

[1665] _Ibid._, p. 48.

[1666] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 264. _Cf._ Topinard, ‘Note sur
les métis d’Australiens et d’Européens,’ in ‘Revue d’Anthropologie,’
vol. iv. pp. 243-249.

[1667] Dr. T. R.  H. Thomson says ('On the Reported Incompetency of the
“Gins,”‘ in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. iii. pp. 244, _et seq._)
that the Australian woman, when she places herself under the roof of
a European settler as his concubine or wife, appears to become less
fertile, although she has more regular diet, comfort, and covering.

[1668] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. pp.
148-160.

[1669] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 9.  Eyre, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 324.
Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 273.

[1670] Meyer, _loc. cit._ p. 186.

[1671] Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 14.

[1672] Broca, _loc. cit._ p. 36.

[1673] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 8. 

[1674] v. Görtz, ‘Reise um die Welt,’ vol. iii. p. 288.

[1675] Hensen, ‘Die Physiologie der Zeugung,’ in Hermann, ‘Handbuch
der Physiologie,’ vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 191.

[1676] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. pp.
182, _et seq._

[1677] Jacobs, ‘On the Racial Characteristics of Modern Jews,’ in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. pp. 26-28.

[1678] Agassiz, ‘Essay on Classification,’ pp. 249-252.

[1679] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. pp.
105, 181, 190, _et seq._

[1680] Vogt, _loc. cit._ p. 421.

[1681] Sebright, _loc. cit._ pp. 17, _et seq._

[1682] v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 64.

[1683] Ross, in ‘Smithsonian Report,’ 1866, p. 310.

[1684] Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ &c., p. 22. _Idem_, in
‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  151. Riedel, quoted by Post,
‘Entwickelungsgeschichte des Familienrechts,’ p. 221. Garcilasso de
la Vega, describing the Indians of Peru before the time of the Incas,
says (_loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 58, _et seq._), ‘In many nations they
cohabited like beasts, without any special wife, but just as chance
directed. Others followed their own desires, without excepting sisters,
daughters, or mothers. Others excepted their mothers but none else.’
It is said, according to Dr. Hickson (_loc. cit._ pp. 277, _et seq._),
that in olden times, in the southern districts of Minahassa, in the
neighbourhood of Tonsawang, father and daughter, mother and son,
brother and sister, frequently lived together in bonds of matrimony.
As regards the Chippewas, Mr. Keating states (_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p.
170) that ‘incest is not unknown to them, but it is held in great
abhorrence.'

[1685] Hübschmann, ‘Ueber die persische Verwandtenheirath,’ in
‘Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellsch.,’ vol. xliii. p.
308.

[1686] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 83.

[1687] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 276.

[1688] Heifer, ‘The Animal Productions of the Tenasserim Provinces,’
in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 856.

[1689] Cameron, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 70.

[1690] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 49.

[1691] ‘The Kalevala’ (translated by Crawford), vol. ii. p. 548.

[1692] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 340.

[1693] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 367.

[1694] Krasheninnikoff, ‘The History of Kamtschatka,’ p. 215.

[1695] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. pp. 294, _et seq._

[1696] Janke, _loc. cit._ p. 276.

[1697] Liebich, _loc. cit._ p. 49.

[1698] Thomson, ‘Through Masai Land,’ p. 51.

[1699] v. Martius, in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol. ii. p. 198. _Idem_,
‘Beiträge zur Ethnographie,’ &c., vol. i. pp. 115, _et seq._

[1700] ‘Rig-Veda Sanhitá,’ mandala x. súkta 10.

[1701] Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 392, note.

[1702] ‘Ynglinga Saga,’ ch. iv.; in ‘Heimskringla’ (edited by Unger),
p. 6. 

[1703] _Ibid._, p. 6. 

[1704] Nordström, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 18. Grimm, _loc. cit._ p. 435.

[1705] Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 173.

[1706] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 169.

[1707] Forbes, ‘British Burma,’ p. 48, note.

[1708] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 459.

[1709] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 131.

[1710] Ellis, ‘Hawaii,’ pp. 414, _et seq._ Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol.
iv. p. 32.

[1711] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 252.

[1712] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book iii. ch. 31. Spiegel, _loc. cit._
vol. iii. pp. 678, _et seq._

[1713] Wilkinson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  319.

[1714] _Ibid._, vol. i. pp. 318, _et seq._

[1715] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  308.

[1716] Acosta, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 425. Prescott, ‘History of the
Conquest of Peru,’ p. 9, note 3.

[1717] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ &c., p. 160. Wilken, ‘Huwelijken tusschen
bloedverwanten,’ p. 31.

[1718] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 406, note.

[1719] Krauss, _loc. cit._ pp. 221, _et seq._.

[1720] ‘Genesis,’ ch. xx. v. 12.

[1721] Robertson Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 163.

[1722] Michaelis, ‘Abhandlung von den Ehegesetzen Mosis,’ p. 128.

[1723] Becker, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 448. In Homer, the marriage of
brother and sister, strictly speaking, is to be found only in myth
(Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 392, note).

[1724] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 664, _et seq._

[1725] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  147. _Idem_,
‘Verwantschap,’ &c., p. 22.

[1726] Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 289. _Cf._ v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. pp. 116, 393 (certain Brazilian tribes).

[1727] The Rev. B. Danks mentions (‘Marriage Customs of the New
Britain Group,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 283) that in
the New Britain Group, where upon theoretical grounds a man may without
law-breaking marry his niece, as belonging to another clan, there is,
nevertheless, a great repugnance to such unions, among the natives, and
in one case where such a union was brought about, the natives utterly
condemned it.

[1728] Tartars (Castrén, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 298), Somals (Burton,
‘First Footsteps in East Africa,’ p. 120), Negroes of Bondo (‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1027).

[1729] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 406.

[1730] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 880.

[1731] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 422.

[1732] Huth, ‘The Marriage of Near Kin,’ pp. 123, 137.

[1733] _Ibid._ pp. 123, 139.

[1734] ‘The Korân,’ sura iv. v. 27.

[1735] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 399. Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 158.

[1736] Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 353.

[1737] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 325.

[1738] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  276.

[1739] v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ pp. 30, _et seq._

[1740] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 64. Robertson Smith, _loc. cit._ p.
82.

[1741] ‘The Marriage Customs of the Moors of Ceylon,’ in ‘The
Folk-Lore Journal,’ vol. vi. p. 140.

[1742] Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vi. p. 406.

[1743] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Asiatic Races, p. 8. 

[1744] Shortt, ‘The Wild Tribes of Southern India,’ in ‘Trans. Ethn.
Soc.,’ N. S. vol. vii. p. 187.

[1745] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 141.

[1746] Rink, ‘The Eskimo Tribes,’ p. 23.

[1747] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 196.

[1748] Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 171.

[1749] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  655.

[1750] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 192.

[1751] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 99.

[1752] Dall, p. 138.

[1753] Frazer, _loc. cit._ p. 59.

[1754] Hardisty, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 315.

[1755] Frazer, _loc. cit._ p. 60.

[1756] Morgan, ‘Ancient Society,’ pp. 90, _et seq._

[1757] _Ibid._, pp. 91-93. _Cf._ Morgan, ‘League of the Iroquois,’ pp.
79, 81, 83.

[1758] Frazer, pp. 60-62.

[1759] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 665.

[1760] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 665. de Herrera, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p.
171.

[1761] Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 251.

[1762] Im Thurn, _loc. cit._ pp. 175, 185.

[1763] Agassiz, ‘Journey in Brazil,’ p. 320.

[1764] Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 172.

[1765] Dobrizhoffer, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  63; vol. ii. p. 212.

[1766] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  107. _Cf._ Palmer, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 299.

[1767] Frazer, _loc. cit._ p. 65. Curr, vol. i. p.  112.

[1768] Frazer, p. 65. Howitt, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1883, p. 800.

[1769] Curr, vol. i. p.  112. _Cf._ Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S.
Wales, vol. xxiii. p. 402.

[1770] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  118. Frazer, _loc. cit._ p. 58.
Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 399. For
the Australian exogamy, see also Howitt, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1883,
pp. 797-824; Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._; Brough Smyth, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. pp. 86-92; Ridley, ‘The Aborigines of Australia,’ pp.
7-10; _Idem_, ‘Kámilarói,’ pp. 161, _et seq._; Breton, _loc. cit._
p. 202; Schürmann, _loc. cit._ p. 222; Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 26;
Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 772; Bonney, in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xiii. pp. 128, _et seq._; Cameron, _ibid._, vol. xiv. p.
351.

[1771] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  112; vol. ii. p. 245. Schürmann,
_loc. cit._ p. 222. Cameron, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiv. p. 351.

[1772] Curr, vol. i. p.  106.

[1773] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 546.

[1774] _Ibid._, vol. i. pp. 107, 111. Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 26.

[1775] Dawson, p. 27.

[1776] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 386. Cf. Bonwick, ‘Daily
Life,’ p. 62.

[1777] Huth, _loc. cit._ p. 80. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p.
131.

[1778] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 92.

[1779] Codrington, _loc. cit._ pp. 21, 29.

[1780] Danks, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. pp. 282, _et seq._
_Cf._ Powell, _loc. cit._ p. 86.

[1781] Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ pp. 181, _et seq._

[1782] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 106.

[1783] Kubary, _loc. cit._ p. 35.

[1784] St. John, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  198. _Cf._ Low, _loc. cit._ p.
300; Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 23.

[1785] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 139.

[1786] Hickson, _loc. cit._ p. 227. Wilken, pp. 21, _et seq._

[1787] Wilken, pp. 18, 21.

[1788] Blumentritt, _loc. cit._ p. 33.

[1789] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  147.

[1790] Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 206.

[1791] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. pp. 145, _et seq._

[1792] Riedel, p. 416.

[1793] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  146.

[1794] _Ibid._, p. 146.

[1795] _Ibid._, p. 148.

[1796] Wilken, ‘Huwelijken tusschen bloedverwanten,’ pp. 26, _et.
seq._ Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 460.

[1797] Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 18.

[1798] Stewart, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. p. 640.

[1799] Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 359.

[1800] Lewin, _loc. cit._ pp. 186, _et seq._

[1801] Macpherson, quoted by Percival, ‘The Land of the Veda,’ p. 345.
_Cf._ Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. iii. p. 81.

[1802] Man, _loc. cit._ p. 103.

[1803] Hale, ‘On the Sakais,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. p.
291.

[1804] Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 158, 189.

[1805] _Ibid._, p. 63.

[1806] Tod, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  145.

[1807] Lyall, ‘Asiatic Studies,’ p. 156.

[1808] Tylor, ‘Early History of Mankind,’ p. 280.

[1809] This relationship extends to six degrees where the common
ancestor is a male. Where the common ancestor is a female, there is a
difference of opinion; Manu and Âpastamba extending the prohibition in
her case also to six degrees, while Gautama, Vishnu, Narada, &c., limit
it to four degrees (Mayne, ‘Hindu Law and Usage,’ p. 87).

[1810] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 5. 

[1811] Weber, ‘Die Kastenverhältnisse in dem Brâhmana und Sûtra,’ in
‘Indische Studien,’ vol. x. pp. 75, _et seq._

[1812] Kearns, _loc. cit._ pp. 33, _et seq._ For the marriage
restrictions of the Hindus,_ cf._ Steele, ‘The Law and Custom of the
Hindoo Castes,’ pp. 26, 27, 163.

[1813] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. pp. 135, _et seq._

[1814] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. p. 294.

[1815] ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. pp. 3-10, 23-25,
27, _et seq._

[1816] _Ibid._, vol. iv. pp. 21, _et seq._

[1817] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 24.

[1818] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 23. Jamieson, ‘Translations from the
General Code of Laws of the Chinese Empire,’ in ‘The China Review,’
vol. x. pp. 82, _et seq._ _Cf._ Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  186;
Tylor, ‘Early History of Mankind,’ p. 281.

[1819] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p.
27.

[1820] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ p. 139. Bastian,
‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 171.

[1821] Bastian, p. 172.

[1822] Castrén, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 168. Georgi, _loc. cit._ p.
282. Finsch, ‘Reise nach West-Sibirien,’ p. 543.

[1823] Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 31.

[1824] Castrén, in ‘Litterära Soiréer,’ 1849, pp. 12, _et seq._
_Idem_, ‘Nordiska resor och forskningar,’ vol. ii. p. 168. de
Quatrefages, ‘Hommes fossiles et hommes sauvages,’ p. 604.

[1825] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 406, note.

[1826] _Ibid._ p. 406.

[1827] Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 181.

[1828] Reich, ‘Geschichte, Natur-und Gesundheitslehre des ehelichen
Lebens,’ p. 333.

[1829] Burton, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 120.

[1830] Du Chaillu, ‘The People of Western Equatorial Africa,’ in
‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. i. p.  307. Ashe, ‘Two Kings of
Uganda,’ p. 285.

[1831] Burton, ‘Gorilla Land,’ vol. i. p.  75.

[1832] _Cf._ Fritsch, _loc. cit._ pp. 114, _et seq._; Bastian,
‘Ethnologische Forschungen,’ vol. i. p.  xxvii.; Holden, ‘The Past
and Future of the Kaffir Races,’ p. 200.

[1833] Shooter, _loc. cit._ pp. 45, _et seq._

[1834] Maclean, _loc. cit._ p. 163.

[1835] Shooter, p. 45.

[1836] Maclean, p. 115.

[1837] Theal, _loc. cit._ pp. 16, _et seq._

[1838] Conder, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 85.

[1839] Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 191.

[1840] Kolben, ‘The Present State of the Cape of Good Hope,’ vol. i.
pp. 155, _et seq._

[1841] Sibree, _loc. cit._ pp. 185, 248, _et seq._ Ellis, ‘History of
Madagascar,’ vol. i. pp. 164, _et seq._

[1842] Marquardt and Mommsen, ‘Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer,’
vol. vii. pp. 29, _et seq._

[1843] Smith and Cheetham, ‘Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,’ vol.
ii. p. 1727.

[1844] Smith and Cheetham, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 1727, 1729.

[1845] Huth, _loc. cit._ p. 122.

[1846] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 127.

[1847] Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 353. Holm, ‘Ethnologisk Skizze af
Angmagsalikerne,’ in ‘Meddelelser om Grönland,’ vol. x. p.  96.

[1848] Daniell, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. iv. p. 14.

[1849] Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 27.

[1850] de Herrera, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 171.

[1851] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. pp.
24, _et seq._ note.

[1852] Longford, ‘Summary of the Japanese Penal Codes,’ in ‘Trans.
As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 87.

[1853] ‘The Institutes of Vishnu,’ ch. xxxiv. vv. 1, _et seq._

[1854] ‘Leviticus,’ ch. xviii. vv. 8, 15, 17; &c.

[1855] ‘The Korân,’ sura iv. vv. 26, _et seq._

[1856] Justinian, _loc. cit._ book i. title x. §§ 6, _et seq._

[1857] See Ewald, p. 197, note 6. _Cf._ Smith and Cheetham, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. pp. 1725, _et seq._

[1858] Huth, _loc. cit._ p. 24.

[1859] McLennan, ‘Studies in Ancient History,’ pp. 75, _et seq._

[1860] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. pp. 614-619.

[1861] McLennan, ‘Exogamy and Endogamy,’ in ‘The Fortnightly Review,’
vol. xxi. pp. 884, _et seq._

[1862] Hooper, _loc. cit._ p. 201.

[1863] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 94.

[1864] Seemann, ‘Voyage of _Herald_,’ vol. ii. p. 66.

[1865] Keene, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 206.

[1866] Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 192, 271, 382. _Cf._ Waitz, _loc. cit._
vol. iii. p. 106.

[1867] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 243. Mackenzie,
‘Voyages,’ p. xcviii.

[1868] Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 77.

[1869] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 399

[1870] Reich, _loc. cit._ pp. 457, _et seq._

[1871] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  280.

[1872] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 79. Williams, ‘Missionary Enterprises,’ p.
558. Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 392.

[1873] Elton, ‘Natives of the Solomon Islands,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 93.

[1874] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 211.

[1875] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  70.

[1876] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 272 (natives of Herbert River, Northern
Queensland).

[1877] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 400, _et seq._

[1878] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ pp. 134-137. _Cf._ Farrer,
‘Primitive Manners and Customs,’ p. 244.

[1879] Mr. Bridges, in a letter. _Cf._ _Idem_, in ‘A Voice for South
America,’ vol. xiii. p. 181; Hyades, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser.
iii. vol. x. p.  331.

[1880] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 207. _Cf._ _ibid._, p. 183.

[1881] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  249.

[1882] McLennan, ‘Studies in Ancient History,’ p. 160.

[1883] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  619-621.

[1884] _Ibid._, pp. 627, _et seq._

[1885] Mr. Huth, in the first edition of his work, ‘The Marriage of
Near Kin,’ suggests (p. 157) that marriage between parents and children
is considered incestuous because marriage between old men and young
women in general is considered so. In the second edition, Mr. Huth
seems to have given up this most unfortunate hypothesis, as he says (p.
18) that ‘the prohibition of marriage with those who were regarded
as near of kin was derived from the same causes which made exogamy
imperative,’ that is, the causes suggested by Mr. Spencer.

[1886] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ pp. 135, _et seq_.
Professor Wilken (in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. p. 612)
accepts this explanation of the origin of exogamy, and considers
it certain (_ibid._, pp. 618, 619, 623) that prohibitions of close
intermarriage have everywhere originated in true exogamy.

[1887] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ &c., p. 345. Among the Australian
Gournditch-mara, according to the Rev. J. H.  Stähle, the man who
captured a woman in war never kept her himself, but was compelled to
give her to some one else (Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 276).

[1888] Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. iii. pp. 361,
_et seq._ Professor Kohler also thinks (‘Krit. Vierteljahrschr. f.
Gesetzg.,’ N. S.  vol. iv. p. 181) that one of the chief causes of
exogamy was the unpleasantly dependent position in which, in endogamous
marriage, the husband stood to the family of his wife.

[1889] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 267.

[1890] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  100. Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc.
N.S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 403. Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 28. Frazer,
_loc. cit._ pp. 58, _et seq._ There seem to be two or three exceptions
to this rule among the Australian tribes, but Mr. Curr (vol. i. p. 
417) ascribes such cases to the influence of the whites.

[1891] Codrington, _loc. cit._ p. 23.

[1892] Holm, _loc. cit._ p. 98.

[1893] Prichard, _loc. cit._ p. 125.

[1894] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 265.

[1895] Morgan, ‘Ancient Society,’ p. 424.

[1896] Lubbock, ‘The Customs of Marriage and Systems of Relationship
among the Australians,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiv. p. 300.
Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. p. 124.
Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 224.

[1897] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ p. 228.

[1898] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  112.

[1899] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 21.

[1900] _Cf._ Lang, ‘Custom and Myth,’ p. 256.

[1901] Huth, _loc. cit._ p. 342.

[1902] Plato, ‘Νόμοι,’ book viii. ch. vi. p. 838.

[1903] Huth, _loc. cit._ pp. 10-14.

[1904] Moriz Wagner, in ‘Kosmos,’ 1886, vol. i. pp. 21, &c. v.
Hellwald, _loc. cit._ pp. 179, _et seq._ Wake, “The Development of
Marriage and Kinship,‘ p. 55. Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 248, note.
Speaking of the Australian tribes, Mr. Mathew says ('Jour. Roy. Soc.
N.S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 403), ‘There may also be an auxiliary
cause to exogamy among barbarians in what may be called an instinctive
hankering after foreign women.'

[1905] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 141. _Cf._ Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
147.

[1906] Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 330.

[1907] Macpherson, ‘Memorials of Service in India,’ p. 69.

[1908] Codrington, _loc. cit._ p. 240.

[1909] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 268.

[1910] v. Martius, in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol. ii. p. 198. _Idem_,
‘Beiträge zur Ethnographie,’ &c., vol. i. p.  117.

[1911] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 497. v. Martius, vol.
i. p.  594.

[1912] Howitt, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1883, pp. 800, 810, 819, _et seq._
_Cf._ Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 399.

[1913] Forbes, ‘The Eastern Archipelago,’ pp. 142, _et seq._

[1914] Forbes, ‘The Eastern Archipelago,’ p. 196. Forbes, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 347. Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 58.

[1915] Metz, ‘The Tribes Inhabiting the Neilgherry Hills,’ p. 131.

[1916] Riedel, ‘Galela und Tobeloresen,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’
vol. xvii. p. 77.

[1917] Bastian, ‘Inselgruppen in Oceanien,’ p. 61.

[1918] Mr. Eyles, in a letter.

[1919] Hildebrandt, ‘Ethnographische Notizen über Wakamba und ihre
Nachbaren,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x. p.  401.

[1920] Krasheninnikoff, _loc. cit._ p. 212.

[1921] Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 172.

[1922] Riedel, _loc. cit._ pp. 302, 335, 351.

[1923] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 81.

[1924] Kovalevsky, ‘Marriage among the Early Slavs,’ in ‘Folk-Lore,’
vol. i. p.  475.

[1925] Burton, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 119.

[1926] Morgan, ‘Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines,’ p.
73.

[1927] _Ibid._, p. 64.

[1928] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 168.

[1929] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 147. _Cf._ Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
pp. 291, 297.

[1930] Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 153, 170, 171.

[1931] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ pp. 490, 497.

[1932] Mr. Bridges, in a letter.

[1933] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  xxiv.

[1934] Macdonald, ‘Oceania,’ pp. 186-188.

[1935] Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ pp. 25, _et seq._

[1936] Hickson, _loc. cit._ p. 197.

[1937] Buchanan, ‘Journey from Madras,’ p. 738. Bachofen,
‘Antiquarische Briefe,’ pp. 271, _et seq._ Starcke, _loc. cit._ p. 83.

[1938] Shooter, _loc. cit._ pp. 15, 47, 86. Nauhaus, in ‘Verhandl.
Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1882, p. 200.

[1939] Krauss, _loc. cit._ p. 75.

[1940] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ pp. 237, 241, 254, 255.

[1941] Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. iii. p. 362.

[1942] Lewis, ‘The Ancient Laws of Wales,’ pp. 56, 57, 196.

[1943] Montesquieu, ‘De l’esprit des loix,’ book xxvi. ch. 14, vol.
iii. pp. 47, 49.

[1944] Bertillon, ‘Mariage (hygiène matrimoniale),’ in ‘Dict. encycl.
des sciences médicales,’ ser. ii. vol. v. p.  60.

[1945] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ pp. 507, _et seq._

[1946] Yate, _loc. cit._ pp. 103, 154.

[1947] _Ibid._, p. 114.

[1948] Marshall, _loc. cit._ pp. 59, _et seq._

[1949] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  276.

[1950] Burchell, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 56.

[1951] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 74.

[1952] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 278. Pridham, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 262,
265.

[1953] Ewald, _loc. cit._ pp. 197, _et seq._

[1954] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xvi.

[1955] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 421-423, 429, 439.

[1956] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 264.

[1957] Kearns, _loc. cit._ pp. 33, _et seq._

[1958] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 228.

[1959] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p.
24, note ‡.

[1960] Tylor, ‘Early History of Mankind,’ pp. 285, _et seq._

[1961] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p.
22.

[1962] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 406.

[1963] ‘Codex Justinianeus,’ book v. title iv. § 26.

[1964] Tylor, ‘Early History of Mankind,’ p. 288.

[1965] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ pp. 257, _et seq._

[1966] Kohler, ‘Indisches Ehe-und Familienrecht,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f.
vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. iii. pp. 366, _et seq._

[1967] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. ix. v. 235; ch. xi. v. 55; ch. xii. v.
58. ‘The Institutes of Vishnu,’ ch. xxxv. v. 1. 

[1968] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  66.

[1969] _Cf._ Robertson Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 169; Macdonald,
‘Oceania,’ pp. 184, 192, _et seq._

[1970] Kubary, _loc. cit._ p. 62.

[1971] Robertson Smith, p. 170.

[1972] Heifer, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 856.

[1973] Virchow, ‘The Veddás of Ceylon,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. As. Soc.
Ceylon Branch,’ vol. ix. pp. 355, 369. Hartshorne, in ‘The Indian
Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 320.

[1974] Virchow, in ‘Jour. Roy. As. Soc. Ceylon Branch,’ vol. ix. p.
370.

[1975] Annamese (Janke, _loc. cit._ p. 276), Kamchadales (Steller,
_loc. cit._ p. 289, note), Kaniagmuts (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i.
pp. 81, _et seq._).

[1976] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. pp. 606, _et
seq._ Huth, _loc. cit._ pp. 14, &c. Morgan, ‘Systems of Consanguinity
and Affinity,’ p. 480. Wilken, ‘Huwelijken tusschen bloedverwanten,’
pp. 24, _et seq._

[1977] Mr. Cupples, however, observes that among dogs, the male seems
rather inclined towards strange females (Darwin, ‘The Descent of
Man,’ vol. ii. p. 294); and I myself have been told by a thoroughly
trustworthy person of a stallion that would not approach mares of the
same stable. But such instincts seem to be exceptions at least among
domesticated animals.

[1978] Huth, _loc. cit._ p. 9. 

[1979] _Ibid._, p. 9. 

[1980] Müller, ‘The Fertilisation of Flowers,’ p. 8. 

[1981] Darwin, ‘The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the
Vegetable Kingdom,’ p. 436.

[1982] _Ibid._, p. 443.

[1983] Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. p.
116.

[1984] Sebright, ‘The Art of Improving the Breeds of Domestic
Animals,’ pp. 12, _et seq._

[1985] Wallace, ‘Darwinism,’ p. 161.

[1986] Crampe, ‘Zuchtversuche mit zahmen Wanderratten,’ in
‘Landwirthschaftliche Jahrbücher,’ vol. xii. pp. 402, 409, 418;
quoted by Düsing, ‘Die Regulierung des Geschlechtsverhältnisses
bei der Vermehrung der Menschen, Tiere und Pflanzen,’ p. 246. ‘Die
Kreuzungsproducte der Familien waren mit ihren Brüdern, Vätern,
Grossvätern und Mestizen viel fruchtbarer, als die in Blutschande
gezogenen Familien unter denselben Verhältnissen.'

[1987] Huth, _loc. cit._ pp. 286, _et seq._

[1988] Preyer, ‘Specielle Physiologie des Embryo,’ p. 8. 

[1989] Mitchell, ‘Blood-Relationship in Marriage,’ in ‘Memoirs Read
before the Anthropological Society of London,’ vol. ii. p. 451.

[1990] Pouchet, _loc. cit._ p. 107, note *.

[1991] Sebright, _loc. cit._ pp. 11, _et seq._

[1992] Darwin, ‘Cross and Self Fertilisation,’ p. 445.

[1993] _Idem_, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. p.
116.

[1994] _Idem_, ‘Cross and Self Fertilisation,’ p. 457.

[1995] _Ibid._, p. 465.

[1996] Sebright, _loc. cit._ p. 12.

[1997] Adam, ‘Consanguinity in Marriage,’ in ‘The Fortnightly
Review,’ vol. iii. p. 81.

[1998] Huth, _loc. cit._ p. 36.

[1999] Galton, ‘Hereditary Genius,’ p. 152.

[2000] Huth, p. 37, note.

[2001] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. pp. 294, 296.

[2002] Périer, in ‘Mém. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ vol. i. p.  223. Voisin,
‘Contribution à l’histoire des mariages entre consanguins,’ _ibid._,
vol. ii. p. 447.

[2003] Huth, _loc. cit._ ch. v. pp. 186-241.

[2004] _Ibid._, pp. 217, 226.

[2005] G. H.  Darwin, ‘Marriages between First Cousins in England,’ in
‘The Fortnightly Review,’ vol. xviii. p. 41.

[2006] _Idem_, ‘Marriages between First Cousins in England,’ in
‘Journal of the Statistical Society,’ vol. xxxviii. pp. 181, 170, 182.

[2007] _Idem_, ‘Note on the Marriages of First Cousins,’ _ibid._, vol.
xxxviii. pp. 344-346.

[2008] Schmidt’s ‘Jahrbücher des gesammten Medicin,’ vol. clxxxi. p.
89.

[2009] It has escaped even Mr. Huth’s keen observation.

[2010] Mygge, ‘Om Aegteskaber mellem Blodbeslaegtede,’ pp. 162, 272.

[2011] Dahl, ‘Bidrag til Kundskab om de Sindssyge i Norge,’ pp. 99-102.

[2012] Professor Mantegazza has given a list of fifty-seven authors who
have opposed these marriages, and of fifteen who have defended them
(‘Jour. Statist. Soc.,’ vol. xxxviii. p. 179).

[2013] Huth, _loc. cit._ pp. 141-143.

[2014] Beechey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  86.

[2015] Voisin, in ‘Mém. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ vol. ii. p. 447.

[2016] Mygge, _loc. cit._ p. 126.

[2017] ‘Edinburgh Medical Journal,’ vol. vii. pt. ii. p. 876.

[2018] Mygge, _loc. cit._ p. 171.

[2019] Darwin, ‘Cross and Self Fertilisation,’ pp. 439, 458.

[2020] _Ibid._, p. 439. G. H.  Darwin, in ‘Jour. Statist. Soc.,’ vol.
xxxviii. p. 175.

[2021] Quoted by Düsing, _loc. cit._ p. 249.

[2022] Mitchell, in ‘Mem. Anthr. Soc.,’ vol. ii. p. 447.

[2023] _Cf._ Devay, ‘Du danger des mariages consanguins,’ p. 10.

[2024] G. H.  Darwin, in ‘Jour. Statist. Soc.,’ vol. xxxviii. p. 163.

[2025] _Ibid._, pp. 175, _et seq._

[2026] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  334.

[2027] Bates, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 199, _et seq._

[2028] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 508.

[2029] v. Tschudi, _loc. cit_. vol. ii. p. 284.

[2030] Gisborne, ‘The Isthmus of Darien,’ p. 155.

[2031] Davis, ‘El Gringo,’ p. 146.

[2032] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 144, 147.

[2033] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 248.

[2034] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 66.

[2035] St. John, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  10.

[2036] Foreman, _loc. cit._ p. 200.

[2037] Batchelor, _loc. cit._ p. 290.

[2038] Meade, _loc. cit._ p. 168.

[2039] Marshall, _loc. cit._ pp. 110, _et seq._

[2040] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 254.

[2041] _Ibid._, p. 254.

[2042] Metz, _loc. cit._ p. 15.

[2043] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 233.

[2044] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 200, 201, 216, _et seq._

[2045] Dr. Helfer also thinks (‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol.
vii. p. 856) that, among the Karens of the Tenasserim Provinces,
close intermarrying is the reason why ‘they are a subdued, timid,
effeminate, diminishing race.'

[2046] Gason, _loc. cit._ pp. 260, _et seq._

[2047] Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  406.

[2048] Rink, ‘Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo,’ pp. 390, _et seq._

[2049] Reich, _loc. cit._ pp. 210, _et seq._

[2050] Goldziher, in ‘The Academy,’ vol. xviii. p. 26. _Cf._ Wilken,
‘Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern,’ p. 61; Robertson Smith, _loc.
cit._ p. 60.

[2051] Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155.

[2052] Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 45.

[2053] Goldziher, in ‘The Academy,’ vol. xviii. p. 26. Robertson
Smith, p. 82.

[2054] For instance, Mr. Morgan (‘Systems,’ &c., pp. 479, _et seq._)
and Professor Wilken (in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1881, vol. ii. p. 622).

[2055] Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, ‘Études de la nature,’ vol. i. p. 
94.

[2056] Schopenhauer, ‘The World as Will and Idea,’ vol. iii. pp.
356-359.

[2057] Lucas, ‘Traité de l’hérédité naturelle,’ vol. ii. p. 238; ‘La
loi de l’amour est l’accord des contrastes.’ Walker, ‘Intermarriage,’
pp. 119-124. Mantegazza, ‘Die Hygieine der Liebe,’ p. 321. Allen,
‘Falling in Love,’ p. 5.  v. Hartmann, ‘Philosophy of the
Unconscious,’ vol. i. pp. 237, _et seq._

[2058] Bain, _loc. cit._ p. 136.

[2059] Lucas, vol. ii. p. 238. Walker, ‘Intermarriage,’ p. 124.

[2060] Quoted by Walker, p. 118.

[2061] Schopenhauer also says (_loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 358), ‘Blondes
prefer dark persons, or brunettes; but the latter seldom prefer the
former. The reason is, that fair hair and blue eyes are in themselves a
variation from the type, are almost abnormal, being analogous to white
mice, or at least to gray horses.'

[2062] de Candolle, ‘Hérédité de la couleur des yeux dans l’espèce
humaine,’ in ‘Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles,’ ser.
iii. vol. xii.; quoted in ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  viii.

[2063] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  ix.

[2064] Galton, ‘Natural Inheritance,’ p. 85.

[2065] Mantegazza, ‘Physiologie du plaisir,’ p. 243.

[2066] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Psychology,’ vol. i. pp. 487, _et
seq._ Bain, _loc. cit._ p. 136. Dr. Duboc remarks (‘Die Psychologie
der Liebe,’ p. 14), ‘Es giebt keine inhaltvollere und triumphirendere
Beseligung der eignen Selbstliebe als von dem über alle Anderen
emporgetragen zu werden, den wir selbst höher wie alle Anderen
erblicken, als von dem ausgezeichnet zu werden, der uns selbst mit
allen Auszeichnungen geschmückt erscheint.'

[2067] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 250.

[2068] Ellis, ‘The Tshi-speaking Peoples,’ p. 285.

[2069] Duncan, ‘Travels in Western Africa,’ vol. i. p.  79. Sabatier,
‘Étude sur la femme Kabyle,’ in ‘Revue d’Anthropologie,’ ser. ii.
vol. vi. p. 58. Bonfanti, ‘L’incivilimento dei negri nell’Africa
intertropicale,’ in ‘Archivio per antropologia e la etnologia,’ vol.
xv. p. 131.

[2070] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 325.

[2071] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 345.

[2072] Finsch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 317.

[2073] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 25.

[2074] Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 144.

[2075] Jones, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 326. Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 139.

[2076] Morgan, ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,’ p. 207, note.
_Cf._ Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  272 (Creeks).

[2077] Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  258.

[2078] Johnson, ‘The River Congo,’ p. 423.

[2079] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ pp. 208, _et seq._

[2080] Schweinfurth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  510.

[2081] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 206.

[2082] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol iii. p. 369.
Fawcett, ‘The Saoras of Madras,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Soc. Bombay,’ vol.
i. p.  219. St. John, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 54, _et seq._ Man, in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 327.

[2083] Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. ix. p. 366.

[2084] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 102.

[2085] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 171, _et seq._

[2086] Seemann, ‘Viti,’ pp. 193, _et seq._

[2087] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 283. Bonwick, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 205. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi.
pp. 775, 781. Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 37. Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ pp. 213,
_et seq._

[2088] Brough Smyth, vol. i. p.  29. Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 12. Bonney,
in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 129.

[2089] Lyon, _loc cit._ p. 353. Cf. Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp.
325, _et seq._ (Greenlanders).

[2090] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 292.

[2091] Catlin, loc. _cit. vol._ i. p.  121.

[2092] Brett, _loc. cit._ pp. 98, 351.

[2093] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 44. Mantegazza, ‘Rio de la
Plata,’ p. 456.

[2094] Weddel, ‘Voyage towards the South Pole,’ p. 156. Haydes, in
‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. x. p.  334.

[2095] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 236.

[2096] Hall, _loc. cit._ p. 568.

[2097] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  xxiv.

[2098] Katscher, _loc. cit._ pp. 58, _et seq._

[2099] Dubois, _loc. cit._ p. 109.

[2100] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  206.

[2101] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 155.

[2102] Finck, ‘Romantic Love,’ p. 110.

[2103] Palmblad, ‘Grekisk fornkunskap,’ vol. i. p.  252. ‘Das
Ausland,’ 1875, p. 321.

[2104] Katscher, _loc. cit._ pp. 71, 84. Hermann-Blümner, _loc. cit._
p. 261.

[2105] Plato, _loc. cit._ book vi. p. 771.

[2106] Plutarch, ‘Περὶ τῆς ἠθικῆς ἀρετῆς,’ ch. viii.

[2107] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  215.

[2108] _Cf._ Bain, _loc. cit._ p. 117; Sully, ‘Outlines of
Psychology,’ p. 515.

[2109] Walker, ‘Intermarriage,’ pp. 113-115.

[2110] Haushofer, _loc. cit._ p. 405.

[2111] Walker, pp. 115, _et seq._

[2112] Reich, _loc. cit._ p. 456.

[2113] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 174.

[2114] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  772.

[2115] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Ancient Mexicans, &c., p. 4. 

[2116] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 214. _Cf._ Mackenzie, ‘Voyages,’ p. 148
(Beaver and Rocky Mountain Indians).

[2117] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1884, p. 464.

[2118] Hanoteau and Letourneux, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 164.

[2119] Jamieson, in ‘The China Review,’ vol. x. pp. 94, _et seq._

[2120] Crawfurd, ‘On the Classification of the Races of Man,’ in
‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. i. p.  357.

[2121] McNair, ‘Perak,’ p. 131.

[2122] Forbes, ‘The Eastern Archipelago,’ p. 241.

[2123] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. pp. 366, 370,
371.

[2124] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. pp. 282, 292.

[2125] de Gobineau, ‘The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races,’
pp. 173, _et seq._

[2126] _Ibid._, p. 174, note 1. _Cf._ d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc.
cit._ p. 155.

[2127] v. Düben, _loc. cit._ pp. 200, _et seq._

[2128] Morelet, _loc. cit._ Montgomery, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 491.
Godron, _loc. cit._ vol ii. p. 360. Fries, _loc. cit._ p. 159.

[2129] Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 193.

[2130] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 465.

[2131] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. iv.

[2132] Macieiowski, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 191.

[2133] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  703.

[2134] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 98.

[2135] Bancroft, vol. i. p.  512, note 120.

[2136] Davis, _loc. cit._ p. 146.

[2137] Bancroft, vol. i. p.  663.

[2138] v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. iii. p. 227.

[2139] v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. iii. pp. 226, _et seq._

[2140] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  106.

[2141] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  308.

[2142] Du Chaillu, _loc. cit._ p. 97.

[2143] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  144.

[2144] Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 75.

[2145] Sibree, _loc. cit._ pp. 109, 256.

[2146] Kolams (Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 278), Koch (Hodgson, in ‘Jour.
As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xviii. p. 707), Karens of Burma (according to
Dr. Bunker; Mason, ‘On Dwellings, &c., of the Karens,’ in ‘Jour. As.
Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxxvii. pt. ii. p. 151).

[2147] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 201.

[2148] Dalton, p. 28.

[2149] Batchelor, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. x. pp. 211, _et
seq._ v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ pp. 30, _et seq._

[2150] Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 325.

[2151] Hickson, _loc. cit._ p. 277. Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ pp. 21,
_et seq._

[2152] Wilken, p. 23.

[2153] Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 396.

[2154] Romilly, in ‘Proceed. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ix. p. 9. 

[2155] Yate, _loc. cit._ pp. 96, 99.

[2156] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 63, 67. Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy.
Soc. N.S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 398.

[2157] Curr, vol. i. pp. 298, 303, 330, 343, 377; vol. ii. pp. 21, 179,
197, 307; vol. iii. pp. 252, 272.

[2158] Lewis, _loc. cit._ p. 196.

[2159] Hearn, _loc. cit._ pp. 156, _et seq._

[2160] Müller, ‘The Doric Race,’ vol. ii. p. 302.

[2161] Gaius, ‘Institutiones,’ book i. § 56.

[2162] Marquardt and Mommsen, _loc. cit._ vol. vii. p. 29.

[2163] Hotz, in de Gobineau, ‘The Diversity of Races,’ p. 239.

[2164] Müller, ‘Chips from a German Workshop,’ vol. i. pp. 322, _et
seq._ _Cf._ Monier Williams, ‘Hinduism,’ p. 154.

[2165] Rhys Davids, ‘Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,’
pp. 22, _et seq._

[2166] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 64.

[2167] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 336.

[2168] Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 6.  Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 85
(Nukahivans).

[2169] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  82. _Cf._ Beechey,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 205, _et seq._; Seemann, ‘Viti,’ p. 79.

[2170] Anderson, _loc. cit._ p. 289.

[2171] Bastian, ‘Beiträge zur Ethnologie,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’
vol. i. pp. 267, _et seq._

[2172] de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America,’ vol. ii. pp. 149-151

[2173] Sproat, _loc. cit._ pp. 98-99.

[2174] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 659.

[2175] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol i. p.  71. v. Spix and v. Martius,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 74.

[2176] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 112.

[2177] _Ibid._, vol. vi. pp. 165, 186.

[2178] Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. pp. 171, _et
seq._ Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  256.

[2179] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  153. Hickson,
_loc. cit._ p. 278 (Minahassers). Matthes, _loc. cit._ p. 13 (Bugis and
Macassars). Riedel, _loc. cit._ pp. 302, 434 (natives of Timor-Laut and
Wetter). St. John, ‘Wild Tribes of the North-West Coast of Borneo,’ in
‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. pp. 234, _et seq._ (Sea Dyaks).

[2180] Sibree, _loc. cit._ pp. 185, 256.

[2181] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ pp. 240, 313.

[2182] Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 443, _et seq._

[2183] Negroes of Loango (Soyaux, _loc. cit._ p. 162), Hottentots
(Kolben, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  156), Kunáma and Barea (Munzinger, p.
484).

[2184] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 63. _Cf._ Burton, ‘Pilgrimage,’ p.
305.

[2185] Monier Williams, ‘Hinduism,’ pp. 153, 155.

[2186] _Idem_, ‘Indian Wisdom,’ p. 218, note.

[2187] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 284.

[2188] Neale, _loc. cit._ p. 58.

[2189] Ross, _loc. cit._ p. 311.

[2190] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 86, note.

[2191] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  187.

[2192] Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. p. 117.

[2193] Mommsen, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  318. Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp.
249, 456, 457, _et seq._

[2194] Winroth, ‘Äktenskapshindren,’ pp. 227, 230, 233. Weinhold,
‘Deutsche Frauen,’ vol. i. pp. 349, 353, _et seq._

[2195] Weinhold, vol. i. pp. 349, _et seq._

[2196] Odhner, ‘Lärobok i Sveriges, Norges och Danmarks historia,’ p.
241.

[2197] Behrend, in v. Holtzendorff, ‘Encyclopädie der
Rechtswissenschaft,’ pt. i. p.  478.

[2198] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ pp. 224, _et seq._

[2199] Behrend, in v. Holtzendorff, ‘Encyclopädie,’ pt. i. p.  457.

[2200] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 885.

[2201] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  137.

[2202] d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._ p. 68.

[2203] Neubauer, ‘Notes on the Race-Types of the Jews,’ in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. p. 19.

[2204] Frankel, ‘Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmudischen Eherechts,’ p.
xx. Ritter, ‘Philo und die Halacha,’ p. 71.

[2205] ‘Genesis,’ ch. xxi. v. 21; ch. xxxvi. v. 2. 

[2206] Andree, _loc. cit._ p. 48. Neubauer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. xv. p. 19.

[2207] Jacobs, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. p. 52.

[2208] St. Paul, ‘1 Corinthians,’ ch. vii. v. 39.

[2209] Tertullian, ‘Ad Uxorem,’ book ii. ch. 3.

[2210] Winroth, _loc. cit._ p. 212.

[2211] Herzog, ‘Abriss der gesammten Kirchengeschichte,’ vol. p. i. 
215.

[2212] Winroth, pp. 213-215.

[2213] _Ibid._, pp. 220, _et seq._

[2214] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ § 11.

[2215] _Ibid._, p. 131.

[2216] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 374.

[2217] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 194. _Cf._ Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  81 (Kaniagmuts).

[2218] Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 678.

[2219] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 246.

[2220] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 121. _Cf._ Reade, _loc. cit._ p.
242.

[2221] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  187; vol. ii. p. 49.

[2222] Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 382. For other instances, see ‘Science,’
vol. vii. p. 172 (Greenlanders); Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 387
(Kunáma); Low, _loc. cit._ p. 196 (Dyaks); Waitz-Gerland, vol vi. p.
135 (Nukahivans).

[2223] Rein, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  426.

[2224] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  183.

[2225] v. Bohlen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 142.

[2226] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  218. For the ancient Iranians,
see Spiegel, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 681.

[2227] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 5, 299.

[2228] Krauss, _loc. cit._ p. 591.

[2229] Deecke, _loc. cit._ p. 25.

[2230] Müller, ‘The Doric Race,’ vol. ii. p. 211.

[2231] African races (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 121. Schweinfurth,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 31. Du Chaillu, _loc. cit._ p. 335), Kaniagmuts
(Sauer, _loc. cit._ p. 176), &c.

[2232] Eskimo (King, ‘The Intellectual Character of the Esquimaux,’ in
‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  150), North American Indians
(Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 100), Negroes of Benin (Bosman, _loc.
cit._ p. 527), natives of Monbuttu (‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’
p. 209) and the Indian Archipelago (Wilken, in ‘De Indische Gids,’
1880, vol. ii. p. 633), Kirghiz, Tartars of Kazan and Orenburg,
Laplanders (Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 10, 105, 221), Hebrews (Michaelis,
‘Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,’ vol. i. p.  471), ancient Germans
(Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xx.).

[2233] Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 412.

[2234] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  272.

[2235] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 214.

[2236] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 547. Buch, _loc. cit._ pp. 45, _et seq._
_Cf._ Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 309 (Gowane people of
Kordofan); Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 253, _et seq._ (Solomon
Islanders).

[2237] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 105.

[2238] Josephus, _loc. cit._ book ii. ch. viii. § 13.

[2239] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 209.

[2240] Quoted by Bain, _loc. cit._ p. 142.

[2241] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  183.

[2242] Rein, _loc. cit._ p. 423.

[2243] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. pp. 101, 102,
139, &c.

[2244] Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. pp. 326, _et
seq._

[2245] _Cf._ Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 323; Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol.
i. p.  205.

[2246] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  268.

[2247] Glasson, ‘Le mariage civil et le divorce,’ p. 470.

[2248] Fries, _loc. cit._ p. 111. _Cf._ Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp.
145, _et seq._

[2249] King, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  145. ‘Globus,’
vol. xlix. p. 35.

[2250] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  276.

[2251] de Bode, ‘The Yamúd and Goklán Tribes of Turkomania,’ in
‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  75.

[2252] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  683.

[2253] Coxe, _loc. cit._ p. 257.

[2254] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 98.

[2255] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 224. ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. iii. p. 30.

[2256] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 355. McLennan, ‘Studies,’ p. 34.

[2257] v. Martius, in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol. ii. p. 197.

[2258] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  733.

[2259] Alcedo-Thompson, ‘Dictionary of America and the West Indies,’
vol. i. p.  416. Smith, ‘The Araucanians,’ p. 215.

[2260] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 497. v. Martius, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p. 600.

[2261] King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 182. Hyades, in
‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. x. p.  334.

[2262] Andersson, ‘The Okavango River,’ p. 143.

[2263] Conder, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 83.

[2264] Krapf, _loc. cit._ p. 354.

[2265] Thomson, _loc. cit._ p. 51. Johnston, _loc. cit._ pp. 431, 436,
_et seq._

[2266] Kames, ‘Sketches of the History of Man,’ vol. i. p.  449.

[2267] Parkyns, _loc. cit._ vol ii. pp. 55, _et seq._

[2268] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  133.

[2269] _Cf._ Hodgson, ‘Reminiscences of Australia,’ p. 243; Angas,
‘Savage Life,’ vol. ii. pp. 225, _et seq._

[2270] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 343.

[2271] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  108. _Cf._ Taplin, _loc. cit._ p.
10; Palmer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 301.

[2272] Curr, vol. i. p.  108.

[2273] Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 407.

[2274] Curr, vol. i. p.  108. For marriage by capture among the
Australians, _cf._ also Montgomery, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 153, _et
seq._; Oldfield, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol iii. p. 250; Sturt,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 283; Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 773.

[2275] Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 813.

[2276] Taylor, _loc. cit._ p. 336.

[2277] Williams and Calvert, _loc. cit._ p. 149.

[2278] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 138.

[2279] Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 191.

[2280] Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 396.

[2281] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  183. Riedel,
_loc. cit._ pp. 69, 133, 415.

[2282] Bodo, Hos, Mundas, Kúrmis (Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 86, 192,
194, 319), Bhils, Káttis, Oráons (Rowney, _loc. cit._ pp. 37, 46, 81),
Gonds (Forsyth, _loc. cit._ pp. 149, _et seq._), Chittagong Hill tribes
(Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 92), Savaras (Fawcett, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Soc.
Bombay,’ vol. i. p.  235).

[2283] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ pp. 61, 62, 150, 153. According to
Professor Robertson Smith (_loc. cit._ p. 72), instances of marriage
by capture might be accumulated to an indefinite extent from Arabian
history and tradition. At the time of Mohammed the practice was
universal.

[2284] Huc, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  185.

[2285] Kirghiz (Atkinson, ‘Travels in the Regions of the Upper and
Lower Amoor,’ pp. 250, _et seq._), Chulims (Georgi, _loc. cit._ p.
231), Mordvins (Mainoff, ‘Mordvankansan häätapoja’).

[2286] Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. ii. p. 121.

[2287] Castrén, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 168.

[2288] Buch, _loc. cit._ p. 62.

[2289] Teptyars, Tartars of Crimea (Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ pp.
523, 541), Ostyaks (Castrén, vol. ii. p. 57), Cheremises, Voguls
(Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 56, 67).

[2290] v. Düben, _loc. cit._ pp. 200, 310.

[2291] Willigerod, ‘Geschichte Ehstlands,’ p. 9.  v. Schroeder, _loc.
cit._ p. 19.

[2292] ‘Kanteletar,’ book iii. song 22. Topelius, ‘De modo matrimonia
jungendi apud Fennos quondam vigente,’ pp. 28-30. Castrén, in
‘Litterära Soiréer,’ 1849, p. 13.

[2293] ‘Tidningar utgifne af et Sällskap i Äbo,’ 1778, no. 148.
Heikel, in ‘Helsingfors Dagblad,’ 1881, nos. 66, 91. Ahlqvist,
‘Kulturwörter,’ p. 204.

[2294] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ book iii. vv. 26, 33.

[2295] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ‘Ρωμαϊκή ἀρχαιολογος,’ book ii. ch.
xxx. § 5.

[2296] Plutarch, ‘Λῦκουργος,’ ch. xv.

[2297] v. Zmigrodzki, _loc. cit._ p. 250.

[2298] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 329.

[2299] Ortolan, ‘Histoire de la Législation romaine,’ p. 81.

[2300] Dargun, _loc. cit._ pp. 111-140. _Cf._ Grimm, _loc. cit._ p.
440; Nordström, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 12; Weinhold, ‘Deutsche
Frauen,’ vol. i. pp. 308-310.

[2301] Olaus Magnus, ‘Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus,’ p. 328.

[2302] Kames, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  450. _Cf._ Lewis, _loc. cit._ p.
197; Rhys, in ‘Trans. Intern. Folk-Lore Congress, 1891,’ p. 289.

[2303] Macieiowski, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 189.

[2304] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 190. ‘Globus,’ vol. v. p.  317. Kulischer,
‘Intercommunale Ehe durch Raub und Kauf,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’
vol. x. pp. 206-208. Kovalevsky, in ‘Folk-Lore,’ vol. i. pp. 476, _et
seq._ Wolkov, in ‘L’Anthropologie,’ vol. iii. p. 578.

[2305] Krauss, _loc. cit._ ch. xiv.

[2306] Olaus Magnus, pp. 481, _et seq._

[2307] de Gaya, ‘Marriage Ceremonies,’ p. 45.

[2308] _Cf._ the works of McLennan, Tylor, Lubbock, Post, and Dargun,
and the essays of Kulischer (in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x.) and
Kohler (‘Studien über Frauengemeinschaft, Frauenraub und Frauenkauf,’
in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. v. pp. 334-368).

[2309] Jamieson, in ‘The China Review,’ vol. x. p.  95.

[2310] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. pp. 623, _et
seq._ _Idem_, in ‘The Fortnightly Review,’ vol. xxi. pp. 897, _et seq._

[2311] Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 316, _et seq._

[2312] Abercromby, ‘Marriage Customs of the Mordvins,’ in
‘Folk-Lore,’ vol. i. p.  454.

[2313] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ pp. 74, _et seq._

[2314] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 265.

[2315] In many cases, however, capture takes place merely because the
man wishes to lower the price of the bride or to avoid payment (_Cf._
Abercromby, in ‘Folk-Lore,’ vol. i. pp. 453, _et seq._).

[2316] Mathew, in ‘Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S.  Wales,’ vol. xxiii. p. 407.

[2317] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 62, _et seq._

[2318] Tylor, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xviii. p. 266.

[2319] It is hard to understand how Herr Kulischer can have persuaded
himself that marriage by purchase, as he says in an essay especially
devoted to this question, ‘kann nur bei sehr wenigen der jetzt
lebenden Wilden aufgefunden werden’ (Kulischer, in ‘Zeitschr. f.
Ethnol.,’ vol. x. p. 210.)

[2320] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  107. _Cf._ Fison and Howitt, _loc.
cit._ pp. 276, 285, 343; Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 10; Angas, ‘Savage
Life,’ vol. i. p.  94; Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 79, 84;
Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 164.

[2321] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 259.

[2322] Aleuts (Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 402), Kaniagmuts (Lisiansky, _loc.
cit._ p. 198), Kenai (Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 406, _et
seq._), Naudowessies (Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 373), Arawaks (Brett,
_loc. cit._ p. 101), Quito Indians (Juan and de Ulloa, _loc. cit._ p.
521), Brazilian aborigines (v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 107,
_et seq._), Fuegians (King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 182.
Bridges, in ‘A Voice for South America,’ vol. xiii. p. 201).

[2323] Bushmans (Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  259), Zulus (‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 48), Basutos (Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 183), Banyai
(Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 175), &c. (Post, ‘Afrikanische
Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. pp. 378, _et seq._).

[2324] Nagas of Upper Assam, Kukis, Limbus and Kirantis, Tipperahs
(Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 41, 47, 104, 110), Gonds and Korkús (Forsyth,
_loc. cit._ pp. 148, _et seq._), Bodo and Dhimáls (Hodgson, in ‘Jour.
As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xviii. pt. ii. p. 735), Bhils (Hay, ‘The Túran
Mall Hill,’ _ibid._, vol. xx. p. 507), Mrús (Lewin, _loc. cit._ p.
234), Lepchas (Hooker, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  125), Gypsies (Liebich,
_loc. cit._ p. 46), Barabinzes, Koriaks (Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 195,
348), Tunguses, Ainos (Dall, _loc. cit._ pp. 519, 524), Kamchadales
(Steller, _loc. cit._ p. 343), aboriginal tribes of China (Gray, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 304).

[2325] Dyaks (Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 221), Tagalas and
Bisayans of the Philippines (Blumentritt, _loc. cit._ p. 14. Jagor,
_loc. cit._ p. 235); also in New Britain (Romilly, in ‘Proc. Roy. Geo.
Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ix. p. 8).

[2326] Steller, p. 343 (Kamchadales). Jagor, p. 235 (Bisayans).

[2327] Starcke, _loc. cit._ p. 39.

[2328] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  721.

[2329] Weinhold, ‘Altnordisches Leben,’ p. 242.

[2330] v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 215, _et seq._ (Kafirs).
Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 43 (Nagas). Borheck, ‘Erdbeschreiburg von
Asien,’ vol. i. p.  540 (Tartars of Kazan). Landsell, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 225 (Gilyaks).

[2331] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 97 (Ahts). Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 50
(Kafirs). Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  448 (Tedâ); vol. ii. p.
177 (Baele). Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 240 (Marea). Burckhardt, _loc.
cit._ p. 62 (Arabs of Syria). Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 431 (Buriats).
Neumann, ‘Russland und die Tscherkessen,’ p. 117 (Circassians).
Rowlatt, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiv. pt. ii. p. 488
(Mishmis). Hickson, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 139 (Talauer
Islanders). Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 138 (Samoans). Kotzebue,
_loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 210 (Caroline Islanders).

[2332] Post, ‘Die Anfänge des Staats-und Rechtsleben,’ pp. 41, _et
seq._

[2333] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 22.

[2334] Macfie, _loc. cit._ p. 446.

[2335] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  654.

[2336] Powers, p. 247.

[2337] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 214. _Cf._ Letherman,
‘Sketch of the Navajo Tribe of Indians,’ in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1855, p.
294.

[2338] Musters, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. i. p.  201. Falkner,
_loc. cit._ p. 124. _Cf._ Lewis and Clarke, _loc. cit._ p. 307
(Shoshones); Dobrizhoffer, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 207 (Abipones).

[2339] v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 215. Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  206.

[2340] Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  341.

[2341] Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 623.

[2342] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  187.

[2343] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  133.

[2344] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1026.

[2345] Caillié, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  348.

[2346] Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 114, 231.

[2347] Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 505.

[2348] Huc, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  185. ‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p. 144.
Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 79.

[2349] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 132.

[2350] Griffiths, ‘Journals of Travels,’ p. 35.

[2351] Forbes, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 11.

[2352] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 210.

[2353] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 93.

[2354] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 92.

[2355] Yurok, Patwin (Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 56, 221), Wakamba
(Hildebrandt, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x. p.  401), Bedouins
of Mount Sinai (Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 152), Mishmis (Cooper,
_loc. cit._ pp. 236, _et seq._), Lepchas (Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 139),
Papuans of New Guinea (Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’
vol. vii. p. 371).

[2356] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 86.

[2357] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. pp. 266, 337, 416.

[2358] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 193. Jamieson, in ‘The China
Review,’ vol. x. p. 78, note *.

[2359] Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. p. 120.

[2360] Robertson Smith, _loc. cit._ pp. 78, _et seq._ Ewald, _loc.
cit._ p. 200. Gans, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  128.

[2361] ‘Ruth,’ ch. iv. v. 10. ‘Hosea,’ ch. iii. v. 2. 

[2362] Michaelis, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,’ vol. i. p.  451.

[2363] Lüttke, ‘Der Islam,’ p. 119. Warnkoenig, ‘Juristiche
Encyclopädie,’ p. 167. Unger, ‘Die Ehe in ihrer welthistorischen
Entwicklung,’ pp. 46, _et seq._

[2364] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book i. ch. 196.

[2365] Koenigswarter, ‘Études historiques sur le développement de la
société humaine,’ p. 22.

[2366] Castrén, in ‘Litterära Soiréer,’ 1849, p. 13. _Cf._ Porthan, in
‘Kongliga Vitterhets, Historie och Antiquitets Akademiens Handlingar,’
vol. iv. p. 19; Topelius, _loc. cit._ §§ 8-10.

[2367] ‘Kalevala,’ runo xviii. vv. 643, _et seq._; runo xxii. vv. 49,
_et seq._ ‘Kanteletar,’ book i. songs 133, 156; book iii. song viii.
vv. 20, 39.

[2368] Heikel, in ‘Helsingfors Dagblad,’ 1881, no. 68.

[2369] v. Schroeder, _loc. cit._ pp. 27-29.

[2370] Winternitz, in ‘Trans. Intern. Folk-Lore Congress, 1891,’ p.
287.

[2371] Zimmer, _loc. cit._ p. 310.

[2372] Dubois, _loc. cit._ p. 102.

[2373] Aristotle, ‘Τὰ πολιτικά,’ book ii. ch. 8.

[2374] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book v. ch. 6.

[2375] _Cf._ Koenigswarter, ‘Études historiques,’ p. 28.

[2376] Geijer, ‘Svenska folkets historia,’ in ‘Samlade skrifter,’
vol. v. p.  88.

[2377] Laband, ‘Die rechtliche Stellung der Frauen im altrömischen
und germanischen Recht,’ in ‘Zeitschr. für Völkerpsychologie und
Sprachwissenschaft,’ vol. iii. p. 154. Olivecrona, _loc. cit._ p. 150.

[2378] Friedberg, ‘Das Recht der Eheschliessung,’ pp. 33, 38.

[2379] Schmidt, ‘Sitten und Gebräuche in Thüringen,’ pp. 13, _et seq._

[2380] Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 381.

[2381] _Cf._ Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 80, 87.

[2382] O’Curry, ‘The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish,’
Sullivan’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. clxxiv. _et seq._

[2383] Ewers, ‘Das älteste Recht der Russen,’ p. 226 (Russians).
Macieiowski, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 195 (Bohemians and Pomeranians).
Krauss, _loc. cit._ p. 273 (South Slavonians). Kovalevsky, in
‘Folk-Lore,’ vol. i. pp. 478, _et seq._ Wolkov, in ‘L’Anthropologie,’
vol. ii. p. 168.

[2384] Krauss, p. 275.

[2385] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 28.

[2386] Bickmore, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 20. _Cf._
Dixon, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xi. pt. i. p.  43.

[2387] v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 31.

[2388] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 109, _et seq._

[2389] Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 161.

[2390] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 238.

[2391] Schweinfurth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 31. Post, ‘Afrikanische
Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. p.  355.

[2392] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 176.

[2393] Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 270.

[2394] Le Mesurier, in ‘Jour. Roy. As. Soc. Ceylon Branch,’ vol.
ix. p. 340. Cf. Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 441; Knox,
‘Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon,’ p. 126.

[2395] Hartshorne, in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 320.

[2396] Finsch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 317.

[2397] Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 210. Cheyne, _loc. cit._ p.
119 (Bornabi).

[2398] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p. 333.

[2399] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  101.

[2400] Ellis, ‘Hawaii,’ p. 414.

[2401] Angas, ‘Polynesia,’ p. 274.

[2402] Wilkes, vol. ii. p. 138. Prichard, _loc. cit._ p. 136. Turner,
‘Samoa,’ p. 93. Williams, ‘Missionary Enterprises,’ p. 538.

[2403] Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 157. Ellis,
‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  270. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._
vol. vi. p. 126.

[2404] v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  153.

[2405] New Guinea (Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi.
p. 396. d’Albertis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  396), New Britain (Romilly,
_loc. cit._ p. 27. Powell, _loc. cit._ p. 84), Solomon Islands (Elton,
in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 95), New Hebrides (Macdonald,
‘Oceania,’ p. 194. Meinicke, ‘Die Inseln des stillen Oceans,’ vol.
i. p.  203), New Caledonia (Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’
ser. iii. vol. ix. p. 367), Fiji (Wilkes, vol. iii. p. 92. _Cf._,
however, Williams and Calvert, _loc. cit._ pp. 144, _et seq._),
Tukopia (Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 191), Melanesia in general
(Codrington, _loc. cit._ p. 240).

[2406] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 343.

[2407] Peschel, _loc. cit._ pp. 209, _et seq._

[2408] Labillardière, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 276.

[2409] Weddell, _loc. cit._ p. 153.

[2410] Hawkesworth, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 634; vol. i. p.  373.

[2411] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 340.

[2412] Koenigswarter, ‘Études historiques,’ p. 53.

[2413] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  625.

[2414] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 98.

[2415] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 633.

[2416] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ p. 113.

[2417] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 182.

[2418] Smith, ‘The Araucanians,’ p. 215.

[2419] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 86.

[2420] Taylor, _loc. cit._ pp. 336, et seq.

[2421] Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. ii. p. 121.

[2422] See _ante_, p. 40.

[2423] Aleuts (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  92), Achomâwi in
California (Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 270), Araucanians (Alcedo-Thompson,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  416. Pöppig, ‘Reise in Chile,’ vol. i. pp.
383, _et seq._), Samoans (Prichard, _loc._ _cit._ p. 139), Barea
and Kunáma (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 487), Kandhs (Percival, _loc.
cit._ pp. 345, _et seq._), Igorrotes of Ysarog (Jagor, _loc. cit._ p.
172), Samoyedes (Pallas, ‘Merkwürdigkeiten der obischen Ostjakken,
Samoyeden,’ &c., p. 66).

[2424] _Cf._ d’Albertis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 395, 396, 414, _et
seq._ (inhabitants of Naiabui in New Guinea, and of Yule Island);
Jagor, _loc. cit._ p. 235 (Bisayans); McNair, _loc. cit._ p. 232
(Malays of Perak); Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 178 (Burmese);
Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 148 (Gonds); Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 230
(Central Asiatic Turks); Ahlqvist, ‘Kulturwörter,’ p. 203 (Turkish and
Finnish peoples); Castrén, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 126 (Ostyaks); Park,
_loc. cit._ p. 220 (Mandingoes); Merolla da Sorrento, _loc. cit._ p.
235 (Negroes of Sogno).

[2425] Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 49.

[2426] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  277. _Cf._ v. Weber, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. pp. 215, _et seq._ Kafirs.

[2427] Karok, Yurok (Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 22, 56).

[2428] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. vv. 23-25.

[2429] _Ibid._, ch. iii. v. 51. _Cf._ _ibid._, ch. ix. vv. 93, 98.

[2430] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 29.

[2431] _Ibid._, ch. iii. v. 53.

[2432] _Cf._ Jolly, ‘Die rechtliche Stellung der Frauen bei den alten
Indern,’ in ‘Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und
historischen Classe der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München,’ 1876,
p. 433.

[2433] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 92, 146, 248, 250, &c.

[2434] Grimm, _loc. cit._ p. 424.

[2435] Laferrière, ‘Histoire du droit civil de Rome et du droit
français,’ vol. iii. p. 156. Koenigswarter, ‘Études historiques,’ p.
33.

[2436] Olivecrona, _loc. cit._ pp. 57, 152, 158.

[2437] Gans, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  138.

[2438] Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. v. p.  359.

[2439] _Cf._ Topelius, in ‘Litterära Soiréer,’ 1850, p. 326.

[2440] ‘Kalevala,’ runo xviii. vv. 643, _et seq._ ‘Kanteletar,’ book
iii. song viii. vv. 23-25.

[2441] Jamieson, in ‘The China Review,’ vol. x. p.  78, note *.

[2442] Koenigswarter, ‘Études historiques,’ p. 33. _Idem_, ‘Histoire
de l’organisation de la famille,’ p. 123. Weinhold, ‘Deutsche Frauen,’
vol. i. p.  320.

[2443] Mayne, ‘Hindu Law and Usage,’ p. 82.

[2444] Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, ‘Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities,’ vol. i. p.  691.

[2445] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. pp.
11, _et seq._

[2446] Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. p. 123.

[2447] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xviii.

[2448] Grimm, _loc. cit._ p. 429.

[2449] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 54.

[2450] Mayr, ‘Das indische Erbrecht,’ p. 170. Mayne, ‘Hindu Law and
Usage,’ p. 82.

[2451] Dubois, _loc. cit._ p. 103.

[2452] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 220. Hermann-Blümner, _loc. cit._ pp.
262, 266. Becker, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 471.

[2453] Ginoulhiac, ‘Histoire du régime dotal,’ pp. 187, _et seq._
Laboulaye, ‘Histoire du droit de propriété foncière en Occident,’ pp.
403, _et seq._

[2454] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xviii.

[2455] Olivecrona, _loc. cit._ p. 152. Weinhold, ‘Deutsche Frauen,’
vol. i. p. 325.

[2456] Ginoulhiac, pp. 198, _et seq._

[2457] Olivecrona, p. 57.

[2458] In Germany and Switzerland, the practice of presenting a morning
gift has been kept up till the present time (Eichhorn, ‘Einleitung
in das deutsche Privatrecht,’ p. 726. Bluntschli, ‘Staats-und
Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zürich,’ vol. ii. pp. 164,
_et seq._)

[2459] Schlyter, ‘Juridiska afhandlingar,’ vol. i. p.  201. Schlegel,
‘Om Morgongavens Oprindelse,’ in ‘Astræa,’ vol. ii. pp. 189, _et
seq._ Koenigswarter, ‘Histoire de l’organisation de la famille,’ p.
123. The old purchase-money which the husband was obliged to give to
the bride, was also represented by the fictitious dowry preserved
in the rituals of the Church till the sixteenth century. M. Martene
mentions a ritual of the Church of Reims, of 1585, in which the
bridegroom, at the moment of putting the nuptial ring on the finger of
the bride, placed three _deniers_ in her hand (Koenigswarter, p. 174,
note 4).

[2460] Ginoulhiac, p. 202. Warnkoenig and Stein, ‘Französische
Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte,’ vol. ii. p. 257.

[2461] ‘Ancient Laws of Ireland,’ vol. i. p.  155; vol. iv. p. 63.

[2462] O’Curry, _loc. cit._ Sullivan’s Introduction, vol. i. pp.
clxxiii. _et seq._

[2463] Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 382. _Cf._ Kovalevsky, in ‘Folk-Lore,’
vol. i. pp. 479, _et seq._

[2464] Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book i. ch. 196.

[2465] Saalschütz, ‘Das mosaische Recht,’ vol. ii. p. 736. Mayer,
‘Die Rechte der Israeliten,’ &c., vol. ii. pp. 342, _et seq._

[2466] ‘Genesis,’ ch. xxiv. v. 53.

[2467] Robertson Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 98.

[2468] _Ibid._, pp. 78, 91, 100. Mayer, ‘Die Rechte der Israeliten,’
&c., vol. ii. pp. 353, _et seq._ Unger, _loc. cit._ p. 47. Kohler, in
‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. v. p.  358.

[2469] Bechuanas (Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 192), Aenezes (Burckhardt,
_loc. cit._ p. 62). The Laplanders, according to Laestadius (‘Ett
lappfrieri,’ in ‘Svenska folkets seder,’ p. 125), take presents for
their daughters, but do not consider it honourable to receive money.

[2470] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  654.

[2471] Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 98.

[2472] Musters, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. i. p.  201.

[2473] Cooper, _loc. cit._ p. 236. Griffith, _loc. cit._ p. 35.

[2474] Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 68.

[2475] Schadenberg, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. p. 12.

[2476] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 387.

[2477] Harkness, _loc. cit._ pp. 116, _et seq._

[2478] Tuski (Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 381), Thlinkets (Holmberg, in ‘Acta
Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 315), Chinooks (Waitz, _loc. cit._
vol. iii. p. 337), Chippewas (Keating, _loc. cit._ vol ii. p. 157),
Shoshones (Lewis and Clarke, _loc. cit._ p. 307), Miwok (Powers, _loc.
cit._ p. 354), Quiché (Morelet, _loc. cit._ p. 257), Budduma, Tedâ
(Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 370, 448), Todas (Marshall, _loc.
cit._ p. 211), Central Asiatic Turks (Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ pp.
233, _et seq._), Laplanders (v. Düben, _loc. cit._ p. 200), Papuans
of Dorey (Finsch, ‘Neu-Guinea,’ p. 102), Samoans (Prichard, _loc.
cit._ pp. 139, _et seq._ Turner, ‘Samoa,’ pp. 93, 96), Nukahivans (v.
Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  153).

[2479] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  66. Seemann, ‘Voyage of
_Herald_,’ vol. ii. p. 66.

[2480] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 238.

[2481] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 92. For other similar instances,
see Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 522 (Somals); Munzinger, _loc. cit._
p. 324 (Beni-Amer); Baker, ‘The Nile Tributaries,’ p. 124 (Arabs of
Upper Egypt); Hanoteau and Letourneux, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 161
(Kabyles); Proyart, _loc. cit._ p. 569 (Negroes of Loango); Caillié,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  349 (Mandingoes); Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 192
(Bechuanas).

[2482] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  90.

[2483] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 181.

[2484] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 62.

[2485] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p. 333.

[2486] Cooper, _loc. cit._ p. 236.

[2487] Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 182.

[2488] _Ibid._, p. 55.

[2489] Negroes of Accra (Daniell, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol.
iv. p. 12), Tartars of Kazan (Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 433)
and Orenburg (Georgi, p. 103), Tunguses (_ibid._, p. 324), and other
semi-civilized peoples belonging to the Russian Empire. For African
peoples, see Post, ‘Afrikanische Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. p.  417.

[2490] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 240.

[2491] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. ix. vv. 194, _et seq._

[2492] In Gautama’s time, however, the ‘çulka,’ did not belong to the
‘strîdhan’ (Mayr, ‘Das indische Erbrecht,’ p. 170).

[2493] Macnaghten, ‘Principles of Hindu Law,’ pp. 33, _et seq._
Steele, _loc. cit._ p.67.

[2494] Cauvet, in ‘Revue de législation,’ vol. xxiv. p. 154.

[2495] Cauvet, in ‘Revue de législation,’ vol. xxiv. p. 155. Meier
and Schömann, ‘Der attische Process,’ pp. 518, _et seq._ Mayer,
‘Die Rechte der Israeliten,’ &c., vol. ii. pp. 345, _et seq._
Hermann-Blümner, _loc. cit._ p. 265. Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  692.

[2496] Potter, ‘Archaeologia Graeca,’ vol. ii. p. 273.

[2497] Ginoulhiac, _loc. cit._ p. 70. Sohm, ‘Institutionen des
römischen Rechts,’ p. 281. Laboulaye, ‘Recherches sur la condition des
femmes,’ P. 38.

[2498] Laboulaye, p. 39. Ginoulhiac, _loc. cit._ p. 70. Laferrière,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  223.

[2499] Laboulaye, ‘Recherches,’ pp. 39-41. _Idem_, ‘Histoire du droit
de propriété foncière,’ pp. 183-185. Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, vol.
i. p. 693. Sohm, p. 282.

[2500] Maine, ‘Early History of Institutions,’ pp. 338.

[2501] Eccius, in v. Holtzendorff, ‘Encyclopädie der
Rechtswissenschaft,’ pt. ii. vol. i. pp. 412, _et seq._

[2502] Weinhold, ‘Deutsche Frauen,’ vol. i. p.  331. _Idem_,
‘Altnordisches Leben,’ pp. 241, _et seq._

[2503] Olivecrona, _loc. cit._ p. 51. Nordström, loc. _cit. vol._ ii.
p. 50.

[2504] Macieiowski, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 214-218.

[2505] O’Curry, _loc. cit._ Sullivan’s Introduction, vol. i. pp.
clxxii., clxxviii. Lewis, _loc. cit._ pp. 8, _et seq._

[2506] Mayer, ‘Die Rechte der Israeliten,’ &c., vol. ii. pp. 342-344.

[2507] Macnaghten, ‘Principles of Muhammadan Law,’ p. xxxv. Lane,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  218.

[2508] Lane, vol. i. p.  138, note †.

[2509] Acosta, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 370.

[2510] Kenai (Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  407), Thlinkets
(Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 315), Ahts
(Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 197), Creeks (Hawkins, in ‘Trans.
American Ethn. Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. p. 66), Kingsmill Islanders
(Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  101), Siamese (Moore, _loc. cit._ p.
169), Kukis (Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 254), Abyssinians (Lobo, _loc. cit._
p. 26), people of Madagascar (Rochon, _loc. cit._ p. 747), Touaregs
(Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 181).

[2511] _Cf._ Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 335 (North American Indians);
Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  270 (Tahitians); Waitz,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 110 (Negroes); Burton, ‘The Lake Regions of
Central Africa,’ vol. ii. p. 332 (East Africans); Post, ‘Afrikanische
Jurisprudenz,’ vol. i. p.  376 (several African peoples); Huc, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  185 (Tartars); Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp. 67, _et seq._
(Voguls).

[2512] _Cf._ Nordenskiöld, ‘Grönland,’ p. 508 (Greenlanders); v.
Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  115 (Brazilian aborigines); Bove,
_loc. cit._ p. 132 (Fuegians); Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p.
522 (Somals); Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 212 (Todas); Prejevalsky,
‘Mongolia,’ vol. i. p.  70 (Mongols); Pallas, ‘Merkwürdigkeiten der
Morduanen, Kasaken,’ &c., p. 262 (Kalmucks); Post, ‘Die Anfänge des
Staats-und Rechtsleben,’ pp. 54, _et seq._

[2513] _Cf._ Last, in ‘Proc. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. v. p.  532
(Masai); Metz, _loc. cit._ p. 87 (Badagas); Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 286
(Sinhalese).

[2514] It is remarkable that dowry is unknown among the Chinese,
whereas, in the wild aboriginal tribes of China, it is usual for wives
among the wealthy families to receive marriage portions (Gray, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 304).

[2515] Mayer, ‘Die Rechte der Israeliten,’ vol. ii. p. 344.

[2516] ‘The Korân,’ sura iv. v. 3. 

[2517] Potter, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 268. Cauvet, in ‘Revue de
législation,’ vol. xxiv. p. 152. _Cf._ Meier and Shömann, _loc. cit._
pp. 513, _et seq._

[2518] Isaeus, ‘περὶ τοῦ Πυῤῥου κλήρου,’ § 51, p. 43.

[2519] Aristotle, _loc. cit._ book ii. ch. ix. § 11.

[2520] Laboulaye, ‘Recherches,’ pp. 38, _et seq._ Ginoulhiac, _loc.
cit._ pp. 66, _et seq._ Meier and Schömann, pp. 513, _et seq._

[2521] Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  693. Mayer,
‘Die Rechte der Israeliten,’ &c., vol. ii. p. 347.

[2522] Ginoulhiac, _loc. cit._ p. 103.

[2523] For _dos necessaria_ in Germany during the Middle Ages, see
Mittermaier, ‘Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen Privatrechts,’ vol.
ii. p. 3. 

[2524] Eccius, in v. Holtzendorff, ‘Encyclopädie der
Rechtswissenschaft,’ pt. ii. vol. i. p.  414.

[2525] ‘Code Napoléon,’ art. 204.

[2526] Maine, ‘Early History of Institutions,’ p. 339.

[2527] Euripides, ‘Μήδεια,’ vv. 231-235.

[2528] Hall, _loc. cit._ p. 567. _Cf._ Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 352; Dall,
_loc. cit._ p. 139.

[2529] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 223.

[2530] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 132.

[2531] Kaniagmuts (Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ pp. 198, et seq.), Aleuts
(Coxe, _loc. cit._ p. 230. v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 47.
Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  92), Mahlemuts (Bancroft, vol. i. p. 
81), Chippewyans (Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 24), Chippewas
(Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 157), Creeks (Schoolcraft, _loc.
cit._ vol. v. p.  268), Moxes, Iroquois (Heriot, _loc. cit._ pp. 326,
332), Navajos (Letherman, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1855, p. 294), Arawaks
(Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 101), Muras (Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’
p. 512), Tupis, Chiriguana (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 422, _et
seq._), Patagonians (Falkner, _loc. cit._ p. 124), Fuegians (Bove,
_loc. cit._ p. 132).

[2532] Finsch, ‘Neu-Guinea,’ p. 62.

[2533] Elton, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 94.

[2534] Breton, _loc. cit._ p. 398.

[2535] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  107.

[2536] St. Andrew St. John, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. ii. p. 239.

[2537] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 57.

[2538] _Ibid._, p. 19.

[2539] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 524.

[2540] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1026.

[2541] Schön and Crowther, ‘Journals,’ p. 162.

[2542] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 49.

[2543] Tartars (Huc, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  186), people of Bornu
(Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. iii. p. 31, note), Bazes (Munzinger, _loc.
cit._ p. 525), Copts (Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 331).

[2544] Bent, ‘The Cyclades,’ p. 137.

[2545] Bakongo (Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, _loc. cit._ p. 270), &c.

[2546] Tuski, Kaniagmuts (Dall, pp. 381, 402), &c.

[2547] Post, ‘Die Grundlagen des Rechts,’ p. 240.

[2548] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 105. See Lippert,
‘Kulturgeschichte,’ vol. ii. pp. 141, _et seq._; Mantegazza,
‘Geschlechtsverhältnisse des Menschen,’ ch. xiii.

[2549] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 216.

[2550] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. iv. p. 405.

[2551] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 251. Dubois, _loc. cit._ p. 107. v.
Schroeder, _loc. cit._ p. 82. Mantegazza, p. 287. de Gubernatis,
‘Storia comparata degli usi nuziali,’ p. 168.

[2552] v. Eschwege, ‘Journal von Brasilien,’ vol. i. p.  96.

[2553] Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. p. 115. For
instances of eating and drinking together as a marriage ceremony,
see Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. iv. pp. 387-405; v.
Schroeder, pp. 82-84; Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 460; Winternitz, ‘On
a Comparative Study of Indo-European Customs,’ in ‘Trans. Intern.
Folk-Lore Congress, 1891,’ pp. 280, _et seq._; de Gubernatis, p. 168.

[2554] v. Schroeder, p. 84.

[2555] Winternitz, _loc. cit._ p. 282. _Cf._ Haas, ‘Die
Heirathsgebräuche der alten Inder,’ in Weber, ‘Indische Studien,’ vol.
v. pp. 310, _et seq._ (Hindus).

[2556] Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ ser. v. vol. iv. p. 409.

[2557] Low, cited by Wilken, in ‘Bijdragen,’ ser. v. vol. iv. p. 409.

[2558] Steel, ‘On the Khasia Tribe,’ in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S.
vol. vii. p. 308.

[2559] Bailey, _ibid._, N.S. vol. ii. pp. 293, _et seq._

[2560] Colebrooke, ‘The Religious Ceremonies of the Hindus,’ in
‘Asiatick Researches,’ vol. vii. p. 309.

[2561] Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 149.

[2562] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ p. 84. _Cf._ Finsch,
‘Neu-Guinea,’ p. 86 (Wukas of New Guinea).

[2563] Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 131, 220, 319.

[2564] Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 12.

[2565] Soyaux, _loc. cit._ p. 161. _Cf._ Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii.
p. 392 (Arawaks).

[2566] Forbes, ‘Dahomey and the Dahomans,’ vol. i. p.  26.

[2567] Krauss, _loc. cit._ p. 385.

[2568] Meiners, ‘Vergleichung des ältern und neuern Russlandes,’ vol.
ii. pp. 167, _et seq._

[2569] The wedding-ring was in use among the ancient Hindus (Haas, in
Weber, ‘Indische Studien,’ vol. v. p.  299). According to Mr. Hooper
(_loc. cit._ p. 390), it is also found among the Indians of James’s Bay.

[2570] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 290.

[2571] Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 222.

[2572] Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 150.

[2573] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 334.

[2574] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 91.

[2575] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 92. This description, however, does not
agree with those given by Williams and Erskine (see Waitz-Gerland,
_loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 632).

[2576] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  271.

[2577] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  101.

[2578] Stewart, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. pp. 639, _et
seq._

[2579] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 129.

[2580] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 64.

[2581] Meyer, in ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1883, p. 385.

[2582] Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 161.

[2583] Klemm, ‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iii. pp. 169, _et seq._ For
other instances of religious marriage ceremonies, see _ibid._, vol.
iii. p. 281 (Negroes of Congo); Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 41 (Chuvashes);
Bock, ‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 307 (Mussus); Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p.
276 (Humphrey’s Islanders).

[2584] Bock, ‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 183.

[2585] Lewin, p. 175.

[2586] Gonds, Kúrmis (Dalton, pp. 201, 319), &c.

[2587] Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. i. p.  70.

[2588] Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ pp. 339, 459, _et seq._

[2589] Sinhalese (Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 285), Naickers (Kearns,
‘Kalyán’a Shat’anku,’ p. 54), Gonds and Korkús (Forsyth, _loc.
cit._ p. 149), Khyoungtha (Lewin, _loc. cit._ pp. 126, _et seq._),
Siamese (Bock, ‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 183), Kalmucks (Georgi,
_loc. cit._ p. 411), Chinese (Wells Williams, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
785), Japanese (Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. p.
121), ancient Mexicans (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 132). In this
connection should also be noticed the ‘lucky days,’ when matrimony
in general is concluded under the best auspices. In China, these are
especially marked in the almanacks (Montgomery, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 268). The spring season and the last month in the year are
regarded as the most fortunate nuptial periods in that country (Wells
Williams, vol. i. p.  791), whereas the ninth month is considered very
unpropitious (Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  187). Among the Bedouins
of Mount Sinai (Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 152), the Egyptians (Lane,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 222, _et seq._), and the Mohammedan negroes of
Senegambia (Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 453), Friday is esteemed the most
fortunate day for marriage; while the Copts generally marry on the
night preceding Sunday (Lane, vol. ii. p. 331). In India, the month
Phalguna was considered the luckiest period (v. Bohlen, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 148), and in Morocco, as I am informed by Dr. Churcher,
the month called Moolood (birth of Mohammed). Again, in Thuringia,
marriages are generally contracted at the time of the full moon
(Schmidt, ‘Sitten und Gebräuche in Thüringen,’ p. 28); whilst in
Orkney and Esthonia, no couple would consent to marry except at the
time of the crescent moon. The same superstition prevailed among the
ancient Hindus, Greeks, and Germans (v. Schroeder, _loc. cit._ p. 50).
In Scotland, formerly, nearly all avoided contracting marriage in
May, and the Lowlanders were disinclined to marry on Friday (Rogers,
_loc. cit._ p. 112). The Romans considered May and the first half of
June an unlucky period (Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 265). In Egypt, it
is a common belief that, if any one make a marriage contract in the
month of Moharram, the marriage will be unhappy and soon dissolved,
hence few persons do so (Lane, vol. i. p.  219, note *). For ‘unlucky
days’ among the tribes of the Indian Archipelago, see Wilken, in
‘Bijdragen,’ &c., ser. v. vol. i. p.  380.

[2590] Acosta, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 370.

[2591] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 366.

[2592] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 317. de Herrera, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p.
172.

[2593] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 333.

[2594] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 70.

[2595] Tartars (Huc, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  186), Siamese (Bock,
‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 185), Kalmucks (Liadov, in ‘Jour. Anthr.
Inst.,’ vol. i. p. 403). In Japan, on the other hand, the marriage
ceremony is entirely of a social nature, no religious element entering
into it at all (Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xiii. p.
123).

[2596] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  205.

[2597] Ewald, _loc. cit._ pp. 201, _et seq._ _Cf._ Gans, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  140; Frankel, _loc. cit._ p. xxx.

[2598] Pischon, ‘Der Einfluss der Islâm,’ &c., p. 10. For the modern
Persians, see Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 210, _et seq._

[2599] Glasson, _loc. cit._ p. 154.

[2600] Revillout, ‘Les contrats de mariage égyptiens,’ in ‘Journal
Asiatique,’ ser. vii. vol. x. p.  262.

[2601] Spiegel, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 677.

[2602] Haas, in Weber, ‘Indische Studien,’ vol. v. pp. 312-316.
Colebrooke, in ‘Asiatick Researches,’ vol. vii. pp. 288-310.

[2603] Macnaghten, ‘Principles of Hindu Law,’ p. 46. _Cf._ Rossbach,
_loc. cit._ p. 202; Colebrooke, pp. 288-311.

[2604] Jacobs, ‘Vermischte Schriften,’ vol. iv. pp. 180-182. Potter,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 279.

[2605] Rossbach, pp. 222, _et seq._ For other facts stated, see Becker,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  457; Palmblad, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 258,
_et seq._; Rossbach, pp. 212, 218, 223, 228.

[2606] Weinhold, ‘Deutsche Frauen,’ vol. i. p.  374. Rossbach, p. 231.

[2607] Rossbach, p. 111.

[2608] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 121, 122, 128, 143.

[2609] _Ibid._, pp. 294, _et seq._

[2610] _Ibid._, p. 237.

[2611] _Ibid._, p. 310.

[2612] _Ibid._, pp. 112, 186.

[2613] _Ibid._, pp. 102, _et seq._

[2614] _Ibid._, pp. 256, _et seq._

[2615] Grimm, _loc. cit._ pp. 434, _et seq._ Eichhorn, ‘Deutsche
Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte,’ §§ 108, 183.

[2616] St. Paul, ‘Ephesians,’ ch. v. v.  32.

[2617] v. Scheurl, ‘Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht,’ p. 15.

[2618] Glasson, _loc. cit._ p. 253.

[2619] _Ibid._, p. 282.

[2620] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 306, _et seq._

[2621] Squier, in ‘Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. p. 
127.

[2622] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 157.

[2623] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 83.

[2624] Olivecrona, _loc. cit._ pp. 47, 160, _et seq._

[2625] Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 22, _et seq._ _Cf._ Sibree, _loc. cit._
p. 251 (Hovas); Conder, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 94
(Bechuanas).

[2626] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 42.

[2627] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pp. 654, _et seq._

[2628] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Ancient Mexicans, &c., p. 4. 

[2629] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 265.

[2630] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  310.

[2631] Rein, _loc. cit._ p. 423. Küchler, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’
vol. xiii, p. 129.

[2632] Ross, _loc. cit._ p. 315.

[2633] ‘Genesis,’ ch. xxvi. v. 34; ch. xxix. vv. 23-28.

[2634] ‘i. Kings,’ ch. xi. v. 3. 

[2635] ‘ii. Chronicles,’ ch. xi. vv. 21, 23.

[2636] ‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxi. v. 15. Scheppig, in Spencer,
‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Hebrews and Phœnicians, p. 8. 

[2637] Andree, _loc. cit._ p. 147.

[2638] _Ibid._, pp. 147-149. Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  209.

[2639] ‘The Korân,’ sura iv. v. 3. 

[2640] Lane Poole, in ‘The Academy,’ vol. v. p.  684.

[2641] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 958. d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._
p. 68.

[2642] Diodorus Siculus, _loc. cit._ book i. ch. 80.

[2643] Wilkinson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 318, _et seq._

[2644] Rawlinson, ‘The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern
World,’ vol. i. p.  505.

[2645] Rawlinson, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 319.

[2646] _Ibid._, vol. iii. pp. 216-219. Herodotus, _loc. cit._ book iii.
ch. 68, 88. Spiegel, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 680.

[2647] Jolly, in ‘Sitzungsberichte Münch. Akad.,’ 1876, p. 445.

[2648] Schrader, _loc. cit._ p. 387. Zimmer, loc. cit. pp. 324, _et
seq._

[2649] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 12; ch. viii. v. 204; ch. ix.
vv. 85-87.

[2650] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 252.

[2651] Becker, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 438, _et seq._ Jacobs,
‘Vermischte Schriften,’ vol. iv. pp. 215, _et seq._

[2652] ‘The Iliad,’ book xxi. v. 88. Grote, ‘History of Greece,’ vol.
ii. p. 25, note 2.

[2653] Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  525.

[2654] Palmblad, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  256.

[2655] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ p. 5. 

[2656] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xviii.

[2657] Geijer, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  88. ‘The Heimskringla’ (transl.
by Laing and Anderson), vol. i. p.  127.

[2658] ‘The Heimskringla,’ vol. i. pp. 127, _et seq._

[2659] Ewers, _loc. cit._ p. 106.

[2660] Gottlund, ‘Otava,’ vol. i. p.  92. Topelius, _loc. cit._ p. 45.
Tengström, in ‘Joukahainen,’ vol. ii. pp. 130, _et seq._

[2661] Thierry, ‘Narratives of the Merovingian Era,’ pp. 17-21.
Hallam, ‘Europe during the Middle Ages,’ vol. i. p.  420, note 2.

[2662] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  665.

[2663] v. Hellwald, _loc. cit._ p. 558.

[2664] Saalschütz, ‘Archäologie der Hebräer,’ vol. ii. p. 204, note.

[2665] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 85.

[2666] Serpa Pinto, ‘How I crossed Africa,’ vol. ii. p. 33.

[2667] Williams, ‘Missionary Enterprises,’ p. 557.

[2668] Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  118.

[2669] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 44.

[2670] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 323.

[2671] Morgan, ‘League of the Iroquois,’ p. 324.

[2672] Wilkes, _loc cit._ vol. v. p.  188. Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 56.

[2673] Powers, p. 22.

[2674] Domenech, ‘Seven Years’ Residence in the Deserts of North
America,‘ vol. ii. p. 305.

[2675] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 87. Bancroft, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  661.

[2676] Acawoios (Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 275), Chavantes, Carajos (v.
Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 274, 298), Curetús, Purupurús,
Mundrucûs (Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ pp. 509, 515-517),
Guaycurûs (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 472).

[2677] Glas, _loc. cit._ p. 818. Bontier and Le Verrier, _loc. cit._
Major’s Introduction, p. xxxix.

[2678] Price, ‘The Quissama Tribe,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol.
i. p.  189. Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 315.

[2679] Chavanne, p. 454.

[2680] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. pp. 291, _et
seq._ Hartshorne, in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 320.

[2681] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 135.

[2682] Distant, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. iii. p. 4. 

[2683] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 91. Stewart, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’
vol. xxiv. p. 621.

[2684] Dalton, pp. 28, 54. Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’
vol. iii. p. 370.

[2685] Harkness, _loc. cit._ p. 117. Dalton, pp. 41, 132. Rowney, _loc.
cit._ p. 145.

[2686] Lewin, _loc. cit._ pp. 193, 235, _et seq._

[2687] Man, ‘Sonthalia,’ p. 15.

[2688] Smeaton, ‘The Loyal Karens of Burma,’ p. 81.

[2689] Kadams, Ka-káu (Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ pp. 72, 80),
Mantras (Bourien, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iii. p. 80),
Italones of the Philippines (Blumentritt, _loc. cit._ p. 33), Galela
(Riedel, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. p. 77). In Sumatra,
a man married by ‘semando,’ _i.e._, a regular treaty between the
parties on the footing of equality, cannot take a second wife without
repudiating the first one (Marsden, _loc. cit._ pp. 263, 270).

[2690] Sea Dyaks (Low, _loc. cit._ p. 195), the Rejang tribe of the
Milanowes in Borneo (_ibid._, p. 342), Kyans of Baram (St. John, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  113), Alfura of Letti (Bickmore, _loc. cit._ p. 125),
Watubela Islanders (Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 206).

[2691] Meyer, in ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1883, p. 385. _Cf._
Foreman, _loc. cit._ p. 216 (Tinguianes of the Philippines).

[2692] Low, p. 300.

[2693] Hickson, _loc. cit._ p. 277.

[2694] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 128.

[2695] Finsch, ‘Neu-Guinea,’ p. 101. Earl, _loc. cit._ p. 81.

[2696] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  402.

[2697] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 371.

[2698] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 378.

[2699] Certain Californians (Waitz, vol. iv. p. 243), Calidonian
Indians (Gisborne, _loc. cit._ p. 155), Chiriguana, Jabaána,
Paravilhana (v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 217, 627, 632),
Guaranies (Southey, _loc. cit._ vol ii. pp. 368, _et seq._).

[2700] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 416.

[2701] v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 31.

[2702] Campbell, ‘A Year in the New Hebrides,’ p. 143.

[2703] Maclean, _loc. cit._ p. 44.

[2704] Last, in ‘Proceed. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. v. p.  533.

[2705] Phillips, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 225.

[2706] Proyart, _loc. cit._ pp. 568, _et seq._

[2707] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 108. Chavanne, ‘Reisen und Forschungen im
Kongostaate,’ pp. 398, _et seq._ (Bafióte tribe). Grade, in ‘Aus allen
Welttheilen,’ vol. xx. p. 6 (people of the Togoland).

[2708] Barrow, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  206. Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._
vol. i. pp. 261, _et seq._

[2709] Holub, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  302.

[2710] Thunberg, _loc. cit._ p. 141. Kretzschmar, _loc. cit._ p. 209.

[2711] Archdeacon Hodgson, in a letter.

[2712] Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol. iv. p. 497.

[2713] Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  447.

[2714] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 248.

[2715] _Ibid._, p. 326.

[2716] Takue, Bazes (_ibid._, pp. 209, 524), Arabs and Berbs of Morocco
(Rohlfs, ‘Mein erster Aufenthalt in Marokko,’ p. 68).

[2717] Honateau and Letourneux, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 167.

[2718] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  252.

[2719] Munzinger, p. 326.

[2720] d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._ p. 250. Pischon, _loc.
cit._ p. 13. Burton, ‘Sindh Revisited,’ vol. i. p.  340. Burckhardt,
_loc. cit._ pp. 61, 158 (Arabs). Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  209
(Persians).

[2721] Amír’ Alí, _loc. cit._ pp. 29, _et seq._

[2722] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 251. Rowney, _loc. cit._ pp.
68, 158 (Kols, Abors). Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 110, 216 (Tipperahs,
Santals). Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 282
(Kotars). Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 355 (Kaupuis).
Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 148 (Gonds and Korkús). Fytche, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 74 (Burmese). Bock, ‘Temples and Elephants,’ p. 186
(Laosians). Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 292 (Shans). Buddhism
disapproves of polygyny, though it does not wholly prohibit it (Fytche,
vol. ii. pp. 73, _et seq._).

[2723] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  184.

[2724] Kirghiz (Finch, ‘Reise nach West-Sibirien,’ p. 167),
Galchas (de Ujfalvy, ‘Le Kohistan,’ p. 16), Kalmucks (Pallas,
‘Merkwürdigkeiten der Morduanen, Kasaken, Kalmücken,’ &c., pp. 263,
_et seq._), Tartars, Tunguses, Kamchadales (Georgi, _loc. cit._ pp.
103, 116, 118, 324, 341), Chukchi (Nordenskiöld, ‘Vergas färd kring
Asien och Europa,’ vol. ii. p. 142), Samoyedes (‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p.
144), Ostyaks (Latham, ‘Descriptive Ethnology,’ vol. i. p.  457),
Mordvins and Cheremises (‘Äbo Tidningar,’ 1794, no. 51), Ossetes (v.
Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 402), &c.

[2725] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 76, _et seq._

[2726] Raffles, ‘The History of Java,’ vol. i. p.  81. Low, _loc.
cit._ p. 147. Boyle, _loc. cit._ pp. 25, _et seq._ Marsden, _loc. cit._
p. 270. Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 40, note 1. Forbes, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiv. p. 124. Schadenberg, quoted by Blumentritt,
_loc. cit._ p. 7. 

[2727] Curr, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 196, 361; vol. iii. p. 36.
Freycinet, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 766. Hodgson, _loc. cit._ p. 213.
Cameron, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiv. p. 352. Bonney, _ibid._,
vol. xiii. p. 135. Bonwick, _ibid._, vol. xvi. p. 205. Waitz-Gerland,
_loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 771.

[2728] Curr, vol. i. p.  252.

[2729] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 386. Bonwick, ‘Daily
Life,’ p. 71. Calder, ‘The Native Tribes of Tasmania,’ in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. iii. p. 22.

[2730] Dieffenbach, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 37.

[2731] Ellis, ‘Tour through Hawaii,’ p. 414. _Cf._ Lisiansky, _loc.
cit._ p. 128.

[2732] New Guinea (Finsch, ‘Neu-Guinea,’ p. 82. Lawes, in ‘Proceed.
Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 614. Stone, ‘A Few Months in
New Guinea,’ p. 93. Thomson, ‘British New Guinea,’ p. 193. Bink,
in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 396. Kohler, in
‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. vii. p. 370), New Hanover
(Strauch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. ix. p. 62), New Ireland
(‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 29), Solomon Islands (Elton, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. vii. p. 95), Tana of the New Hebrides (Turner,
‘Samoa,’ p. 317), Fiji (Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  400),
Caroline Group (‘Deutsche Rundschau für Geographie und Statistik,’
vol. viii. p. 65), Pelew Islands (‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p. 333), Tonga
(Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. i. p.  401), Tahiti
(_ibid._, vol. ii. p. 157), Nukahiva (v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  153), &c.

[2733] Eskimo (Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 352. Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 263.
Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  147. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p.
308), Mahlemuts (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  81), Ingaliks (Dall,
_loc. cit._ p. 196), Chippewyans (Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p.
23), Tacullies (Bancroft, vol. i. p.  123), Ahts (Sproat, _loc. cit._
p. 98), Nutkas (Maine, ‘British Columbia and Vancouver Island,’ p.
276), Chinooks (Bancroft, vol. i. p.  241), Mandans (Catlin, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  119), other North American tribes (Heriot, _loc.
cit._ pp. 551, _et seq._ Harmon, _loc. cit._ pp. 292, 339. Buchanan,
‘North American Indians,’ p. 338), Moxes (Heriot, p. 326), Mosquitoes
(Bancroft, vol. i. p.  733, note 37), Indians of Guiana (Schomburgk, in
‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  270), Passés, Uaupés, Macusís
(v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  511, 600, 642), Coroados (Hensel,
‘Die Coroados der brasilianischen Provinz Rio Grande do Sul,’ in
‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. i. p. 130), Botocudos (v. Tschudi, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 283), and other Brazilian tribes (v. Martius, vol.
i. p.  104), Minuanes, Pampas, Guanas, Mbayas (Azara, loc. _cit. vol._
ii. pp. 33, 44, 95, 114), Abipones (Dobrizhoffer, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 138), Patagonians (Musters, _loc. cit._ p. 187).

[2734] Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 321, note 1.

[2735] v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 133. Bancroft, vol. i. p. 
110.

[2736] Ling Roth, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. 272.

[2737] Spencer, ‘Descriptive Sociology,’ Hebrews and Phœnicians,
p. 8.  _Cf._ Saalschütz, ‘Das mosaische Recht,’ vol. ii. p. 727;
Andree, _loc. cit._ pp. 146, _et seq._; Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii.
p. 251.

[2738] Wilkinson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  318. Herodotus, _loc. cit._
book ii. ch. 92.

[2739] Spiegel, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 677.

[2740] Maine, ‘Early Law and Custom,’ p. 235. Schrader, _loc. cit._ p.
388.

[2741] Tacitus, _loc. cit._ ch. xviii.

[2742] Dutt, ‘Hindu Civilisation of the Brahmana Period,’ in ‘The
Calcutta Review,’ vol. lxxxv. p. 266. Kaegi, ‘The Rigveda,’ p. 15.
Roth, ‘On the Morality of the Veda,’ in ‘Jour. American Oriental
Soc.,’ vol iii. p. 339.

[2743] ‘Rig-Veda Sanhitá,’ mandala ii. súkta 39.

[2744] Egede, _loc. cit._ pp. 138, _et seq._

[2745] Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 313.

[2746] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 399.

[2747] Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 70.

[2748] Eskimo, Chinooks (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 308, 338),
Ahts (Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 98), Indians of Western Washington and
North-Western Oregon (Gibbs, ‘Tribes of Western Washington and
Northwestern Oregon,’ in ‘Contributions to North American Ethnology,’
vol. i. p.  198), &c.

[2749] Erman, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 162.

[2750] Sproat, p. 100.

[2751] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 324.

[2752] Waitz, vol. iv. p. 130.

[2753] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 671.

[2754] Waitz, vol. iv. pp. 360, 366.

[2755] Garcilasso de la Vega, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  310. Acosta,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 424.

[2756] Squier, in ‘Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,’ vol. iii. pt. i. p. 
127.

[2757] Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 265.

[2758] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  729. v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’
vol. v. p.  548. Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 497. v. Martius,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 392.

[2759] Indians of Guiana (Schomburgk, in Ralegh, ‘The Discovery of
the Empire of Guiana,’ p. 110, note), Tupis (Southey, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  241), Jurís (Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 177),
Araucanians (Alcedo-Thompson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  416).

[2760] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  126.

[2761] Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 33. Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 12. Taylor,
_loc. cit._ p. 338.

[2762] Natives of Tonga (Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol.
i. p.  401), Pelew Islands (Kubary, _loc. cit._ p. 62), Ponapé (Finsch,
in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 317), Marianne Group (Waitz,
_loc. cit._ vol v. pt. ii. p. 107).

[2763] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 96.

[2764] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. pp. 273, _et seq._

[2765] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  77. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol. iii.
p. 100; Blumentritt, _loc. cit._ p. 49, and Schadenberg, in ‘Zeitschr.
f. Ethnol.,’ vol xvii. p. 12 (Philippine Islanders).

[2766] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 74. Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 216.

[2767] Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 182, note 2.

[2768] Dalton, p. 8.  Castrén, in ‘Helsingfors Morgonblad,’ 1843, no.
54.

[2769] Central Asiatic Turks (Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 248),
Kalmucks (Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 181), Tunguses, Jakuts (Sauer, _loc.
cit._ pp. 49, 129).

[2770] v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ p. 31. Bickmore, in ‘Trans. Ethn.
Soc.,’ N. S.  vol vii. p. 20. St. John, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol.
ii. p. 254. Dixon, in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol. xi. pt. i. p.  44.
Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 525.

[2771] Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. i. p.  69; vol. ii. p. 121.

[2772] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p.
21. Parker, ‘Comparative Chinese Family Law,’ in ‘The China Review,’
vol. viii. p. 78. Jamieson, _ibid._, vol. x. p.  80.

[2773] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  212.

[2774] Medhurst, p. 15. When dying, concubines who have not had
children are removed from the dwelling-house to a humbler abode; they
are not entitled to die in the dwelling-house of their master (Gray,
vol. i. p. 213).

[2775] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  212-214.

[2776] Jamieson, p. 80. Medhurst, pp. 15, 21.

[2777] Parker, p. 79.

[2778] Pischon, _loc. cit._ p. 14. Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  252.
Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  226. Le Bon, ‘La civilisation des
Arabes,’ p. 434. Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  723; vol ii. p. 177.

[2779] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol ii. pp. 109, _et seq._ Moore, _loc.
cit._ p. 249. Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 419. Burton, ‘On M. Du Chaillu’s
Explorations,’ &c., in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. i. p.  321.

[2780] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 110.

[2781] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. pp. 134, _et seq._

[2782] Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  341. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol. ii. p.
284; Andersson, ‘Lake Ngami,’ p. 225.

[2783] Casalis, _loc. cit._ pp. 186, _et seq._ _Cf._ Livingstone, _loc.
cit._ p. 185 (Bechuanas).

[2784] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 49.

[2785] Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 92.

[2786] Rochon, _loc. cit._ p. 747.

[2787] Ebers, ‘Aegypten und die Bücher Moses’s,’ vol. i. p.  310.
_Cf._ ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 293.

[2788] Rawlinson, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 216. _Cf._ Spiegel, _loc.
cit._ vol. iii. p. 680.

[2789] Mayne, ‘Hindu Law and Usage,’ p. 92. Jolly, in ‘Sitzungsber.
Münch. Akad.,’ 1876, pp. 445-447. v. Schroeder, ‘Indiens Literatur und
Cultur,’ p. 430.

[2790] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 12. Jolly, p. 446.

[2791] Steele, _loc. cit._ p. 31.

[2792] Geijer, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  88.

[2793] Ewers, _loc. cit._ p. 108.

[2794] Burton, ‘The City of the Saints,’ p. 518.

[2795] Ancient Hindus (‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. iii. v. 12) and
Persians (Spiegel, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 679), Chinese (Gray, _loc.
cit._ vol vi. pp. 212, _et seq._), Malays (Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  77).

[2796] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 383.

[2797] Darwin, ‘Journal of Researches,’ p. 366.

[2798] v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  329.

[2799] d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._ p. 68. Georgi, _loc. cit._ p.
102.

[2800] Krasheninnikoff, _loc. cit._ p. 215.

[2801] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 110.

[2802] Williams, ‘Missionary Enterprises,’ p. 538.

[2803] _Cf._ Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  253, note †.

[2804] Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 368.

[2805] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  210. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol.
i. p.  236 (Comanches).

[2806] Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 153.

[2807] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 253, _et seq._ note 5.

[2808] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  253 (Egyptians). Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i.
pp. 226, _et seq._ (Persians).

[2809] Gibbs, _loc. cit._ pp. 198, _et seq._

[2810] Baker, ‘The Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia,’ p. 265. _Cf._
_ibid._, pp. 263, _et seq._

[2811] Schomburgk, in Ralegh, ‘The Discovery of Guiana,’ p. 110, note.

[2812] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 397. Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific
Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 157. Vámbéry, ‘Das Türkenvolk,’ p. 248. ‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 15. Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 246 (Marea). Thomson,
‘Through Masai Land,’ p. 260 (Masai).

[2813] King, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  147. ‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 698. Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  147.

[2814] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  654.

[2815] Salvado, ‘Mémoires,’ p. 278.

[2816] Klemm, ‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iii. p. 278.

[2817] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 8. 

[2818] Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 196. Herzog-Schaff, ‘Religious
Encyclopædia,’ vol. ii. p. 1415. For other instances, see Georgi, _loc.
cit._ p. 182 (Votyaks); Steller, _loc. cit._ p. 347 (Kamchadales);
Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 524 (Ainos of the Kuriles).

[2819] v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 47. Christianity has now
extirpated this custom among the Aleuts (‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 792).

[2820] Coxe, _loc. cit._ p. 300.

[2821] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 416. Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci.
Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. pp. 315, _et seq._

[2822] Seemann, ‘Voyage of _Herald_,’ vol. ii. p. 66. King, in ‘Jour.
Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  147. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p.
308. Regarding the Greenlanders, Cranz says (_loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
147), ‘Women who cohabit with several husbands are subjected to
universal censure.'

[2823] Lafitau, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  555.

[2824] v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. v. p.  549.

[2825] Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 178.

[2826] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 83.

[2827] Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. ix. p. 367.

[2828] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 386.

[2829] Bontier and Le Verrier, _loc. cit._ p. 139.

[2830] Thunberg, _loc. cit._ p. 141.

[2831] Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 227. Theal, _loc. cit._ p. 19.

[2832] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 253.

[2833] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 428. Balfour, _loc.
cit._ vol. iii. p. 250. Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 286.

[2834] Haeckel, ‘Indische Reisebriefe,’ p. 240.

[2835] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 240.

[2836] Balfour, vol. iii. p. 250.

[2837] ‘Asiatick Researches,’ vol. v. p.  13.

[2838] Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 33, 36, 98.

[2839] Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 158.

[2840] Fischer, ‘Memoir of Sylhet, Kachar, and the Adjacent
Districts,’ in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. ix. pt. ii. p. 834.

[2841] Man, _loc. cit._ p. 100.

[2842] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 245, _et seq._

[2843] Bellew, ‘Kashmir and Kashghar,’ p. 118. Moorcroft and Trebeck,
‘Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hindustan and the Panjab,’ vol.
i. pp. 321, _et seq._

[2844] Dunlop, ‘Hunting in the Himalaya,’ pp. 180, _et seq._

[2845] Gordon Cumming, ‘In the Himalayas,’ p. 406.

[2846] Stulpnagel, ‘Polyandry in the Himâlayas,’ in ‘The Indian
Antiquary,’ vol. vii. p. 133. de Ujfalvy, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’
ser. iii. vol. v. p.  227.

[2847] Wilson, _loc. cit._ pp. 206, _et seq._

[2848] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ p. 98.

[2849] Lansdell, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 225.

[2850] de Ujfalvy, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. p.  227.

[2851] Wilson, p. 206.

[2852] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. pp. 264, _et
seq._, note. _Cf._ however, Kearns, ‘The Tribes of South India,’ p. 69.

[2853] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 264.

[2854] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 403, note. Le Bon, ‘L’homme
et les sociétés,’ vol. ii. p. 295.

[2855] Ahlqvist, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. xiv. p. 292, note.

[2856] v. Haxthausen, p. 402.

[2857] ‘Rig-Veda Sanhitá,’ mandala i. súkta 119, v. 5. 

[2858] Strabo, _loc. cit._ book xi. ch. xiii. p. 526; book xvi. ch. iv.
p. 782.

[2859] Rémusat, ‘Nouveaux Mélanges Asiatiques,’ vol. i. p.  245.

[2860] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ p. 99.

[2861] Cæsar, _loc. cit._ book v. ch. 14.

[2862] Weinhold, ‘Altnordisches Leben,’ p. 249.

[2863] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 428. Davy, _loc. cit._
p. 286.

[2864] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[2865] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 249.

[2866] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 33.

[2867] _Ibid._, p. 36.

[2868] Fischer, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. ix. pt. ii. p. 834.

[2869] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  xxiv.

[2870] Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 158.

[2871] Gordon Cumming, _loc. cit._ pp. 405, _et seq._

[2872] Stulpnagel, in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. vii. p. 135.

[2873] Cunningham, ‘Ladák,’ p. 306.

[2874] Dunlop, _loc. cit._ pp. 180, _et seq._

[2875] Cunningham, ‘History of the Sikhs,’ p. 18. _Cf._ Orazio della
Penna di Billi, ‘Account of the Kingdom of Tibet,’ in ‘Narratives of
the Mission of George Bogle,’ &c., p. 336; Moorcroft and Trebeck, _loc.
cit._ p. 180; Bonvalot, ‘Across Thibet,’ vol. ii. p. 126; Rockhill,
‘The Land of the Lammas,’ p. 212.

[2876] Mr. Wilson says (_loc. cit._ p. 207) that it is probably the
common marriage custom of at least thirty millions of respectable
people.

[2877] Wheeler, ‘The History of India,’ vol. ii. p. 241.

[2878] Dutt, in ‘The Calcutta Review,’ vol. lxxxv. p. 266.

[2879] Erman, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 163. Holmberg,
in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 399.

[2880] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ p. 83.

[2881] Moorcroft and Trebeck, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 321, _et seq._
Turner, ‘Account of an Embassy to Tibet,’ p. 348. Bellew, _loc. cit._
p. 118.

[2882] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 246.

[2883] Dunlop, _loc. cit._ p. 181. Rémusat, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  245.

[2884] Strabo, _loc. cit._ book xvi. ch. iv. p. 782.

[2885] Cæsar, _loc. cit._ book v. ch. 14.

[2886] Ganzenmüller, ‘Tibet,’ p. 87.

[2887] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[2888] Balfour, vol. iii. p. 251.

[2889] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 130. _Cf._ Man, _loc. cit._ p. 100.

[2890] Meares, _loc. cit._ p. 268.

[2891] Kirby, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1864, p. 418.

[2892] Coulter, ‘Notes on Upper California,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo.
Soc.,’ vol. v. p.  67. Seemann, ‘Voyage of _Herald_,’ vol. ii. p. 66.

[2893] King, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol i. p.  152. Lisiansky,
_loc. cit._ p. 237. Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 243.

[2894] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 577; vol. iii. pp. 601, _et
seq._; vol. v. p. 707. For other tribes, see _ibid._, vol. iii. pp.
615, 632; vol. iv. p. 590.

[2895] Morgan, ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,’ p. 477.
Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 119, 212. _Cf._ Schoolcraft, vol. iii.
pp. 562, _et seq._

[2896] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 111. Azara, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 60. ‘Bulletin de la Société de Géographie,’ ser. iv.
vol. ix. p. 209.

[2897] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  662.

[2898] Schomburgk, ‘Expedition from Pirara,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo.
Soc.,’ vol. xv. p. 45.

[2899] v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. v. pp. 549, _et seq._

[2900] Azara, vol ii. p. 93.

[2901] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 304, _et seq._ note **.

[2902] _Cf._ Bonwick, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 205.

[2903] Fison and Howitt, _loc. cit._ p. 148.

[2904] Oldfield, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iii. p. 250.

[2905] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  51.

[2906] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 134. _Cf._ _ibid._, p. 184; Dumont
d’Urville, ‘Voyage de l’Astrolabe, Histoire du voyage,’ vol. i. p. 
495.

[2907] Sturt, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 136, _et seq._

[2908] Breton, _loc. cit._ p. 404.

[2909] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  258.

[2910] Montgomery, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 12.

[2911] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iii. p. 167. La Pérouse, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p.
28. Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 226.

[2912] Ellis, ‘Tour through Hawaii,’ p. 414. Waitz-Gerland, _loc.
cit._ vol. vi. p. 128. Elton, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p.
94.

[2913] Kerry-Nicholls, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. p. 195.

[2914] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  74.

[2915] Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii. pp. 191, _et seq._

[2916] d’Albertis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  390.

[2917] Stone, in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol. xlvi. p. 55.

[2918] Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 272.

[2919] Low, _loc. cit._ p. 146.

[2920] Pridham, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  451. _Cf._ Davy, _loc. cit._ p.
107, note.

[2921] Quoted by Chervin, ‘Recherches sur les causes physiques de la
polygamie,’ p. 22.

[2922] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 100.

[2923] Dunlop, _loc. cit._ pp. 181, et seq.

[2924] Wilson, _loc. cit._ p. 374.

[2925] Cunningham, ‘Ladák,’ p. 289.

[2926] Ritter, ‘Erdkunde,’ vol. vi. p. 773.

[2927] Bowring, ‘The Population of China,’ in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc.
China Branch,’ vol. v. pp. 13, _et seq._

[2928] Marshall, pp. 100, 102.

[2929] Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. i. p.  71.

[2930] Rémusat, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  245. Gerland, ‘Das Aussterben
der Naturvölker,’ p. 49.

[2931] Waitz, ‘Introduction to Anthropology,’ p. 112. Price, in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. i. p.  189.

[2932] Laing, ‘Travels in the Timannee, Kooranko, and Soolima
Countries,’ p. 59.

[2933] ‘Globus,’ vol. xli. p. 253.

[2934] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 424. ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p.
225. Mr. Swann, in a letter. Thomson, ‘Through Masai Land,’ p. 51.

[2935] _Cf._ Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  244 (Khosas).

[2936] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  150.

[2937] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 59. _Cf._ Wappäus, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 215.

[2938] Sutherland, ‘On the Esquimaux,’ in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’
vol. iv. p. 213.

[2939] King, _ibid._ vol. i. p.  152.

[2940] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  133.

[2941] Shastika (Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 243), Khosas (Lichtenstein,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  244), Cis-Natalian Kafirs (Mr. Cousins), people
of Baghirmi (Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 616), Waguha (Mr.
Swann). In Morocco, according to Dr. Churcher, warfare of a civil or
tribal kind has, no doubt, had some influence upon the disproportion of
the sexes; and the same is the case in Uganda (Wilson and Felkin, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  151).

[2942] Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  119. _Cf._ Morgan, ‘Systems of
Consanguinity and Affinity,’ p. 477.

[2943] Ellis, ‘History of Madagascar,’ vol. i. p.  152.

[2944] Kutchin (Kirby, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1864, p. 418), Guanas (Azara,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 93), Hawaiians (Ellis, ‘Tour through Hawaii,’
p. 414), Tahitians (_Idem_, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. pp.
257, _et seq._), natives of Maupiti (Montgomery, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 12), Kulus (de Ujfalvy, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol.
v. p.  227), Kashmiri (Wilson, _loc. cit._ p. 374).

[2945] Lewin, _loc. cit._ pp. 195, _et seq._

[2946] Kirby, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1864, p. 418.

[2947] Ross, _ibid._, 1866, p. 305. Sproat, _loc. cit._ p. 94.

[2948] Humboldt, ‘Political Essay,’ vol. i. pp. 251, _et seq._

[2949] Belly, ‘À travers l’Amérique Centrale,’ vol. i. p.  253, note.

[2950] Sturt, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 77, 136, _et seq._

[2951] Grey, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 251.

[2952] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 813.

[2953] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 289.

[2954] Haeckel, ‘Indische Reisebriefe,’ p. 240.

[2955] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 100.

[2956] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 241.

[2957] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 81.

[2958] Bruce, ‘Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile,’ vol. i.
pp. 284, _et seq._

[2959] ‘Emin Pasha in Central Africa,’ p. 209.

[2960] Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 150, _et seq._

[2961] Süssmilch, ‘Die göttliche Ordnung in den Veränderungen des
menschlichen Geschlechts,’ vol. ii. pp. 258, 259, &c. Chervin, _loc.
cit._ pp. 38, &c.

[2962] Montesquieu, _loc. cit._ book xvi. ch. 4.

[2963] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 55.

[2964] Sadler, ‘The Law of Population,’ vol. ii. pp. 337-339. v.
Oettingen, p. 56.

[2965] Hofacker and Notter, ‘Ueber Eigenschaften, welche sich bei
Menschen und Thieren von den Aeltern auf die Nachkommen vererben.’
Sadler, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 333, _et seq._

[2966] Hensen, _loc. cit._ p. 206. Berner, ‘Ueber die Ursachen der
Geschlechtsbildung;’ quoted by Janke, _loc. cit._ p. 347.

[2967] Goehlert, ‘Die Geschlechtsverschiedenheit der Kinder in den
Ehen,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xiii. pp. 119-122.

[2968] Stieda, ‘Das Sexualverhältniss der Geborenen,’ pp. 19, 20, 34,
35, &c.; quoted by v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 67.

[2969] For this statement I am indebted to Mr. Joseph Jacobs.

[2970] Burton, ‘The City of the Saints,’ p. 521. _Idem_, ‘Abeokuta,’
vol. i. p. 212, note.

[2971] ‘The Anthropological Review,’ vol. viii. p. cviii.

[2972] Sanderson, ‘Polygamous Marriage among the Kafirs of Natal,’ in
‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. viii. pp. 254-260.

[2973] Burton, ‘The City of the Saints,’ p. 521.

[2974] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. pp. 378, _et seq._

[2975] Düsing, ‘Die Regulierung des Geschlechtsverhältnisses bei der
Vermehrung der Menschen, Tiere und Pflanzen.'

[2976] Ploss, ‘Ueber die das Geschlechtsverhältniss der Kinder
bedingenden Ursachen,’ in ‘Monatsschrift für Geburtskunde und
Frauenkrankheiten,’ vol. xii. pp. 321-360.

[2977] _Ibid._, vol. xii. p. 340.

[2978] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ pp. 64, _et seq._ Düsing, _loc. cit._
pp. 159, _et seq._

[2979] Düsing, pp. 161, _et seq._ I may call attention to the fact
that among the Swedish nobility, according to censuses taken in the
years 1851-1860, contrary to the general rule in Europe, female births
actually outnumber male (Bertillon, in ‘Diction. encycl. des sciences
médicales,’ ser. ii. vol. xi. p. 472).

[2980] Ploss, in ‘Monatsschrift f. Geburtskunde,’ vol. xii. p. 352.
In the region between 501 to 1,000 feet, which is the most fertile
(_ibid._, p. 353), the proportion was 105·7 to 100.

[2981] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 107, note.

[2982] Seemann, ‘Voyage of _Herald_,’ vol. ii. p. 66 (Western Eskimo).
v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. v. p.  548 (Avanos and
Maypurs). Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 128 (Nukahivans).
Haeckel, ‘Indische Reisebriefe,’ p. 240 (Sinhalese). Marshall, _loc.
cit._ p. 214; Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p.
240 (Todas). Dunlop, _loc. cit._ p. 181; Fraser, ‘Journal of a Tour
through the Himālā Mountains,’ p. 208; Stulpnagel, in ‘The Indian
Antiquary,’ vol. vii. p. 133 (Himalayans). Rémusat, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  245 (Massagetæ).

[2983] Seemann, ‘Voyage of _Herald_,’ vol. ii. p. 66.

[2984] Dunlop, _loc. cit._ pp. 181, _et seq._

[2985] Beauregard, ‘En Asie; Kachmir et Tibet,’ in ‘Bull. Soc.
d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. pp. 265, 267, 271. _Cf._ Wilson, _loc.
cit._ p. 212.

[2986] Koeppen, ‘Die Religion des Buddha,’ vol. i. p.  476.

[2987] Baber, ‘Travels and Researches in the interior of China,’ in
‘Roy. Geo. Soc. Supplementary Papers,’ vol. i. p.  97.

[2988] Rockhill, _loc. cit._ p. 214, note.

[2989] Koeppen, vol. i. pp. 476, _et seq._ note 2. Du Halde,
‘Description de la Chine,’ vol. iv. p. 572.

[2990] Cunningham, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 
202.

[2991] ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. p.  229.

[2992] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  xxiii.

[2993] Gordon Cumming, _loc. cit._ pp. 405, _et seq._

[2994] Cunningham, ‘Ladák,’ p. 306.

[2995] Bellew, _loc. cit._ p. 118.

[2996] Wilson, _loc. cit._ p. 216.

[2997] Koeppen, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  476. Turner, ‘Embassy to
Tibet,’ p. 351. ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. p.  266.
Wilson, pp. 215, _et seq._

[2998] Fraser, _loc. cit._ p. 207.

[2999] Turner, ‘Embassy to Tibet,’ p. 349. Wilson, pp. 209, 210.

[3000] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 428.

[3001] Stulpnagel, in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. vii. p. 135.

[3002] Düsing, _loc. cit._ pp. 237-242.

[3003] 1150 unions of horses of the same colour gave 91·3 male foals
to 100 female; 878 unions of horses of somewhat different colours,
86·2 to 100 respectively; 237 unions of horses of still more different
colours, 56 to 100 respectively; 30 unions of horses of the most widely
different colours, 30 to 100 respectively (Goehlert, ‘Ueber die
Vererbung der Haarfarben bei den Pferden,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’
vol. xiv. pp. 145-155).

[3004] Düsing, pp. 242-245.

[3005] Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 149, 403.

[3006] Starkweather, ‘The Law of Sex,’ pp. 159, _et seq._

[3007] Galindo, ‘On Central America,’ in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol.
vi. p. 126.

[3008] Peschel, _loc. cit._ p. 221.

[3009] Squier, _loc. cit._ p. 58.

[3010] Belly, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  253, note.

[3011] v. Spix and v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 33.

[3012] Burton, ‘The Highlands of the Brazil,’ vol. i. p.  115.

[3013] de Castelnau, ‘Expédition dans les parties centrales de
l’Amérique du Sud,’ Histoire du voyage, vol. i. pp. 137, _et seq._

[3014] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  328.

[3015] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1859, pp. 58, _et seq._

[3016] v. Görtz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 288.

[3017] Süssmilch, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 260, _et seq._

[3018] Felkin, ‘Contribution to the Determination of Sex,’ in
‘Edinburgh Medical Journal,’ vol. xxxii. pt. i. pp. 233-236.

[3019] Jacobs, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. pp. 44, _et seq._

[3020] Bell, ‘The History of Improved Short-Horn, or Durham Cattle,’
p. 351.

[3021] Carr, ‘The History of the Rise and Progress of the Killerby,
Studley, and Warlaby Herds of Shorthorns,’ p. 98.

[3022] Janke, _loc. cit._ pp. 373, _et seq._

[3023] Shortt, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. vii. p. 285.

[3024] Metz, _loc. cit._ p. 131.

[3025] Metz, _loc. cit._ p. 131.

[3026] Theal, _loc. cit._ pp. 16, _et seq._

[3027] Jacobs, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xv. p. 26. Mr. Jacobs
thinks that English Jews marry their first cousins to the extent of 7·5
per cent. of all marriages, against a proportion of about 2 per cent.
for England generally, as calculated by Professor G. H.  Darwin. M.
Stieda, in his ‘Eheschliessungen in Elsass-Lothringen’ (1872-1876),
gives the proportion of consanguineous marriages among Jews as 23·02
per thousand, against 1·86 for Protestants, and 9·97 for Catholics
(Jacobs, ‘Studies in Jewish Statistics,’ p. 53).

[3028] According to Mr. Jacob’s comprehensive manuscript collection
of Jewish statistics, which he has kindly allowed me to examine, the
average proportion of male and female Jewish births registered in
various countries is 114·50 males to 100 females, whilst the average
proportion among the non-Jewish population of the corresponding
countries is 105·25 males to 100 females. But Mr. Jacobs thinks that
the accuracy of these statistics may be called in question, as the
abnormal figures for Austria (128 to 100, in the years 1861-1870)
and Russia (129 to 100, in the years 1867-1870), when compared with
those for Posen (108 to 100, in the years 1819-1873) and Prussia (108
to 100, in the years 1875-1881), render it likely that some uniform
error occurs in the registration of Jewish female children in Eastern
Europe. It has also been suggested that less care is taken in the
registration of females among poor Jews. Moreover, still-born children
are not included in the rates of births, and this certainly affects the
figures as to sex, because, parturition being more difficult in the
case of males than in that of females, there are not so many still-born
females as still-born males (v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 57). E. Nagel
attributes the excess of male births among Jews to the greater care
which Jewish wives take of their health during pregnancy, as also to
the smaller number of illegitimate births. But Mr. Jacobs believes that
the ratio of male births is greater among Jews than among non-Jewish
Europeans, even if we take this objection into account.

[3029] Brehm, ‘Bird-Life,’ p. 270. Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol.
i. pp. 382, _et seq._

[3030] Chervin, _loc. cit._ p. 38.

[3031] Goehlert, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xiii. p. 127.

[3032] Armstrong, _loc. cit._ p. 195.

[3033] Jones, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 326 (Kutchin). Dall, _loc.
cit._ p. 403 (Kaniagmuts). Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  183
(Blackfeet). Bosman, _loc. cit._ pp. 423, 527; Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 121 (Negroes). Andree, _loc. cit._ p. 142 (Jews). Steller, _loc.
cit._ pp. 347, _et seq._ (Kamchadales). Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 263
(people of Aru).

[3034] Algonquins (Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 329), Pelew Islanders
(Bastian, ‘Rechtsverhältnisse,’ p. 31), Malays (Zimmermann, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  27), people of Aru (Riedel, p. 263), Negroes (Reade,
_loc. cit._ pp. 45, 243. Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 242. Waitz, vol. ii. pp.
121, _et seq._), Massagetæ (Beauregard, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser.
iii. vol. v. p.  264, note 6), Azteks (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 267).

[3035] Ashe, _loc. cit._ p. 249.

[3036] Hearne, _loc. cit._ p. 93.

[3037] Walla Wallas (Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. pp. 400, _et seq._),
Thlinkets, Mosquitoes, New Zealanders (Waitz, vol. iii. p. 328; vol.
iv. p. 291; vol. vi. p. 131), Chinese (Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
185).

[3038] American Indians (Heriot, p. 339), people of Aru (Riedel, p.
263), Caroline Islanders (Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 210),
Fijians (Seemann, ‘Viti,’ p. 191), Wanyoro (‘Emin Pasha in Central
Africa,’ p. 84), Waganda (Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
187), Ashantees (Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 45).

[3039] Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 223.

[3040] Thomson, ‘Notes on the Basin of the River Rovuma,’ in
‘Proceed. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. iv. p. 75.

[3041] Seemann, ‘Viti,’ p. 191.

[3042] _Cf._ Egede, _loc. cit._ p. 146; Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 102;
Bonwick, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 205; _Idem_, ‘Daily
Life,’ p. 78; Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  48, note *.
‘Thierische Milche,’ says Lippert (‘Die Geschichte der Familie,’ p.
22), ‘ist so wenig die allgemeine Nahrung der Menschheit auf einer
sehr frühen Kulturstufe gewesen, dass vielmehr sämmtliche Völker der
neuen Welt aus eigner Entwicklung gar nie diese Stufe erklommen haben.'

[3043] Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 262; Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 271 (North
American Indians).

[3044] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 38 (Akas). Oldham, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc.
London,’ vol. iii. p. 240 (Khasias). Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 261 (Kukis).
Harkness, _loc. cit._ p. 78 (Kotars).

[3045] Wilson, _loc. cit._ p. 179.

[3046] Bastian, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. vi. p. 389.

[3047] _Cf._ Sproat, _loc. cit._ pp. 251, _et seq._; Angas, ‘Savage
Life,’ vol. i. pp. 96, 331; Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 250; Dalton, _loc.
cit._ pp. 46, 85.

[3048] _Cf._ Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ.’ vol. iv. pp. 401,
_et seq._ (Kaniagmuts); Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. 242 (Chinooks);
Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 235, _et seq._ (Wintun); v. Martius, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. pp. 644, _et seq._ (Macusís).

[3049] _Cf._ Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 243; vol. v. p. 
176; Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 456; Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._
vol. vi. pp. 131, 778; Powers, p. 32.

[3050] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 45.

[3051] Ploss, ‘Das Weib,’ vol. ii. pp. 376-387.

[3052] Katscher, _loc. cit._ p. 48.

[3053] v. Żmigrodzki, _loc. cit._ p. 177.

[3054] Ross, _loc. cit._ p. 311.

[3055] Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 20, 44.

[3056] Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  121.

[3057] Hardisty, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 312.

[3058] Musters, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. i. p.  196. Schomburgk,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  122.

[3059] Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. p.  311. Waitz-Gerland, _loc.
cit._ vol. vi. pp. 15, 22.

[3060] Stavorinus, ‘Account of Java and Batavia,’ in Pinkerton,
‘Collection of Voyages,’ vol. xi. p. 193.

[3061] Boyle, _loc. cit._ p. 199, note.

[3062] Dalton, _loc. cit._ pp. 50, 66.

[3063] St John, ‘The Ainos,’ in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. ii. p. 249.

[3064] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  50. On the Arabs of Upper Egypt,
see Baker, ‘The Nile Tributaries,’ pp. 124, 265.

[3065] Burton, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 119.

[3066] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 397. _Cf._ _ibid._, p. 81.

[3067] ‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  163.

[3068] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 447.

[3069] Chapman, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  342. Andersson, ‘Lake Ngami,’
pp. 50, 196. v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 199, 200, 216.

[3070] Thulié, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. iv. p. 421.

[3071] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 471. ‘Emin Pasha in Central
Africa,’ p. 85.

[3072] Krieger, ‘Die Menstruation,’ p. 174.

[3073] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ p. 143. Forster, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p.  340.

[3074] Merolla da Sorrento, _loc. cit._ p. 299.

[3075] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  252.

[3076] Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  147.

[3077] Cunningham, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiii. pt. 1. p. 
204.

[3078] Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 71.

[3079] Samuells, ‘Notes on a Forest Race called Puttooas or Juanga,
Inhabiting certain of the Tributary Mehals of Cuttack,’ in ‘Jour. As.
Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxv. p. 300. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 308.

[3080] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 381.

[3081] Katscher, _loc. cit._ p. 97. Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 178.
Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 370.

[3082] ‘Genesis,’ ch. xxx. vv. 1-4.

[3083] Le Bon, ‘La civilisation des Arabes,’ p. 424.

[3084] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  184.

[3085] Andree, _loc. cit._ p. 146.

[3086] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  252.

[3087] _Cf._ Waitz, vol. iii. p. 115; v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  353, note; Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 15; d’Escayrac de
Lauture, _loc. cit._ p. 132.

[3088] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 551.

[3089] Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 156.

[3090] Burton, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. i. pp. 320, _et
seq._ _Cf._ _Idem_, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 121.

[3091] Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 481.

[3092] In the language of the Bechuanas, the word ‘motlanka,’ like the
‘παῖς’ of the Greeks and the ‘puer’ of the Romans, signifies at the
same time boy and servant (Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 188, note).

[3093] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. pp. 180, _et seq._

[3094] Among the Kamchadales (Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 342), Guiana
Indians (Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 413, note 2), Fuegians (Bove, _loc.
cit._ p. 133), Santals (Man, _loc. cit._ p. 15), Gypsies (Liebich,
_loc. cit._ p. 52), Marea (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 248), Somals, and
Kafirs (Burton, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 119), the women are stated to be
more or less prolific.

[3095] Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 228.

[3096] Hearne, _loc. cit._ p. 313 (Northern Indians). Ross, in ‘Smith.
Rep.,’ 1886, p. 305 (Eastern Tinneh). Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i.
pp. 169, 218, 242 (Haidahs, Columbians about Puget Sound, Chinooks).
Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  684 (Comanches). Dall, _loc. cit._
p. 194 (Ingaliks). Mackenzie, ‘Voyages,’ p. 147 (Beaver Indians).
Armstrong, _loc. cit._ p. 195 (Eskimo). Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p. 
149 (Greenlanders). Baegert, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1863, p. 368 (Indians
of the Californian Peninsula). Gibbs, _loc. cit._ p. 209 (Indians of
Western Washington and North-Western Oregon).

[3097] Talamanca Indians (Bovallius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  249),
Guaranies (Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 59), Ostyaks (Ahlqvist, in
‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. xiv. p. 290), Kukis (Lewin, _loc. cit._
p. 255), Dyaks (Wallace, ‘The Malay Archipelago,’ vol. i. p.  142),
Sumatrans (Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 257), Australians (Sturt, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 137. Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol. i. pp. 81, _et seq._
Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 780), Maoris (Angas, vol. i. p. 
314), Tedâ (Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  448), Mandingoes, (Park,
_loc. cit._ p. 219), Egbas (Burton, ‘Abeokuta,’ vol. i. p.  207).

[3098] Wallace, ‘The Malay Archipelago,’ vol. i. p.  143. Mackenzie,
‘Voyages,’ p. 147.

[3099] Hearne, _loc. cit._ p. 313.

[3100] _Cf._ Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 238 (Dacotahs);
Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 231 (Wintun); Brett, _loc. cit._ p. 413, note 2
(Indians of Guiana); Bove, _loc. cit._ p. 133 (Fuegians).

[3101] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 242.

[3102] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. pp. 141, _et seq._

[3103] Wood, ‘The Natural History of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 685.

[3104] Kirby, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1864, p. 419.

[3105] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 259.

[3106] Zimmermann, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  254. Bosman, _loc. cit._ p.
419.

[3107] Marco Polo, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  220.

[3108] _Cf._ Livingstone, _loc. cit._ p. 196; Catlin, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  118.

[3109] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  512, note 120.

[3110] King and Fitzroy, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 153.

[3111] Hooper, _loc. cit._ p. 100.

[3112] v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 47.

[3113] Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 148.

[3114] Andersson, ‘Lake Ngami,’ p. 465.

[3115] St. John, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. ii. p. 254.

[3116] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 388. Coxe, _loc. cit._ p. 183.

[3117] Hooper, _loc. cit._ p. 271. _Cf._ Hardisty, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’
1866, p. 312; Richardson, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  383.

[3118] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  104. Alcedo-Thompson, _loc.
cit._ vol. i. p. 416.

[3119] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 259.

[3120] Forbes, ‘Dahomey,’ vol. i. pp. 25, _et seq._

[3121] Inglis, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. iii. p. 63.
d’Albertis, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  395. Angas, ‘Savage Life,’ vol.
i. p.  94.

[3122] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  657.

[3123] v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  106 (Brazilian aborigines).
Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  147 (Greenlanders). Waitz, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 389 (Kafirs). Le Bon, ‘La civilisation des Arabes,’ p. 424
(Arabs). v. Siebold, _loc. cit._ pp. 31, _et seq._ (Ainos). Navarette,
_loc. cit._ p. 72 (Chinese). Rein, _loc. cit._ p. 425 (Japanese).

[3124] Reade, _loc. cit._ pp. 259, _et seq._

[3125] Livingstone, ‘Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambesi,’ pp.
284, _et seq._

[3126] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 259.

[3127] _Cf._ Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 93 (Fijians); v.
Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. v. p.  548 (Indians on Orinoco).

[3128] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 109.

[3129] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  512. Schadenberg, in
‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. p. 12. Le Bon, ‘La civilisation
des Arabes,’ p. 424. _Cf._ Nansen, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 321
(Greenlanders).

[3130] Baker, ‘The Nile Tributaries,’ pp. 125-127.

[3131] v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 158.

[3132] _Cf._ Burdach, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  375.

[3133] Nansen, vol. ii. p. 329. _Cf._ _ibid._, vol. ii. pp. 321, 329,
_et seq._

[3134] Hearne, _loc. cit._ p. 310. _Cf._ _ibid._, p. 125.

[3135] Franklin, ‘Second Expedition,’ p. 301. Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol.
iii. p. 102.

[3136] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. pp. 234, _et seq._ _Cf._
_ibid._, vol. iii. p. 236.

[3137] Brett, _loc. cit._ pp. 351, _et seq._ _Cf._ Schomburgk, in
‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  270.

[3138] v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. v. pp. 548, _et seq._

[3139] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 22, _et seq._

[3140] Bove, _loc. cit._ p. 131.

[3141] Williams and Calvert, _loc. cit._ pp. 152, _et seq._

[3142] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. pp. 191, _et seq._

[3143] Palmer, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 282. _Cf._
Freycinet, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 766; Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. pp.
758, 781.

[3144] Taplin, _loc. cit._ p. 11.

[3145] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 213.

[3146] St. John, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  56.

[3147] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  185.

[3148] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 251.

[3149] Tod, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  258.

[3150] Pischon, _loc. cit._ p. 14. d’Escayrac de Lauture, _loc. cit._
pp. 250, _et seq._

[3151] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  226.

[3152] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 253, _et seq._

[3153] Saalschütz, ‘Das mosaische Recht,’ vol. ii. p. 727.

[3154] Dutt, ‘The Social Life of the Hindus in the Rig-Veda Period,’
in ‘The Calcutta Review,’ vol. lxxxv. p. 79.

[3155] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 503. Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol.
i. p.  134. Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 142. Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 189.

[3156] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 161.

[3157] For other instances of female jealousy, see Kirby, in ‘Smith.
Rep.,’ 1864, p. 419 (Kutchin); Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 355 (Eskimo at
Igloolik); Franklin, ‘Journey,’ p. 70 (Crees); v. Martius, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  392 (Mundrucûs); Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 97 (Samoans); Kubary,
_loc. cit._ p. 61 (Pelew Islanders); Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’
vol. i. p.  269 (Tahitians); Yate, _loc. cit._ p. 97 (Maoris); Riedel,
_loc. cit._ pp. 335, 448 (natives of Babber and Wetter); Cooper, _loc.
cit._ p. 102 (Assamese); Kearns, ‘The Tribes of South India,’ p. 72
(Reddies); Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 38 (Bhils); Steller, _loc. cit._ p.
288 (Kamchadales); Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 444 (Moors of the Sahara);
Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 78; v. Weber, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 329, _et
seq._; Maclean, _loc. cit._ p. 44 (Kafirs).

[3158] Domenech, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 306.

[3159] Eastern Tinneh (Ross, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1866, p. 310),
Naudowessies (Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 367), Kaviaks (Dall, _loc. cit._
p. 138), Northern Indians (Hearne, _loc. cit._ pp. 129, _et seq._),
Crees (Mackenzie, ‘Voyages,’ pp. xcvi. _et seq._), Indians of the
Californian Peninsula (Baegert, in ‘Smith. Rep.,’ 1863, p. 368),
Minnetarees and Mandans (Lewis and Clarke, _loc. cit._ p. 307), Caribs
(Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 383).

[3160] Indians of Oregon (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  277.
Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  654), Crows (Bastian, ‘Der Papua
des dunkeln Inselreichs,’ p. 128, note 8), Blackfeet (_Idem_, in
‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. vi. pp. 403, _et seq._, note).

[3161] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 438.

[3162] Schoolcraft, vol. iii. pp. 195, _et seq._

[3163] Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 338.

[3164] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 685.

[3165] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  661.

[3166] Strauch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. ix. p. 62. ‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 28.

[3167] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  363.

[3168] Hickson, _loc. cit._ p. 282.

[3169] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 327.

[3170] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 28.

[3171] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 369.

[3172] Man, ‘Sonthalia,’ p. 15.

[3173] Macpherson, _loc. cit._ p. 69. Hodgson, in ‘Jour. As. Soc.
Bengal,’ vol. xviii. pt. ii. p. 744.

[3174] Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 454.

[3175] _Ibid._, p. 181. _Cf._ _ibid._, pp. 209, _et seq._

[3176] Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  447.

[3177] Bain, _loc. cit._ pp. 136, _et seq._

[3178] _Ibid._, p. 137.

[3179] Müller, ‘Am Neste,’ p. 102. Brehm, ‘Bird-Life,’ pt. iv. ch.
ii. Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. pp. 293-295.

[3180] Brehm, ‘Bird-Life,’ pp. 288, _et seq._

[3181] Houzeau, ‘Études sur les facultés mentales des animaux,’ vol.
ii. p. 117.

[3182] Gibbs, _loc. cit._ p. 198.

[3183] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 102.

[3184] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 273.

[3185] Waitz, vol. ii. p. 117.

[3186] Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 45. Seemann, ‘Viti,’ p. 192.
Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  267.

[3187] Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 756. For other instances, see
_ibid._, vol. vi. p. 125; ‘Das Ausland,’ 1857, p. 888.

[3188] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 33 (Miris). Cunningham, ‘History of
the Sikhs,’ p. 18 (Tibetans). Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 227 (Damaras).
Bastian, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. vi. p. 388.

[3189] Stulpnagel, in ‘The Indian Antiquary,’ vol. vii. p. 134. _Cf._
Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 287.

[3190] Gordon Cumming, _loc. cit._ p. 406 (Tibetans). Beauregard,
in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. pp. 264, _et seq._
(Massagetæ). See _ante_, p. 116.

[3191] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 429.

[3192] Wallace, ‘The Malay Archipelago,’ vol. ii. p. 460.

[3193] Morgan, ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,’ p. 477.

[3194] Quoted by Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 191.

[3195] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 341.

[3196] Emerson Tennent, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 440, 442.

[3197] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 28.

[3198] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 253.

[3199] _Ibid._, p. 343.

[3200] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  677.

[3201] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ pp. 315, 317.

[3202] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 191.

[3203] _Ibid._, p. 231.

[3204] Powers, _loc. cit._ pp. 5, 406.

[3205] Vámbéry, ‘Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen Volkes,’
p. 71.

[3206] Mason, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiii. pt. ii. pp. 19,
_et seq._ Smeaton, _loc. cit._ p. 81.

[3207] Dutt, in ‘The Calcutta Review,’ vol. lxxxv. p. 79.

[3208] Goguet, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  22.

[3209] Balfour, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 252.

[3210] Dubois, _loc. cit._ p. 101. _Cf._ the myths of the Nishinam
(Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 339), Thlinkets (Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 421),
Nicaraguans (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 280), Caroline Islanders
(_ibid._, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 136).

[3211] As, for example, by Post, ‘Geschlechtsgenossenschaft,’ p. 27,
and Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. pp. 664, _et seq._

[3212] Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man,’ vol. i. p.  334; vol. ii. pp.
394, _et seq._ Mr. Reade thinks (_loc. cit._ p. 214) we may infer
that Gorillas are polygamous, like stags, cocks, pheasants, and other
animals that battle for mates, from the fact that a trustworthy
informant had seen two Gorillas fighting. But it is not only polygamous
animals that fight for females.

[3213] Hartmann, _loc. cit._ p. 214.

[3214] Among the Bechuanas, says Mr. Conder (‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’
vol. xvi. p. 86), a man formerly became richer the more wives he had,
because they used to hoe his mealies; ‘now, however, ploughs have been
introduced, and the men take pride in driving a team of eight oxen in a
plough.'

[3215] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p.  752.

[3216] Le Bon, ‘La Civilisation des Arabes,’ p. 424.

[3217] Letourneau, ‘Sociology,’ p. 378.

[3218] McLennan, ‘The Levirate and Polyandry,’ in ‘The Fortnightly
Review,’ N.S. vol. xxi. pp. 703-705. _Idem_, ‘Studies,’ pp. 112, _et
seq._

[3219] Bellabollahs (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  169, note 34),
Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon (Gibbs, _loc.
cit._ p. 199), Miwok (Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 356), Iroquois, Wyandots
(Heriot, _loc. cit._ p. 330), Shawanese (Ashe, _loc. cit._ p. 250),
Azteks, Mayas, Mosquitoes (Bancroft, vol. ii. pp. 466, 671; vol.
i. p.  730), Arawaks (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol iii. p. 392), Warraus
(Schomburgk, in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,’ vol. i. p.  275), Tupis
(Southey, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  241), Australians (Curr, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  107. Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 776. Bonney, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 135. Palmer, _ibid._, vol. xiii. p. 298.
Salvado, ‘Mémoires,’ p. 278. Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  87.
Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ p. 164), Samoans (Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 98), New
Caledonians (Moncelon, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. ix.
p. 367), people of New Britain (Romilly, in ‘Proc. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’
N.S. vol. xi. p. 9), Caroline Islanders (Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii.
p. 106), peoples of New Guinea (Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ &c., p. 66)
and the Malay Archipelago (_ibid._, pp. 32, 39, 54, 57-60. Marsden,
_loc. cit._ pp. 228, 229, 260, _et seq._ Joest, in ‘Verhandl. Berl.
Ges. Anthr.,’ 1882, p. 70), Mrús (Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 234), Kaupuis
(Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 355), Kakhyens (Anderson,
_loc. cit._ p. 142), Pahárias (Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 273), Bilúchis
(Postans, ‘The Bilúchi Tribes Inhabiting Sindh,’ in ‘Jour. Ethn. Soc.
London,’ vol. i. p. 105), Ossetes (v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’
p. 403), Ostyaks (Latham, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  457), Kamchadales
(Steller, _loc. cit._ p. 347), Ainos (Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 524. Dixon,
in ‘Trans. As. Soc. Japan,’ vol xi. pt. i. p.  44), Arabs (Burckhardt,
_loc. cit._ p. 64. Hildebrandt, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x. p.
406), Gallas (Waitz, vol. ii. p. 516), Kûri (Nachtigal, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 375), Kunáma (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 488), Negroes of
Senegambia (Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 455), the tribes in the interior
of Western Equatorial Africa mentioned by Mr. Du Chaillu (‘Journey
to Ashango-Land,’ p. 429), Bechuanas, Zulus (Conder, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 85), Eastern Central Africans (Macdonald,
‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  135), people of Madagascar (Sibree, _loc.
cit._ p. 246), Hebrews (‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxv. vv. 5-10), ancient
Egyptians (‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 293). For other instances, see
_infra_, note 3.

[3220] _Cf._ Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. ii. p. 649.

[3221] Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 488 (Kunáma). v. Martius, _loc. cit._
vol. i. pp. 117, 118, 691 (Brazilian aborigines, Arawaks). Gibbs, _loc.
cit._ p. 199 (Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon).

[3222] Atkha Aleuts (Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 158), Chippewas (Keating,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 170, _et seq._), Eskimo (‘Das Ausland,’ 1881,
pp. 698, _et seq._), Crees (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 110),
Brazilian aborigines (v. Martius, in ‘Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ vol.
ii. p. 198), tribes of Western Victoria (Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 27),
people of Nitendi and the New Hebrides (Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p.
634), Nufoor Papuans of New Guinea (Guillemard, _loc. cit._ p. 390),
Santals (‘Ymer,’ vol. v. p.  xxiv.). Among the Gonds it is the duty of
a younger brother to take to wife the widow of an elder brother, though
the converse is not permitted (Forsyth, _loc. cit._ p. 150).

[3223] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 416.

[3224] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ &c., pp. 112, _et seq._

[3225] Fijians, Samoans (Prichard, _loc. cit._ p. 393), Papuans of New
Guinea (Finsch, ‘Neu-Guinea,’ p. 77. Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol.
vi. p. 661), Caroline Islanders (Kotzebue, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p.
209. Waitz-Gerland, vol v. pt. ii. p. 117), the tribes in the interior
of Western Equatorial Africa mentioned by Mr. Du Chaillu (‘Journey
to Ashango-Land,’ p. 429). Among many other peoples the right of
succession belongs in the first place to the brother.

[3226] Man, _loc. cit._ p. 100.

[3227] Thlinkets (Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. pp.
316, 325), Kunáma (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ pp. 484, 488).

[3228] Miris (Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 154), Tartars (Marco Polo, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 221. de Rubruquis, _loc. cit._ pp. 33, _et seq._),
Wanyoro (Wilson and Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 49), Wakamba
(Hildebrandt, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x. p.  406), Baele
(Nachtigal, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 176), Egbas (Burton, ‘Abeokuta,’
vol. i. p.  208), Negroes of Fida, &c. (Bosman, _loc. cit._ p. 480.
Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 115).

[3229] Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  97, note.

[3230] Bosman, p. 528.

[3231] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 16.

[3232] Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 86.

[3233] McLennan, ‘The Patriarchal Theory,’ p. 89.

[3234] _Cf._ Maine, ‘Ancient Law,’ p. 241.

[3235] Hebrews (‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxv. vv. 5-10), Hindus (‘The Laws
of Manu,’ ch. ix. vv. 59-63), Ossetes (v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’
p. 403), Bechuanas (Livingstone, ‘Missionary Travels,’ p. 185),
people of Madagascar (Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 246). Among the Hindus,
the ‘levir’ did not take his brother’s widow as his wife; he only had
intercourse with her. This practice was called ‘Niyoga.'

[3236] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ &c., p. 113.

[3237] Starcke, _loc. cit._ ch. iii.

[3238] Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 395.

[3239] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 98.

[3240] Shooter, _loc. cit._ p. 86.

[3241] McLennan, p. 91.

[3242] Lyon, _loc. cit._ p. 355.

[3243] Davy, _loc. cit._ p. 287.

[3244] Moorcroft and Trebeck, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  321.

[3245] de Ujfalvy, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. v. p.  228.

[3246] Fraser, _loc. cit._ p. 208.

[3247] Bogle, _loc. cit._ p. 123.

[3248] Wilson, _loc. cit._ p. 212.

[3249] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N. S.  vol. ii. p. 292.

[3250] Fraser, _loc. cit._ p. 209.

[3251] v. Humboldt, ‘Personal Narrative,’ vol. i. p.  83.

[3252] Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ vol. iv. p. 20.

[3253] _Ibid._, vol. i. p.  33.

[3254] Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xii. p. 135.

[3255] Earl, _loc. cit._ p. 83. Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 66.

[3256] Peoples of Watubela (Riedel, _loc. cit._ p. 206) and Lampong in
Sumatra (Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 58), Igorrotes and Italones of the
Philippines (Blumentritt, _loc. cit._ pp. 28, 33). Professor Wilken
thinks (pp. 46, _et seq._) the same was the case among the Niasians and
Bataks.

[3257] Bailey, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. p. 293.

[3258] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 105.

[3259] Nordenskiöld, ‘Grönland,’ p. 508. _Cf._ Nansen, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. pp. 319, _et seq._

[3260] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pp. 272, _et seq._

[3261] Keane, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol xiii. p. 206.

[3262] Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi. p. 634.

[3263] ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p. 328. Wilkes, _loc. cit._ vol. v. p.  101.
Lumholtz, _loc. cit._ pp. 193, 213.

[3264] Quoted by Bonwick, ‘Daily Life,’ p. 73.

[3265] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 97.

[3266] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  88.

[3267] St. John, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. p. 237.

[3268] Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 75.

[3269] Rosset, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 169.

[3270] Quoted by Pridham, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  253.

[3271] Bourien, ‘The Wild Tribes of the Interior of the Malay
Peninsula,’ in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. iii. p. 80.

[3272] Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. iii. p. 370. Yule,
‘Notes on the Kasia Hills,’ in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xiii.
pt. ii. p. 624. Huc, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  186.

[3273] Pischon, _loc. cit._ p. 13. Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 603.

[3274] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1875, p. 958.

[3275] Klemm, ‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iv. p. 150.

[3276] Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 207, _et seq._

[3277] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 247, 251.

[3278] Reade, _loc. cit._ p. 444.

[3279] Lobo, _loc. cit._ p. 26.

[3280] Burton, ‘First Footsteps,’ p. 122.

[3281] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 114.

[3282] ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1027.

[3283] Rawlinson, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 353.

[3284] Becker, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 488, _et seq._ Hermann-Blümner,
_loc. cit._ p. 264.

[3285] Nordström, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 34.

[3286] Mackenzie, ‘Studies in Roman Law,’ p. 125.

[3287] Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 371.

[3288] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 173.

[3289] Sibree, _loc. cit._ pp. 161, 250.

[3290] de Herrera, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. p. 171.

[3291] ‘Deuteronomy,’ ch. xxiv. v. i.  Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 203.

[3292] Meier and Schömann, _loc. cit._ p. 511.

[3293] Mackenzie, ‘Studies in Roman Law,’ pp. 123, _et seq._

[3294] Grimm, _loc. cit._ p. 454.

[3295] Chinooks (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol i. p.  241), Chippewas
(Keating, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 157), Chippewyans (Mackenzie,
‘Voyages,’ p. cxxiii.), Shawanese (Ashe, _loc. cit._ p. 249), Macusís
(Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 391), Mundrucûs and other Brazilian
tribes (v. Martius, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  104), Minuanes, Pampas,
Mbayas, Payaguas (Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 32, 44, 114, 132),
Catalanganes of the Philippines (Blumentritt, _loc. cit._ p. 41),
Siamese (Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 169), Burmese (Colquhoun, ‘Burma,’ pp.
12, _et seq._), Chukmas (Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 187), Yakuts (Sauer,
_loc. cit._ p. 129), Chuvashes, Votyaks, Cheremises, Mordvins, Voguls
(Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 42), Ossetes (v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’
p. 404), Takue (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p. 209), Beni-Mzab (Chavanne,
‘Die Sahara,’ pp. 315, _et seq._)

[3296] Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  148.

[3297] Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 239.

[3298] Carver, _loc. cit._ p. 375.

[3299] Harmon, _loc. cit._ p. 342.

[3300] Morgan, ‘League of the Iroquois,’ p. 324.

[3301] Wallace, ‘Travels on the Amazon,’ p. 497.

[3302] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 23. Faulkner, _loc. cit._ p. 126.

[3303] Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 167.

[3304] Dieffenbach, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 40.

[3305] Elton, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvii. p. 95.

[3306] Lawes, in ‘Proc. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. p. 614. Bink,
in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 397.

[3307] Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. vi. p. 129.

[3308] Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  78.

[3309] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 68.

[3310] _Cf._ Nauhaus, in ‘Verhandl. Berl. Ges. Anthr.,’ 1882, p. 210;
Klemm, ‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iii. p. 278; Maclean, _loc. cit._ p.
70; Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 261, 264.

[3311] Ewald, _loc. cit._ p. 203. Among the Samaritans, divorce, though
permitted, does not occur (Andree, _loc. cit._ p. 217).

[3312] Glasson, _loc. cit._ p. 151. Meier and Schömann, _loc. cit._ p.
510.

[3313] Mackenzie, ‘Roman Law,’ p. 123.

[3314] Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 276.

[3315] Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 64.

[3316] Dawson, _loc. cit._ p. 33.

[3317] Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. i. p.  208. Lewin, p. 210.

[3318] Peoples of Ceram, Aru, Sermatta, Babber, Letti, Moa and Lakor,
Wetter (Riedel, _loc. cit._ pp. 134, 263, 325, 351, 390, 448), Buru
(Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ &c., p. 51).

[3319] Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 110. _Cf._ Proyart, _loc. cit._
p. 569 (Negroes of Loango).

[3320] Kolben, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  157.

[3321] Casalis, _loc. cit._ pp. 184, et seq.

[3322] Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 219.

[3323] Mantras (Bourien, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. iii. p.
80), Butias of Ladakh (Cunningham, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol.
xiii. pt. i. p.  204), Toungtha (Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 194), Timorese
(Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 54).

[3324] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 263, 265. Waitz, vol. iv. p.
132.

[3325] Waitz, vol. iv. p. 278.

[3326] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. pp.
25, _et seq._ Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  219. Müller, ‘Reise der
Novara,’ Ethnographie, p. 164.

[3327] Navarette, _loc. cit._ p. 73.

[3328] Medhurst, in ‘Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch,’ vol. iv. p.
27.

[3329] Rein, _loc. cit._ pp. 424, _et seq._

[3330] Amír’ Alí, _loc. cit._ p. 332.

[3331] Lane, _loc. cit_ vol. i. pp. 139, 247. Pischon, _loc. cit._ p.
13.

[3332] ‘The Laws of Manu,’ ch. ix. vv. 80, _et seq._ This, however,
was not a divorce in our sense of the term. ‘Neither by sale nor by
repudiation,’ says Manu (ch. ix. v. 46), ‘is a wife released from her
husband.'

[3333] Mayne, ‘Hindu Law and Usage,’ p. 95.

[3334] Glasson, _loc. cit._ pp. 204, _et seq._

[3335] Glasson, pp. 213, 215.

[3336] _Ibid._, pp. 367, _et seq._

[3337] _Ibid._, pp. 437, 452.

[3338] _Ibid._, p. 403.

[3339] Carpentier, ‘Traité théorétique et pratique du divorce,’ p.
52. For the laws of divorce in the States of Europe and America,
see Neubauer, ‘Ehescheidung im Auslande,’ in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl.
Rechtswiss.,’ vols. v.-ix.

[3340] Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 254.

[3341] Greenlanders (Nordenskiöld, ‘Grönland,’ p. 509), Damaras
(Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 416), Marea (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ p.
241), Kafirs of Natal (Shooter, _loc. cit._ pp. 85, _et seq._), Samoans
(Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 97), Dyaks (St. John, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’
N.S. vol. ii. p. 237).

[3342] This is especially the case when the wife is superior to
the husband in rank [_cf._ Soyaux, _loc. cit._ p. 162 (Negroes of
Loango); Klemm, ‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iii. p. 284 (Negroes of
Sierra Leone); Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. pp. 140, _et seq._
(Eastern Central Africans); Sibree, _loc. cit._ p. 254 (Tanàla of
Madagascar); Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 106; vol.
vi. p. 128 (Caroline Islanders, Tahitians); ‘Ymer,’ vol. iv. p. 333
(Pelew Islanders); Moore, _loc. cit._ p. 289 (Natchez)]; but also when
they are of equal rank, as among the Shawanese (Ashe, _loc. cit._
p. 249), Macassars, Bugis (Wilken, ‘Verwantschap,’ p. 76), Rejangs
(Marsden, _loc. cit._ p. 235), Malays of Perak (McNair, _loc. cit._ p.
236), Galela (Riedel, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. p. 78),
Kaupuis (Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 355), Badagas
(Harkness, _loc. cit._ p. 117), Kerantis (Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 136),
Mongols (Prejevalsky, ‘Mongolia,’ vol. i. p.  70), Beni-Amer, Kunáma
(Munzinger, _loc. cit._ pp. 320, 321, 489), Touaregs Chavanne, (‘Die
Sahara,’ p. 209), Ashantees (Waitz, vol. ii. p. 120), Masai (Last, in
‘Proc. Roy. Geo. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. v. p.  533), Kafirs (Maclean, _loc.
cit._ pp. 69, _et seq._).

[3343] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  277.

[3344] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iv. pp. 223, _et seq._

[3345] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 214.

[3346] Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 93.

[3347] Lisiansky, _loc. cit._ pp. 127, _et seq._

[3348] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p.  256. Bink, in
‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 397. Chalmers, _loc.
cit._ p. 167. Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii. pp. 106, _et seq._

[3349] Riedel, _loc. cit._ pp. 134, 173, 263, 325, 390, 448.

[3350] Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 295.

[3351] Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 73.

[3352] Harkness, _loc. cit._ p. 92.

[3353] Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ vol. iii. p. 83.

[3354] Macdonald, ‘Africana,’ vol. i. p.  140.

[3355] Arnot, ‘Garenganze,’ p. 194.

[3356] Waitz, vol. iv. p. 86.

[3357] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 672.

[3358] Gray, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  219. Rein, _loc. cit._ pp. 424,
_et seq._

[3359] Glasson, _loc. cit. pp._ 149, _et seq._

[3360] Amír’ Alí, _loc. cit._ ch. xii. _et seq._ Lane, _loc. cit._ vol.
i. p.  139.

[3361] Kohler, in ‘Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,’ vol. iii. pp. 386,
_et seq._

[3362] Glasson, _loc. cit._ p. 187.

[3363] _Ibid._, p. 189.

[3364] _Ibid._, p. 195.

[3365] _Ibid._, pp. 152, _et seq._ Meier and Schömann, _loc. cit._ p.
512.

[3366] Rossbach, _loc. cit._ pp. 42, _et seq._

[3367] Mackenzie, ‘Roman Law,’ p. 123.

[3368] Glasson, pp. 291, 298, 304.

[3369] Cook, ‘Voyage to the Pacific Ocean,’ vol. ii. p. 157.

[3370] Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  92.

[3371] Bock, ‘The Head-Hunters of Borneo,’ p. 315. _Cf._ Klemm,
‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. ii. p. 76 (Abipones); Barth, ‘Reisen,’ vol.
i. p.  258 (Touaregs of Rhāt).

[3372] Glasson, _loc. cit._ p. 469.

[3373] ‘Revue d’Anthropologie,’ 1883, p. 290. _Cf._ Keane, in ‘Jour.
Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xiii. p. 206 (Botocudos); Krauss, _loc. cit._ p 568
(South Slavonians).

[3374] v. Oettingen, _loc. cit._ p. 150.

[3375] Dall, _loc. cit._ p. 139 (Western Eskimo). Egede, _loc. cit._
p. 143 (Greenlanders). Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p. 141 (Zulus). Wilson and
Felkin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 48 (Wanyoro). Buchner, _loc. cit._ p.
31 (Duallas). Polak, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  218 (Persians). Krauss,
pp. 532, 570, _et seq._ (South Slavonians); &c.

[3376] Schoolcraft, ‘The Indian in his Wigwam,’ p. 73. _Cf._ Nansen,
_loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 320 (Greenlanders); Lichtenstein, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 48 (Bushmans); St. John, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  66 (Sea
Dyaks).

[3377] St. John, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. ii. p. 237.

[3378] Bailey, _ibid._, vol. ii. p. 292. _Cf._ Fritsch, _loc. cit._ p.
141 (Zulus).

[3379] For exceptions, see _ante_ p. 19.

[3380] Nutkas, Inland Columbians (Bancroft, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp.
197, 277), Shans (Colquhoun, ‘Amongst the Shans,’ p. 295), Burmese
(Fytche, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 73), Malays of Perak (McNair, _loc.
cit._ p. 236), Beni-Amer, Kunáma (Munzinger, _loc. cit._ pp. 320, 321,
489).

[3381] Mason, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. xxxv. pt. ii. p. 20.

[3382] Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 51.

[3383] Riedel, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. p. 78.
Waitz-Gerland, _loc. cit._ vol. v. pt. ii. p. 107.

[3384] Glasson, _loc. cit._ p. 187.

[3385] _Cf._ Codrington, _loc. cit._ p. 244.

[3386] Sauer, _loc. cit._ p. 129 (Jakuts). Hildebrandt, in ‘Zeitschr.
f. Ethnol.,’ vol. x. p.  401 (Wakamba). ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p. 48
(Zulus). Merolla da Sorrento, _loc. cit._ p. 235 (Negroes of Sogno).
Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol. iv. p. 315 (Thlinkets).
_Cf._ Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 56 (Yurok); Lewin, _loc. cit._ p. 235
(Mrús); Livingstone, ‘Missionary Travels,’ p. 412 (Negroes of Angola).

[3387] v. Haxthausen, ‘Transcaucasia,’ p. 404 (Ossetes). Klemm,
‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iv. pp. 26, _et seq._ (Circassians).
Harkness, _loc. cit._ p. 117 (Badagas). Crawfurd, _loc. cit._ vol. iii.
p. 101 (Malays). Merolla da Sorrento, p. 235 (Negroes of Sogno). ‘Das
Ausland,’ 1881, p. 1026 (Negroes of Bondo). Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc.
Sci. Fennicæ,’ vol iv. p. 315 (Thlinkets).

[3388] Casalis, _loc. cit._ p. 184.

[3389] Finsch, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xii. p. 317.

[3390] Munda Kols (Jellinghaus, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol.
iii. p. 370), Todas (Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 218), Bedouins (Klemm,
‘Cultur-Geschichte,’ vol. iv. p. 150), Tartars (Georgi, _loc. cit_.
p. 238), East Africans (Burton, ‘The Lake Regions of Central Africa,’
vol. ii. p. 333).

[3391] Aleuts (Georgi, _loc. cit._ p. 370), Dacotahs (Schoolcraft,
_loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 240), Nukahivans (v. Langsdorf, _loc. cit._
vol. i. p.  153), Papuans of New Guinea (Bink, in ‘Bull. Soc.
d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 397).

[3392] Turner, ‘Samoa,’ p. 97.

[3393] Pridham, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  253. _Cf._ Bancroft, _loc.
cit._ vol. ii. p. 672 (Yucatan).

[3394] Greenlanders (Cranz, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  148), Thlinkets
(Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 328), Inland Columbians (Bancroft,
_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  277), Apaches (_ibid._, vol. i. p.  513),
Iroquois (Buchanan, ‘North American Indians,’ pp. 338, _et seq._),
Gallinomero in California (Powers, _loc. cit._ p. 178), and other
North American Indians (Waitz, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 105), Caribs
(_ibid._, vol. iii. p. 383), Payaguas (Azara, _loc. cit._ vol. ii.
p. 132), Marianne Islanders (Waitz-Gerland, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 107),
Tongans (Martin, _loc. cit._ vol. ii. p. 179), Khasias (Steel, in
‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. vii. p. 308. Dalton, _loc. cit._ p. 57).

[3395] Schoolcraft, _loc. cit._ vol. iii. p. 191.

[3396] Katscher, _loc. cit._ p. 91. Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ p. 401.

[3397] Bourien, in ‘Trans. Ethn. Soc.,’ N.S. vol. iii. p. 80. _Cf._
St. John, _ibid._, vol. p. 237; Mason, in ‘Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,’
vol. xxxv. pt. ii. p. 20.

[3398] Lane Poole, in ‘The Academy,’ vol. v. p.  684.

[3399] Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  215.

[3400] Mr. Crawfurd (_loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  79) points out the
connection, in Java, between the frequency of women deserting
their husbands and the abundance of food; the laboriousness and
industriousness of the women, who can earn a subsistence independent of
a husband, and the tameness and servileness of the men.

[3401] Crawfurd, vol. iii. p. 101 (Malays). Marsden, _loc. cit._ p.
235 (Rejangs). Riedel, in ‘Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,’ vol. xvii. p. 78
(Galela). Watt, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,’ vol. xvi. p. 355 (Kaupuis).
Rowney, _loc. cit._ p. 136 (Kerantis). Marshall, _loc. cit._ p. 217
(Todas). Harkness, _loc. cit._ p. 117 (Badagas). Waitz, _loc. cit._
vol. ii. p. 120 (Negroes).

[3402] Mohammedans (Lane, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  139), Badagas
(Harkness, p. 117).

[3403] Bickmore, _loc. cit._ p. 279. _Cf._ ‘Das Ausland,’ 1881, p.
569; Raffles, _loc. cit._ vol. i. p.  81 (Javanese).

[3404] Burckhardt, _loc. cit._ p. 63. Chavanne, ‘Die Sahara,’ pp. 454,
_et seq._

[3405] Of articles in periodicals only some of the more important have
been included in this list.




      *      *      *      *      *      *




Transcriber’s note:

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.

Variations in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but
all other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

The original contained at least eight unpaired double quotation
marks that could not be corrected with confidence.

The precise location of footnote 372 is speculative since it is not
indicated in the original.

Incomplete entries in the index remain as printed in the original.