Читать книгу A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3) - George Elliott Howard - Страница 19

Table of Contents

From the preceding analysis it will appear, we trust, that scientific examination of the problems of kinship and exogamy has disclosed something of the real origin of the laws which govern human sexual relations. The searching criticism to which the theory of polyandry has been subjected, in connection with the opposite custom of polygyny, carries us still nearer the truth. For, in the light of recent research, it does not seem entirely hopeless to discover a trace of the actual sequence in which, according to natural law, the general forms of marriage and the family have been evolved.

According to McLennan, it will be remembered, polyandry originates in a scarcity of women due to female infanticide; and it is a universal phase of social progress through which transition is made from promiscuity and the system of kinship in the female line to the paternal system and higher types of family life. Furthermore, he seems to think, though on this point he is not very clear,[399] that polygyny may grow out of polyandry through the practice of capturing wives. This theory has by no means gone unchallenged.[400] It has been shown, in the first place, that the extent to which the custom of polyandry has prevailed is greatly exaggerated. Though it is found among various peoples in different parts of the world, its occurrence is on the whole comparatively rare; and the practice is much less extended than that of polygyny. Its former existence cannot be inferred from such customs as the niyoga and the levirate; for these are capable of simpler explanation.[401] It is highly probable, as Starcke urges, that they are merely expedients for procuring an heir or for conveniently regulating the succession to property and authority,[402] particularly in the joint family; but there is no good reason to doubt that Spencer's explanation is adequate in some cases. "Under early social systems," he declares, "wives, being regarded as property," are inherited like other possessions.[403] The procuring of an heir through a brother or some other third person harmonizes with the "juridical character of fatherhood among primitive men."[404]

Again, not only is the general extent of polyandry limited, but even where it exists it is confined in almost every case "to a very small part of the population."[405] It is sometimes restricted to the poorer classes, sometimes to the rich; and nearly always it is found side by side with polygyny or monogamy. There is another limitation, already noticed, which tells very strongly against the theory of its origin in promiscuity. Polyandry usually shows a tendency in the direction of monogamy. Sometimes each of the husbands lives with the wife during a certain period, while the others are absent; or frequently, "as one, usually the first married, wife in polygynous families is the chief wife;" so also, "one, usually the first, husband in polyandrous families is the chief husband." In him authority and the property are vested, and all the children, even, are feigned to be his.[406]

In opposition to the theory of McLennan various explanations of the origin of polyandry have been advanced. Spencer regards both polygyny and polyandry as mere limitations of promiscuity. "Promiscuity may be called indefinite polyandry joined with indefinite polygyny; and one mode of advance is by diminution of the indefiniteness." Polyandry, therefore, does not originate in scarcity of women; nor can it be due to poverty; "though poverty may, in some cases, be the cause of its continuance and spread." It is rather one of several independent "types of marital relations emerging from the primitive unregulated state; and one which has survived where competing forms, not favored by the conditions, have failed to extinguish it."[407] Hellwald holds a similar view.[408] Robertson Smith traces its origin to the practice of capturing or of purchasing wives in common by a group of kinsmen; and in the case of purchase, poverty or the high price of women must have exerted a favorable influence.[409] Not entirely dissimilar is the view of Wake who, rejecting the hypothesis of McLennan, believes that polyandry can be satisfactorily explained "only as being established, under the pressure of poverty, either independently or as an offshoot from the phase of punaluan group marriage in which several brothers have their wives in common."[410] Starcke in like manner finds that it "is adapted in every respect to this organization of the joint family group." In its highest forms "it is only the eldest brother who is married," and "the younger ones are not husbands, but merely specially authorized lovers. There is nothing to indicate that the band of brothers, as such, take a wife in common; that is, that the marriage is the act of the whole community." Hence "polyandry belongs to the category of facts which have to do with the ordinary family communism;" and it does not forfeit its character of a marriage in which the individual does not quite lose his personality in the group.[411]

More satisfactory, from a scientific point of view, is the result of Westermarck's inquiry. This is so, not only because we feel that he is probably right in his conclusion, but because his argument affords an excellent illustration of the success with which the statistical method may be applied to social questions. The way for a solution of the problem had been prepared by McLennan and his critics. They had established a strong probability that poverty and scarcity of women are in some intimate way connected with polyandry. Westermarck shows that there is, in fact, a close relation, but that relation is a consequence of natural selection. The ultimate causes of polyandry, he demonstrates, are identical with the forces which have produced a numerical disparity between the sexes.[412] First of all the assumption[413] that "monogamy is the natural form of human marriage because there is an almost equal number of men and women," is proved to be untenable by an appeal to the statistics of population, which reveal a considerable variation in the numerical proportion of the sexes. Among many peoples the men are greatly in majority; among others there is a corresponding surplus of women. This disparity is in part easily explainable by referring to the varying conditions of life among different peoples. The "preponderance of women," for instance, "depends to a great extent upon the higher mortality of men" due chiefly to the "destructive influence of war" and the other dangers and hardships to which primitive men are exposed. On the other hand, the surplus of men may, in some degree, be ascribed to female infanticide and, still more, to the severe labor and harsh treatment which usually fall to the lot of women among low races.[414]

But such causes are by no means entirely adequate to account for the numerical inequality of the sexes. For, in the second place, statistics show a considerable disparity between them at birth. "Among some peoples more boys are born, among others more girls; and the surplus is often considerable." With the Todas, for instance, are found about 100 boys to 80 girls under fourteen years of age;[415] while in Mesopotamia, Armenia, Syria, the Arabias, the Holy Land, and in various other portions of Asia, two, three, or even four women to one man are born.[416] "In Europe, the average male births outnumber the female by about five per cent.... But the rate varies in 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."[417]

At this point Westermarck finds it necessary to consider the problem of the "causes which determine the sex of the offspring." The view that sex is influenced either by the relative or by the absolute age of the parents is untenable;[418] nor can the theory be accepted that "polygyny leads to the birth of a greater proportion of female infants."[419] The theory of Düsing, however, must be regarded as the most probable explanation which has yet been advanced.[420] 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."[421] The observations of Ploss[422] and others[423] appear to sustain Düsing's hypothesis. Wherever nourishment is scarce there seems to be a surplus of male births. Such is the case in highlands as compared with lowlands; among the poor as compared with the rich; in sterile regions as compared with those that are more fertile. Furthermore, Düsing has suggested a second cause due also to natural selection, which influences the numerical proportion of the sexes born; and his conclusion is confirmed by the researches of Westermarck. Mixture of race among animals and plants appears to cause a surplus of female births;[424] while, on the contrary, incestuous unions, being injurious to the species, "have a tendency to produce an excess of male offspring."[425] So, among half-breeds, the number of girls usually predominates;[426] while among in-and-in bred plants, animals, or men the reverse is the case. Hence it seems 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."[427]

Now, it is a significant fact that polyandrous peoples show a tendency to close intermarriage among kindred; while polyandrous countries are notoriously poor. "The Todas of the Neilgherry Hills," for instance, "are probably the most in-and-in bred people of whom anything is known," and among them "the disproportion between male and female births is strikingly in favour of the males." But the "coincidence of polyandry with poverty of material resources" cannot depend, as often asserted, "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." For only in Tibet, with her nunneries, among such peoples, is there found a class of unmarried women, and polyandry is often seen in rich families; while in Ceylon "it prevails chiefly among the wealthier classes." With pastoral and agricultural peoples poverty would be no reason for the avoidance of individual marriage, since women are valuable for their labor and "fully earn their own subsistence." In some districts of the Himalayas, we are told, "it is the poor who prefer polygamy, on account of the value of the women as household drudges."[428]

Accordingly as a general result of his argument, Westermarck concludes that there is some reason to believe that polyandry originates in a surplus of men "due, on the one hand, to poor conditions of life, on the other, to close inter-marrying. As a matter of fact, the chief polyandrous peoples either live in sterile mountain regions, or are endogamous in a very high degree."[429] It does not follow, however, that a surplus of men will always produce polyandry, any more than a plurality of women will always lead to polygyny. Other conditions must be favorable. "This practice presupposes," for instance, "an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy;" and this is actually a "peculiarity of all peoples among whom polyandry occurs."[430]

The evidence adduced seems conclusive that polyandry holds a relatively unimportant place in the sociological history of mankind. It is not of frequent occurrence; it is usually modified in the direction of monogamy; and it always implies a considerable progress in civilization. The case is much the same with polygyny.[431] It is not a mere limitation of promiscuity, as some writers believe,[432] but usually makes its appearance comparatively late in social history. It is found side by side with polyandry and does not grow out of it, as McLennan supposes. Finally, like polyandry, its importance as a form of sexual relations has been greatly magnified. True, polygyny is much more widely dispersed than polyandry, being found perhaps among the majority of races both in ancient and modern times.[433] Its rise is particularly favored by the economic and social forces which produce the patriarchal system.[434] But, on the other hand, among many barbarous peoples it is "almost unknown or even prohibited." Monogamy appears to be the prevailing form of the family precisely among peoples least advanced in general culture and particularly in the economic arts.[435] It is highly significant, to take a single example, that among the Dravidian Veddahs of Ceylon, commonly regarded as anatomically and intellectually among the most backward races of mankind, monogamous unions last until death dissolves them. To those still untouched by foreign influences polyandry and polygyny are entirely unknown. There is no prostitution. Conjugal fidelity is remarkable. Free courtship exists. Children are treated with kindness; and in general the Sarasin brothers present a picture of pleasing domestic life among this singular people.[436]

Where polygyny exists it is sometimes the chiefs alone who are "permitted to have a plurality of wives." Besides, just as in the case of polyandry, "almost everywhere it is confined to a very small part of the people, the majority being monogamous." It is so "among all Mohammedan peoples, in Asia and Europe, as well as in Africa." Ninety-five per cent. of the Mohammedans of India, for instance, are said to be monogamists; and in Persia, it is reported, only "two per cent. of the population enjoy the questionable luxury of a plurality of wives." Among the American aborigines monogamy is the rule. Although polygyny widely exists among them, seldom are more than two wives found.[437] Indeed the numerical proportion of the sexes throughout the world renders it impossible for polygyny to become the general practice.[438]

Polygyny, like polyandry, is modified in several ways in the direction of monogamy. Often, as in Africa[439] and among many American peoples, a "higher position is given to one of the wives, generally the first married." She possesses superior authority and becomes the real mistress of the household. Thus, according to Waitz, among the Eskimo a second wife is seldom taken unless the first is childless; but in polygynous families the first wife has domestic precedence. The same is true generally of the red Indians of the north-west coast.[440] Among the Siouan tribes the bride's sisters sometimes become subordinate wives;[441] and usually where there are several, according to Dorsey, the first wife and the last are "the favorites, all others being regarded as servants."[442] The principal Indians among the Brazilian Tupinambás, says Souza, "have more than one wife, and he who has most wives is the most honored and esteemed; but they all yield obedience to the eldest wife and all serve her." She "has her hammock tied up next to that of her husband, and between the two there is always a fire burning."[443] Among various peoples it is required "that the first wife shall be of the husband's rank, whilst the succeeding wives may be of lower birth." Sometimes, as among the Chinese, the ancient Hebrews, and the kings of early Egypt, the secondary wives really hold the position of concubines.[444] Frequently the husband has a favorite whom he treats especially as his wife; or conversely, as among the Abipones,[445] he is "bound by custom or law to cohabit with his wives in turn." Finally, it is important to note that everywhere bigamy, or rather duogamy, is the "most common form of polygyny, and a multitude of wives is the luxury of a few despotic rulers or very wealthy men."[446]

Let us next consider the causes which favor the rise of polygyny. It is highly probable, in countries "unaffected by European civilization," that a surplus of women has exerted an influence in its favor.[447] Thus in India polygyny is found among peoples where there is a plurality of women, and polyandry where the reverse is the case.[448] Among the Kafirs and the aboriginal tribes of North America polygyny usually appears only where the women outnumber the men.[449] This disparity of the sexes may sometimes be due to the ravages of war;[450] but it is more likely, as in the case of polyandry, that it owes its origin to natural selection, abundance of nourishment tending to produce an excess of female births. Polygyny also arises from calculation. According to Wake, "abundance may be said to be the chief inducement to the practice;" and, as a matter of fact, it is usually the wealthier persons among polygynous peoples who indulge in the luxury of many wives.[451] Poverty and the approximate equality of the sexes, Spencer holds, are the natural restrictions of polygyny.[452] Again, "superior strength of body and energy of mind, which gained certain men predominance as warriors and chiefs, also gave them more power of securing women; either by stealing them from other tribes or by wresting them from men of their own tribe."[453] In this way the possession of a number of wives would become a mark of distinction. Consequently polygyny sometimes appears as the special privilege of the ruler or of a class; and, as Spencer suggests, from its association with greatness it may gain popular approbation, just as monogamy may be thought "mean" from its association with poverty. "Even the religious sanction is sometimes joined with the ethical sanction," as among the Chippewayans.[454]

Various other reasons for the rise and spread of polygyny have been advanced. Among these are the motives arising in passion, such as man's love of beauty[455] and variety, and his unwillingness to practice abstinence in certain seasons.[456] More powerful than these is the "desire for offspring, wealth, and authority." In certain stages of advancement the more children a man has, the greater are his power and distinction. His "fortune is increased by a multitude of wives not only through their children, but through their labour."[457] For this reason, in some cases where jealousy is weak, women cling to polygyny; since by sharing the toil with others they hope that its burden may be lessened.[458] Spencer assigns another cause of the rise of polygyny which has enabled it to hold its ground even against the superior type, monogamy. For "under rude conditions," he believes that "it conduces in a higher degree to social self-preservation." The loss of population sustained by the ravages of war are thus repaired. A bias in favor of polygyny may be founded which will even come to be sustained by natural selection. "In a barbarous community formed of some wifeless men, others who have one wife each, and others who have more than one, it must on the average happen that this last class will be relatively superior—the stronger and more courageous among savages, and among semi-civilized peoples the wealthier also, who are mostly the more capable. Hence, ordinarily, a greater number of offspring will be left by men having natures of the kind needed. The society will be rendered ... not only numerically stronger, but more of its units will be efficient warriors." Furthermore, there will be a "structural advance" as compared with lower types of the family. Paternity is certain; and, where descent is traced in the male line, "inheritance of power by sons becomes possible; and, where it arises, government is better maintained." The family cohesion is greater; and "this definite descent in the male line aids the development of ancestor-worship; and so serves in another way to consolidate society."[459] For these reasons chiefly he regards polygyny as a type of marriage higher than polyandry; though he remarks that, "were it not for the ideas of sacredness associated with that Hebrew history which in childhood familiarized us with examples of polygyny, we should probably feel as much surprise and repugnance on first reading about it as we do on first reading about polyandry."[460] But this is too favorable an estimate of the relative social value of polygyny. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether morally and physically it is more favorable to the offspring than polyandry; and it is almost certain that it is far worse in its effects upon the home and condition of women.[461] This fact alone, when considered in all its consequences, far outweighs the alleged relative structural advantages of polygyny, which besides have not been conclusively established.

But, as a rule, neither polygyny nor polyandry is favored by woman, in whom the passion of jealousy is very strongly developed. "Polygyny is an offence against the feelings of women, not only among highly civilized peoples, but even among the rudest savages." It is a noteworthy fact that "among monogamous savage or barbarous races the position of women is comparatively good;"[462] while, on the other hand, polygyny is in almost every way degrading to the female sex.[463] Accordingly, under influence of ideas and sentiments favoring the freedom and dignity of woman, both polygyny and polyandry must yield to individual marriage. With woman in its favor monogamy could never be entirely superseded as the type of human marriage. "Polygamy must disappear as soon as a growing development brings into play permanent motives and fundamental forces."[464] Among these forces is the "idea of procreative conditions" entering into the conception of fatherhood. From this follow chastity on the part of the wife, and consequently a limit to the sexual liberty of the husband. Out of this also sprang ancestor-worship, a powerful force in differentiating the monogamic household. "Even in primitive times, the character, or soul—the inward, mysterious being—of the father was supposed to decide the character of the child.... The joy excited by the excellent qualities of a child was first aroused in the breast of a primitive man when that child owed its being to himself, and its excellence was a proof of the excellence of its begetter, that is, of himself. I venture to assert that even now this idea plays the strongest part in what we call the voice of blood.... Vanity, a sentiment which is often condemned, yet not always blameworthy, finds sustenance in the most trivial occurrences of everyday life from the thought, 'Here I trace myself; the child has inherited that tendency from me.'"[465] With advancing culture and the growth of altruism it is inevitable that monogamy should assert its right to prevail over all other forms of the family which have yet appeared among mankind.

So we come back to the starting-point. The complex phenomena of human sexual relations have been examined in the light of scientific criticism and recent research. The result seems unmistakably to show that pairing has always been the typical form of human marriage. Early monogamy takes its rise beyond the border-line separating man from the lower animals. But, considering the aberrations from the type, development has been in a circle.[466] At the dawn of human history individual marriage prevails, though the union is not always lasting. In later stages of advancement, under the influence of property, social organization, social distinctions, and the motives to which they gave rise, various forms of polyandry and polygyny make their appearance, though monogamy as the type is never superseded. "Nothing, indeed, is more favourable to polygyny," says Westermarck, "than social differentiation."[467] In its "highest and regulated form," declares Morgan, "it presupposes a considerable advance of society, together with the development of superior and inferior classes, and of some kinds of wealth."[468] Furthermore there is direct evidence in some cases that a transition from monogamy has actually occurred.[469] At a still more advanced stage of culture, under pressure of those influences which have led to the social elevation of woman, polygyny yields in turn to monogamy. "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."[470] But the later monogamy differs from the earlier in one important characteristic. The primitive monogamy "is not a form of marriage which can be regarded as the expression of a marriage law; that is, it is not a form of marriage which is striving for the mastery, and which cannot tolerate other co-existent forms of marriage. On the other hand the later monogamy, which arises from a distinct condemnation of polygamy, or from a secret aversion to it, is characterized by self-assertion, and seeks to exclude other forms of marriage."[471]

For a full understanding of the evolution, which has here been sketched in outline, there remains, however, a fact of primary importance to which but casual reference has thus far been made: the element of contract in the marriage relation. This fact will receive some consideration in the next chapter.