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;1 why it is greater in rural districts than in towns; and why it was greater in Sweden in the middle of the last century than it is now. 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 and the ass in southern countries, for instance, rut throughout the whole year. The domestic pig pairs generally twice a year, while its wild ancestors had but one rutting season. Dr. Hermann Müller has even observed a canary that laid eggs in autumn and winter. 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.

1 Wappaus, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 247.

2 Ibid., vol. i. p. 246. Quetelet, loc. cit. p. 20.

Bertillon, in 'Diction

naire encyclopédique des sciences médicales,' ser. ii. vol. xi. p. 480.

3 Wappaus, vol. i. p. 343.

4 Brehm, 'Thierleben,' vol. iii. p. 333.

5 Ibid., vol. iii. p. 43.

Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 557, 549.

7 Müller, loc. cit. pp. 2, 86, 104. I myself know of a canary that laid eggs as early as March.

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.1 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.2 This inference has been drawn chiefly from

1 Peschel, 'The Races of Man,' pp. 229, et seq.

2 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.

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 étroits que ceux qui le rattachent à sa femme et à ses propres enfants. I 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." 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."2 Among the Goajiro Indians, the Negroes of Bondo, the Barea, and the Bazes, 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." Among the Savaras in India, the bridegroom has to give a bullock not only to the girl's father, but to the maternal uncle; whilst among the Creeks, the proxy of the suitor asked for the con

4

1 Giraud-Teulon, loc. cit. pp. 199, et seq.

2 Kovalevsky,' Tableau des origines de la famille,' pp. 21, et seq.

3 Bastian, Die Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde,' p. 181.

4' Das Ausland,' 1881, p. 1026.

5 Munzinger, 'Ostafrikanische Studien,' p. 528.

Cain, 'The Bhadrachellam and Rekapalli Taluqas,' in 'The Indian Antiquary,' vol. viii. p. 34. 7 Dalton, loc. cit. p. 150.

sent of the uncles, aunts, and brothers of the young woman, "the father having no voice or authority in the business."1

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." 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,3 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 1 Schoolcraft, loc. cit. vol. v. p. 268. Cf. Bartram, 'The Creek and Cherokee Indians,' in 'Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,' vol. iii. pt. p. 65. 2 Codrington, 'The Melanesians,' p. 34. Cf. Curr, loc. cit. vol. i. pp. 60, 62, 69.

3 Kautsky, 'Die Entstehung der Ehe und Familie,' in 'Kosmos,' vol. xii. p. 198.

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.1 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." 2 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.

3

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; and Mr. Reade says expressly that they are not gregarious, though they sometimes seem to assemble in large numbers. Both Mr. Du Chaillu 5 and Herr von Koppenfels assure us likewise that the Gorilla generally lives in pairs or families.

6

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." 7 This statement, confirmed or repeated by Mr. Du ChailluR and Professor Hartmann, is especially interesting, as the Chim1 Cf. Tylor, 'Primitive Society,' in 'The Contemporary Review,' vol. xxi. pp. 711, et seq.

2 Darwin, 'The Descent of Man,' vol. i. p. 166.

3 Savage, 'Description of Troglodytes Gorilla,' p. 9.

4 Reade, loc. cit. p. 220.

6 'Die Gartenlaube,' 1877, p. 418.

5 Du Chaillu, loc. cit. p. 349.

7 Savage, in 'Boston Journal of Natural History,' vol. iv. pp. 384, et seq. 8 Du Chaillu, p. 358.

9 Hartmann, loc. cit. p. 221: Dieses Thier lebt in einzelnen Familien oder in kleinern Gruppen von solchen beieinander.'