gynous 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.1 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.2 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. Among the Mishmis, the heir obtains the wives, with the exception of his own mother, who goes to the next male relation. 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." 5 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 -no doubt because the brother, being older and more experienced, is generally better fitted for command than the son.7 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. "It is obvious," he 1 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). 6 2 Brough Smyth, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 97, note. 3 Bosman, p. 528. 4 Dalton, loc. cit. p. 16. 6 McLennan, 'The Patriarchal Theory,' p. 89. 7 Cf. Maine, Ancient Law,' p. 241. 5 Shooter, loc. cit. p. 86. 8 Hebrews (Deuteronomy,' ch. xxv. vv. 5-10), Hindus ('The Laws of Manu,' ch. ix. vv. 59-63), Ossetes (v. Haxthausen, 'Transcaucasia,' p. L L 1 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." 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.2 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." 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. And, among the Kafirs of Natal, the children of a deceased man's widow born in marriage with his brother, belong to his son.5 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 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. Moreover, though 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.' 1 McLennan, 'Studies,' &c., p. 113. 2 Starcke, loc. cit. ch. iii. 3 Bink, in 'Bull. Soc. d'Anthr.,' ser iii. vol. xi. p. 395. 4 Turner,' Samoa,' p. 98. 6 McLennan, p. 91. 5 Shooter, loc. cit. p. 86. 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.1 Among the Sinhalese, says Dr. Davy, jealousy is not very troublesome among the men, and the infidelity of a woman is generally easily forgiven.2 The people of Ladakh are a mild, timid, and indolent race. The Kulu husbands "sont très peu jaloux." 4 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." The Tibetans are represented as very little addicted to jealousy, being, as Mr. Wilson remarks, a race of a peculiarly placid and unpassionate temperament. 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 1 Lyon, loc. cit. p. 355. 2 Davy, loc. cit. p. 287. 3 Moorcroft and Trebeck, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 321. 4 de Ujfalvy, in 'Bull. Soc. d'Anthr.,' ser. iii. vol. v. p. 228. Fraser, loc. cit. p. 208. Bogle, loc. cit. p. 123. 7 Wilson, loc. cit. p. 212. 1 neighbours." 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." 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.3 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 groupmarriage of the Toda type seems to have been evolved. 1 Bailey, in 'Trans. Ethn. Soc.,' N.S. vol. ii. p. 292. 2 Fraser, loc. cit. p. 209. 3 v. Humboldt, 'Personal Narrative,' vol. i. p. 83. 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,1 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. 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." 3 The same is said of certain Papuans of New Guinea, and of several tribes of the Indian Archipelago who have remained in their native state, and continue to follow ancient custom.5 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. 1 Brehm, 'Thierleben,' vol. iv. p. 20. 2 3 Man, in 'Jour. Anthr. Inst.,' vol. xii. p. 135. Ibid., vol. i. p. 33. 5 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. Bailey, in 'Trans. Ethn. Soc.,' N.S. vol. ii. p. 293. |