If diligently

it can scarcely be said to be even very common. 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." 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." 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.3 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."4 We may thus take for granted that polyandry, although frequently practised in certain parts of India and Central Asia,5 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

1 Stulpnagel, in 'The Indian Antiquary,' vol. vii. p. 135.

2 Cunningham, ‘Ladák,' p. 306.

3 Dunlop, loc. cit. pp. 180. et seq.

4 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.

5 Mr. Wilson says (loc. cit. p. 207) that it is probably the common marriage custom of at least thirty millions of respectable people.

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?"1 And in the Aitareya Brâhmana' we read that "one man has many wives, but one wife has not many husbands at the same time.”2 Indeed, with the exception of the Massagetae, 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.3 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."4

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

1 Wheeler, 'The History of India,' vol. ii. p. 241.

2 Dutt, in 'The Calcutta Review,' vol. lxxxv. p. 266.

3 Erman, in 'Zeitschr. f. Ethnol.,' vol. iii. p. 163. Holmberg, in ‘Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicæ,' vol. iv. p. 399.

4 Lisiansky, loc. cit. p. 83.

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. In Kamaon, too, where the brothers of a family all marry one wife, the children are attributed to the eldest brother. The same is the case in the Jounsar district, as it was formerly with the Massagetae.3 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. Among the ancient Britons, as described by Cæsar, the children were regarded as belonging to him who had first taken the virgin to wife. 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. 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." 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. Speaking of the Khyoungtha, a Chittagong Hill tribe, Captain Lewin observes, "After marriage a younger brother is allowed to touch the hand, to

7

1 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. 2 Balfour, loc. cit. vol. iii. p. 246.

3 Dunlop, loc. cit. p. 181.

Rémusat, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 245. 4 Strabo, loc. cit. book xvi. ch. iv. p. 782.

5 Cæsar, loc. cit. book v. ch. 14.

6 Ganzenmüller, 'Tibet,' p. 87.

7 Marshall, loc. cit. p. 213.

8 Balfour, vol. iii. p. 251.

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." In this custom there is perhaps a trace of ancient polyandry.

1

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.

1

1 Lewin, loc. cit. p. 130. Cf. Man, loc. cit. p. 100.

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.1 Among the Kutchin, according to Kirby, women form the minority; and they seem to hold the same position among the Upper Californians and Western Eskimo.3 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. The cenof 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

sus

1 Meares, loc. cit. p. 268.

2 Kirby, in 'Smith. Rep.,' 1864, p. 418.

3 Coulter, 'Notes on Upper California,' in 'Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc.,' vol. v. p. 67. Seemann, 'Voyage of Herald, vol. ii. p. 66.

4 King, in 'Jour. Ethn. Soc. London,' vol. i. p. 152. Lisiansky, loc. cit. p. 237. Powers, loc. cit. p. 243.