wife was a relative and a free woman,” and would, in some instances, long survive the social condition to which they owed their origin. 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. 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." 3

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, the Laplanders in Regnard's days, and the Hill Tribes of North Aracan. 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.

1 Lubbock, loc. cit. p. 539.

2 See Giraud-Teulon, loc. cit. p. 44.

3 McLennan, loc. cit. p. 343.

4 Juan and Ulloa, 'Voyage to South America,' in Pinkerton, 'Collection of Voyages,' vol. xiv. p. 521.

Regnard, loc. cit. p. 166.

St. Andrew St. John, The Hill Tribes of North Aracan,' in 'Jour. Anthr. Inst.,' vol. ii. p. 239.

G

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."1

The most primitive form of the classificatory group is the system of the "Malayan family," which prevails among the Hawaiians, Kingsmill Islanders, Maoris, and, presumably, also among several other Polynesian and Micronesian tribes.3 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.1

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

1 Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family,' p. 12.

2' Malayan,' as Mr. Wallace remarks, is a bad term, as this system does not occur among true Malays. 3 Morgan, pp. 450, et seq.

4 Idem, 'Ancient Society,' pp. 403, et seq. Idem, 'Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,' pp. 482, et seq.

G 2

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.1 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." 2

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 2 Ibid., p. 196.

1 Lubbock, loc. cit. p. 184.

is to be regarded as having a natural origin." 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. 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.” s

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 bloodrelationship, 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. 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;5 the Uaraguaçu, respectively, "paptko" and "mamko." In other languages the terms for father are "ab," " aba," " apa," 1 Morgan, 'Systems,' &c., p. 488.

2 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). 3 Ibid., p. 502. Cf. Morgan, 'Systems,' &c., pp. 487, et seq.

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. 5 v. Martius, loc. cit. vol. ii. pp. 10, 9.

6

Ibid., vol. ii. p. 18.