A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3). George Elliott Howard
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