A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3). George Elliott Howard
as a general result of his argument, Westermarck concludes that there is some reason to believe that polyandry originates in a surplus of men "due, on the one hand, to poor conditions of life, on the other, to close inter-marrying. As a matter of fact, the chief polyandrous peoples either live in sterile mountain regions, or are endogamous in a very high degree."[429] It does not follow, however, that a surplus of men will always produce polyandry, any more than a plurality of women will always lead to polygyny. Other conditions must be favorable. "This practice presupposes," for instance, "an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy;" and this is actually a "peculiarity of all peoples among whom polyandry occurs."[430]
The evidence adduced seems conclusive that polyandry holds a relatively unimportant place in the sociological history of mankind. It is not of frequent occurrence; it is usually modified in the direction of monogamy; and it always implies a considerable progress in civilization. The case is much the same with polygyny.[431] It is not a mere limitation of promiscuity, as some writers believe,[432] but usually makes its appearance comparatively late in social history. It is found side by side with polyandry and does not grow out of it, as McLennan supposes. Finally, like polyandry, its importance as a form of sexual relations has been greatly magnified. True, polygyny is much more widely dispersed than polyandry, being found perhaps among the majority of races both in ancient and modern times.[433] Its rise is particularly favored by the economic and social forces which produce the patriarchal system.[434] But, on the other hand, among many barbarous peoples it is "almost unknown or even prohibited." Monogamy appears to be the prevailing form of the family precisely among peoples least advanced in general culture and particularly in the economic arts.[435] It is highly significant, to take a single example, that among the Dravidian Veddahs of Ceylon, commonly regarded as anatomically and intellectually among the most backward races of mankind, monogamous unions last until death dissolves them. To those still untouched by foreign influences polyandry and polygyny are entirely unknown. There is no prostitution. Conjugal fidelity is remarkable. Free courtship exists. Children are treated with kindness; and in general the Sarasin brothers present a picture of pleasing domestic life among this singular people.[436]
Where polygyny exists it is sometimes the chiefs alone who are "permitted to have a plurality of wives." Besides, just as in the case of polyandry, "almost everywhere it is confined to a very small part of the people, the majority being monogamous." It is so "among all Mohammedan peoples, in Asia and Europe, as well as in Africa." Ninety-five per cent. of the Mohammedans of India, for instance, are said to be monogamists; and in Persia, it is reported, only "two per cent. of the population enjoy the questionable luxury of a plurality of wives." Among the American aborigines monogamy is the rule. Although polygyny widely exists among them, seldom are more than two wives found.[437] Indeed the numerical proportion of the sexes throughout the world renders it impossible for polygyny to become the general practice.[438]
Polygyny, like polyandry, is modified in several ways in the direction of monogamy. Often, as in Africa[439] and among many American peoples, a "higher position is given to one of the wives, generally the first married." She possesses superior authority and becomes the real mistress of the household. Thus, according to Waitz, among the Eskimo a second wife is seldom taken unless the first is childless; but in polygynous families the first wife has domestic precedence. The same is true generally of the red Indians of the north-west coast.[440] Among the Siouan tribes the bride's sisters sometimes become subordinate wives;[441] and usually where there are several, according to Dorsey, the first wife and the last are "the favorites, all others being regarded as servants."[442] The principal Indians among the Brazilian Tupinambás, says Souza, "have more than one wife, and he who has most wives is the most honored and esteemed; but they all yield obedience to the eldest wife and all serve her." She "has her hammock tied up next to that of her husband, and between the two there is always a fire burning."[443] Among various peoples it is required "that the first wife shall be of the husband's rank, whilst the succeeding wives may be of lower birth." Sometimes, as among the Chinese, the ancient Hebrews, and the kings of early Egypt, the secondary wives really hold the position of concubines.[444] Frequently the husband has a favorite whom he treats especially as his wife; or conversely, as among the Abipones,[445] he is "bound by custom or law to cohabit with his wives in turn." Finally, it is important to note that everywhere bigamy, or rather duogamy, is the "most common form of polygyny, and a multitude of wives is the luxury of a few despotic rulers or very wealthy men."[446]
Let us next consider the causes which favor the rise of polygyny. It is highly probable, in countries "unaffected by European civilization," that a surplus of women has exerted an influence in its favor.[447] Thus in India polygyny is found among peoples where there is a plurality of women, and polyandry where the reverse is the case.[448] Among the Kafirs and the aboriginal tribes of North America polygyny usually appears only where the women outnumber the men.[449] This disparity of the sexes may sometimes be due to the ravages of war;[450] but it is more likely, as in the case of polyandry, that it owes its origin to natural selection, abundance of nourishment tending to produce an excess of female births. Polygyny also arises from calculation. According to Wake, "abundance may be said to be the chief inducement to the practice;" and, as a matter of fact, it is usually the wealthier persons among polygynous peoples who indulge in the luxury of many wives.[451] Poverty and the approximate equality of the sexes, Spencer holds, are the natural restrictions of polygyny.[452] Again, "superior strength of body and energy of mind, which gained certain men predominance as warriors and chiefs, also gave them more power of securing women; either by stealing them from other tribes or by wresting them from men of their own tribe."[453] In this way the possession of a number of wives would become a mark of distinction. Consequently polygyny sometimes appears as the special privilege of the ruler or of a class; and, as Spencer suggests, from its association with greatness it may gain popular approbation, just as monogamy may be thought "mean" from its association with poverty. "Even the religious sanction is sometimes joined with the ethical sanction," as among the Chippewayans.[454]
Various other reasons for the rise and spread of polygyny have been advanced. Among these are the motives arising in passion, such as man's love of beauty[455] and variety, and his unwillingness to practice abstinence in certain seasons.[456] More powerful than these is the "desire for offspring, wealth, and authority." In certain stages of advancement the more children a man has, the greater are his power and distinction. His "fortune is increased by a multitude of wives not only through their children, but through their labour."[457] For this reason, in some cases where jealousy is weak, women cling to polygyny; since by sharing the toil with others they hope that its burden may be lessened.[458] Spencer assigns another cause of the rise of polygyny which has enabled it to hold its ground even against the superior type, monogamy. For "under rude conditions," he believes that "it conduces in a higher degree to social self-preservation." The loss of population sustained by the ravages of war are thus repaired. A bias in favor of polygyny may be founded which will even come to be sustained by natural selection. "In a barbarous community formed of some wifeless men, others who have one wife each, and others who have more than one, it must on the average happen that this last class will be relatively superior—the stronger and more courageous among savages, and among semi-civilized peoples the wealthier also, who are mostly the more capable. Hence, ordinarily, a greater number of offspring will be left by men having natures of the kind needed. The society will be rendered ... not only numerically stronger, but more of its units will be efficient warriors." Furthermore, there will be a "structural advance" as compared with lower types of the family. Paternity is certain; and, where descent is traced in the male line, "inheritance of power by sons becomes possible; and, where it arises, government is better maintained." The family cohesion is greater; and "this definite descent in the male line aids the development of ancestor-worship; and so serves in another way to consolidate society."[459] For these reasons chiefly he regards polygyny as a type of marriage higher than polyandry; though he remarks that, "were it not for the ideas of sacredness associated with that Hebrew history which in childhood familiarized us with examples of polygyny, we should probably feel as much surprise and repugnance on first reading about it as we do on first reading about polyandry."[460] But this is too favorable an estimate of the relative social value of polygyny. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether morally and physically it is more favorable to the offspring than polyandry; and it is almost certain that it is far worse in its effects upon the home and condition of women.[461] This fact alone, when considered