III. THE THEORY IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT RESEARCH
Let us now see somewhat more in detail what light is thrown by recent investigation on the controversy between Maine and McLennan. Westermarck has taken great pains to enumerate the uncivilized peoples, chiefly non-Aryan, among whom descent and usually inheritance follow the paternal side;[40] and he finds that the number is "scarcely less" than the number of those among whom the female line is exclusively recognized. But in many of these cases it seems probable that the parental rather than the agnatic system prevails, though the male line may take precedence. In some instances rank or authority descends from father to son, while in other respects the female line predominates. Doubtless more frequently than is usually imagined a mixed system rather than a strictly paternal or a strictly maternal system would be found to exist.[41] As the result of his inquiry, Westermarck rejects the hypothesis that kinship through the mother is a primitive and universal stage, though he does not substitute the agnatic theory in its place. Starcke, on the other hand, after an extended examination of the customs of rude races, especially in America and Australia, suggests that the paternal as a general rule probably preceded the maternal system which arose only with the development of the gentile organization.[42] But Starcke's evidence can scarcely be accepted as convincing.
Similar difficulties are presented by the question of the prevalence of the so-called patriarchal power among non-Aryan races. Many apparent examples of despotic authority can be enumerated;[43] but it is often hard to determine whether, as in the cases of the Arabs and Hebrews, we have to do merely with a high degree of power on the part of the house-father or with a genuine patria potestas of the Roman type. Naturally, as Westermarck suggests, the father's authority among savages "depends exclusively, or chiefly, upon his superior strength;"[44] while anything like a patriarchal "system" can only arise later under the influence of ancestor-worship and more developed social and industrial conditions. Where authority depends solely or mainly upon brute force, it is evident that a very protracted patriarchal despotism over the sons is hard to conceive. Moreover, much error has doubtless arisen through falsely assuming that paternal authority and mother-right are incompatible; whereas they may well coexist, as will presently appear.
For the Indo-Germanic or Aryan peoples the investigations of Zimmer, Schrader, Delbrück, Kohler, and especially the researches of Leist, enable us to speak with a higher degree of confidence, though only for the period covered by positive linguistic and legal evidence. Bachofen, McLennan, and after them many other writers,[45] as will later be shown, have maintained that among all branches of the Aryan stock conclusive proofs exist of a former matriarchate, or, at any rate, of exclusive succession in the female line. But this view is decidedly rejected, if not entirely overthrown, by the philologists, and depends for its support on the presence in later institutions of alleged survivals. The judgment of Delbrück must probably be accepted as decisive for the present state of linguistic, if not of all scientific, inquiry. He declares that "no sure traces of a former maternal family among the Indo-Germanic peoples have been produced."[46] Similar conclusions are reached by Schrader, Max Müller, and Leist.[47] Also, among the institutional writers, Wake declares that "primitively among the peoples belonging to the wide-spread Aryan or Indo-European stock, while relationship was acknowledged through both parents, descent was traced preferably in the male line;"[48] and Bernhöft, constrained through the evidence presented by Schrader and Delbrück, believes that it is now placed "beyond question that the primitive Aryans did not live according to mother-right," but were united in family groups resembling the south Slavonian house communities.[49] On the other hand, Dargun, the foremost defender of the theory of mother-right, thinks that Bernhöft has "capitulated" too easily.[50] In his last monograph, entitled Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht, he maintains essentially the conclusion of his Mutterrecht und Raubehe, that before their separation the Aryan people had developed the system of kinship "through the mother as the only or chief basis of blood-relationship" and had "subordinated their entire family law to this principle."[51] But the later treatise contains a very important modification, or perhaps, more justly speaking, extension, of the author's theory. Setting aside as still an open question the general prevalence of promiscuity or sexual communism at the very dawn of distinctively human life, Dargun conceives that, before any system of kinship, maternal or agnatic, became recognized as a principle of customary family law, there must have existed a family, or rather parent-group (Elterngruppe), in which the father was protector and master of the mother and her children. This parent-group is the "hypothetical primordial cell of the family," brought together by sexual requirements and the need of sustenance and protection. It is "structureless, devoid of any firm bond, since it rests neither upon the principle of relationship nor that of legalized power." Its resemblance to the patriarchal family, though misleading, "is not without significance." For it "forms the necessary stage of an evolution which in analogous manner is also passed through by property. Inductively it is still demonstrable that individualism and atomism, not communism, as is usually assumed, are the starting point of evolution."[52] As a general rule, according to Dargun, the structureless parent-group is superseded by the maternal family, whose basis is mother-right, or the exclusive legal recognition of blood-relationship in the female line. Only in rare cases does the patriarchal agnatic family follow immediately upon the primitive group, without prior development of mother-right;[53] and hence, under exceptional conditions hindering the rise of the maternal system, do we find a form of the family in which, from a very early period, the house-father is the source of authority, practical or legalized.
Aside from his theory of evolution, in his principal thesis, which he fairly sustains by powerful argument, Dargun has rendered to science a distinct service. It is, he insists, highly necessary carefully to distinguish between power and relationship. "Mother-right" does not involve "maternal power" or the matriarchate, though sometimes actually united with it; nor does the headship of the house-father as provider, protector, and master imply agnation, the so-called "father-right." There is no contrast between power and relationship. "Mother-right in the sense of exclusive maternal kinship is compatible with a patriarchate just as exclusive." They may, and often do, coexist. It follows that the presence of the maternal system of kinship does not imply the existence of maternal power; just as it does not imply the non-existence of paternal authority. The distinction between power and kinship is justly declared to be an "indispensable key" for the solution of the greatest difficulties arising in this branch of sociological science, the disregard of which has often vitiated or confused the argument even of the foremost investigators.[54] With the aid of his key Dargun examines the linguistic evidence, which he finds favorable to the existence of mother-right among all the Aryan peoples after the separation, though united with a real supremacy of the house-father;[55] and he protests vigorously against the tendency, even on the part of Leist, to confound old Indic with old Aryan law; for the "Indians of the Vedas are in many respects more advanced than the Germans a thousand or the Slavs two thousand years later."[56] Valuable as the criticism of Dargun undoubtedly is, notably his distinction between power and relationship, it can scarcely be admitted that he has done more than reopen the question of the existence at any time of mother-right among the Aryans. His results are negative. He has not shifted the burden of proof; while his argument tends to confirm the view of the philologists that from the primitive stage the Aryan father was head of the household.[57]
But the patriarchal theory, strictly considered, fares little better than the maternal at the hands of recent investigators. Leist, who has been able with wonderful completeness to reconstruct the juridical life of the early household, though largely on the basis of old Indic sources, declares positively that "the Aryan people has not within itself a single element of patriarchalism."[58] This statement, as Bernhöft observes,[59] is perhaps too sweeping, even when tested by the results of Leist's own researches; but the patriarchal family of Sir Henry Maine does not appear. The evolution of juridical conceptions among the old Aryans, according to Leist, presents two general phases. First is the rita stage, or period of fixed, divinely appointed order, of natural law, corresponding to the Greek cosmos or phusis and the Latin ratum or ratio naturalis. In this "natural history" or pantheistic stage there is at first little idea of law as something to be separately contemplated. Under rita is comprehended the unchangeable order observable in the material world as well as in the physical and social life of man; but the universe and the creative energy, the All and Varuna, are identified or blended in thought.[60] Only slowly are these concepts differentiated and the immutable order of nature becomes looked upon as dhama, or a holy ordinance established by Varuna, who now appears as a protecting and creative spirit.
Dhama thus forms a means of transition to the second juridical phase, that of dharma, or divine law, corresponding to the Greek themis and the Latin fas.[61] In the dharma period, law is regarded as inspired by the gods, whose earthly agent, the priest or hero-king, is intrusted with its application; and in it the rules governing civil and public conduct, according to modern conceptions, are not distinguished from those relating to manners, morality, or religion. When history dawns, our early Aryan ancestors had already entered the dharma phase of evolution; and even now the Hindus have scarcely gained the third phase, prevailing in the civilized West, in which the element of "civil law" is separate from all other ingredients.[62]
Of the family relations of our primitive ancestors in the rita period we know little, except through inference or analogy. The so-called "natural forms" of marriage by purchase and capture were doubtless practiced, but probably not exclusively; and these customs were handed down to the second period, though they were modified to bring them into harmony with the higher ethical and social ideas which had then gained predominance.[63] Whether or not the absolute power of the father and the strict rule of agnation prevailed it would be as difficult to affirm as to deny.[64] In the dharma period the ancient rita conception of marriage as an ordinance of nature, whose real purpose is to provide posterity, is still retained; but it gains a social character.[65] The central principle of the Aryan household is the Hestia-Vesta cult, or the worship of the sacred hearth. To gain the protection of the ancestral gods the hearth-fire must be kept always burning; and the care of the family sacra is the special function of the house-father, who is lord and priest of the family. But the house-mother holds a worthy position in the domestic worship. From the first kindling of the hearth-fire at the nuptials, she appears as co-priestess and helper of her husband in the sacred rites. The whole life-partnership of the wedded pair is shaped and dominated by lofty religious motives. The Aryan housewife is not the chattel of her husband; she is a free woman and shares in his highest sacred functions. The primary purpose of the union is the birth of a legitimate son to perpetuate the paternal line and to foster the ancestral cult.[66] So paramount is this motive that, in case no son is born in wedlock, resort may be had to adoption, or to analogous expedients for the fictitious extension of fatherhood. For among the Aryans, as Maine suggests, the fiction of adoption is of the highest legal importance; and, indeed, very widely among the races of mankind it has served a useful purpose in social progress.[67] Here also the Aryan wife appears as co-priestess with her husband. Each is regarded as having a share in the begetting of the child, and they unite in giving the son in adoption to another household.[68] Accordingly the wife is not the mere chattel of her husband, who owns the children by virtue of his proprietorship in the mother.[69] The house-father appears in the sacred books as lord of the wife, who owes him reverence and obedience; yet she is not reduced to patriarchal slavery. With the husband she exercises joint control over the sons; and these are released entirely from parental authority when they marry and establish new households.[70] The male line takes legal precedence; but the maternal kindred are clearly recognized in a way wholly inconsistent with strict agnation.[71] According to the primitive Indic conception the wife is regarded as incapable of property. Neither the widow nor the daughters could inherit, the estate passing to the sons as in theory a means of providing for the sacra of the deceased house-father. Still the bride possessed her personal belongings—her couch, clothing, and ornaments; and from this germ gradually arose, beginning even in remote antiquity, her existing rights of property and inheritance.[72] In short, the old Aryan household reveals but the elements of agnation and the potestas as they appear in the Roman law.[73]
This conclusion is confirmed by the customs of the Aryan peoples after the separation. Among the Hellenes at the first dawn of history the family appears as a member of the gens, which is held together usually by the ties of blood-relationship. The house-father is lord or monarch of the family. But his authority is tempered in various ways. Originally, as among the primitive Aryans, he may have exercised the power of life and death over his children; but in no case could he "put a child to death without the consent of the collective ancestors," or near kindred.[74] By the Aryans the jus vitae necisque was never looked upon as an arbitrary right of destruction, but merely as a means of domestic discipline.[75] The Greek father might sell his minor sons and unmarried daughters; but "it appears that, even here, merely the labor of the youth and not the person itself was disposed of by sale," and the custom was controlled by the usage of the gens.[76] The wife, as among the Hindus, holds a dignified position in the household. She is her husband's partner in the domestic economy and the sacred rites. Equally with him she is "the cause of the son's existence," and in consequence exercises over him conjointly with the father the powers of sale and life and death.[77] Thus Hellenic custom preserves the essential element of the Aryan paternal authority, which signifies a protecting, not an arbitrary or ruthlessly destructive, power. Among the historic Greeks the agnatic principle finds expression especially in the right of guardianship, which is transmitted in the paternal line. Such is the judgment of Leist, whose masterly account of the development of the Aryan agnatic conception proves that here as elsewhere the Roman and the Greek stood upon common ground.[78] The point of divergence is the lifelong continuance of the Roman potestas; whereas in Hellas the son was emancipated at maturity.[79]
Examination of the customs of the Celts,[80] the Slavonians,[81] and ancient Germans[82] leads to a like result. Accordingly we are forced to admit the accuracy of Gaius's conclusion. Writing in the time of the Antonines, he declares his belief that the patria potestas is peculiarly a Roman institution. Only among the Asiatic Galatæ had he observed a similar authority exercised by the father over his children.[83] Instead of existing "almost everywhere," often preserving as in a mold the imprint of the paternal power which it has outlived and upon which it is thought always to depend, among Aryan peoples agnation is found together with the potestas only in one instance, that of the Roman law; and even in this case it was virtually the first to expire.[84] For, as is well known to the student of Roman jurisprudence, strict agnation, as determining right of succession, disappeared under the influence of the edict and imperial statutes long before the last vestige of the real patria potestas was swept away by the legislation of Justinian.[85]
Furthermore, in addition to the historical difficulty, there is another strong reason for doubting the dependence of agnation upon patria potestas: the inconsistency of the latter in its effects upon kinship. If the descendants of married women are excluded from relationship, solely on the ground that they belong to another potestas, why, for the same reason, should not the children of men, say of brothers sui juris,[86] be likewise mutually excluded? Plainly some more satisfactory explanation of this remarkable discrimination between the sexes must exist. Such an explanation McLennan finds in exogamy, or the custom which forbids marriage between persons of the same group of acknowledged kindred.[87] It seems probable that in early times the patrician family was coextensive with the gens. Agnatio and gentilitas were equivalent expressions.[88] During the historical period, at any rate, gentilitas is traced through the male line; and it is not impossible that originally inter-marriage was forbidden between those bearing the same gentile name.[89] In that case, agnation appears as the natural result of the gentile rule of exogamy, retained, after the weakening of the gens, for the regulation of succession within the family. Exogamy, however, does not necessarily imply the patria potestas, but is found more frequently perhaps with the maternal than with the paternal system of kinship.[90] In fact, for the Romans and kindred Italic tribes, considerable evidence has been collected by various writers pointing, as they believe, to an early transition from the maternal to the cognatic or the agnatic system.[91] While this conclusion may be rejected, it must nevertheless be admitted that criticism of the patriarchal theory has been very successful in its general results. It appears to have established beyond question the complex and highly artificial character of the Roman family.[92] So far from being the type of early social organization, it is seen to be relatively modern and ill fitted to the condition of primitive men.
In the meantime, the patriarchal theory has had to reckon with a totally different view of the genesis and development of social institutions. To this view let us now turn.
CHAPTER II
THEORY OF THE HORDE AND MOTHER-RIGHT
[Bibliographical Note II.—A pioneer in the comparative history of marriage and the family is Unger, Die Ehe in ihrer welthistorischen Entwicklung (Vienna, 1850), who notices many of the leading phenomena connected with these institutions in different parts of the world; but his book is essentially a Tendenzschrift, to prove the elevating influence of Christianity and Teutonism. The literature of the Horde and Mother-Right opens, however, with Bachofen's singular but learned treatise, Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (Stuttgart, 1861), of which the original edition is now exceedingly scarce, although there is an exact reprint (Basel, 1897). This work is supplemented by Bachofen's Die Sage von Tanaquil (Heidelberg, 1870), and his Antiquärische Briefe (Strassburg, 1886). Upon the Mutterrecht was based Giraud-Teulon's La mère chez certains peuples de l'antiquité (Paris and Leipzig, 1867); followed by Les origines de la famille (Geneva, 1874), and Les origines du mariage et de la famille (Geneva and Paris, 1884), in both of which Bachofen's principal conclusions are supported with much new material. A thoroughgoing disciple of the same school is Lippert, Die Geschichte der Familie (Stuttgart, 1884); and Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit (Stuttgart, 1886-87). Very important also in this connection are the Mutterrecht und Raubehe of Dargun (Breslau, 1883), and his later treatise, Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht (Leipzig, 1892), a very able defense of the theory of mother-right for the Aryan peoples after the separation, though conceding that the maternal system was not developed in the primitive stage.
A scholar, who in the main belongs to the same group and who is one of the foremost students of the laws and usages of savage and barbarous peoples, is Post, whose more important writings are Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit (Oldenburg, 1875); Der Ursprung des Rechts (Oldenburg, 1876); Die Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtsleben (Oldenburg, 1878); Die Grundlagen des Rechts (Oldenburg, 1884); Einleitung in das Studium der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz (Oldenburg, 1886); Afrikanische Jurisprudenz (Oldenburg and Leipzig, 1887); Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Familienrechts (Oldenburg and Leipzig, 1889); and "Die Kodifikation des Rechts der Amaxosa von 1891," in ZVR., XI. The last-named paper may be read in connection with Rehme's "Ueber das Recht der Amaxosa," in ZVR., X; Kohler's "Ueber das Negerrecht, namentlich in Kamerun," ibid., XI; Bertholon, "Les formes de la famille," in Arch. de l'anth. crim., VIII (1893); Zöller, Forschungsreisen in der Kolonie Kamerun (Berlin and Stuttgart, 1886); the Kamerun of Buchner (Leipzig, 1887); Munzinger's Ostafrikanische Studien (Schaffhausen, 1864); the important work of Fritsch, Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrikas (Breslau, 1872), treating of the family customs of various aboriginal tribes; Kranz, Natur- und Kulturleben der Zulus (Wiesbaden, 1880); Kingsley, Travels in West Africa (London, 1897); Tillinghast, The Negro in Africa and America (New York, 1902).
By entirely different routes the theories of universal communism and mother-right were reached by Lewis H. Morgan, beginning with the League of the Iroquois (Rochester, 1851); followed by his great work on Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity (Washington, 1871); the systematic treatise entitled Ancient Society (New York, 1878); and the Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines (Washington, 1881); and by J. F. McLennan, Primitive Marriage (1865); reprinted with other papers as Studies in Ancient History (London, 1876). After the author's death appeared the Patriarchal Theory (London, 1885), edited and completed by his brother Donald McLennan; and the second series of Studies (London and New York, 1896), edited by his widow and Arthur Platt.
Sir John Lubbock, Origin of Civilization (New York, 1889), maintains the theory and introduces the name of "communal marriage." McLennan is in the main supported by Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (Cambridge, 1885). This book may be read in connection with Wilken, Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern (Leipzig, 1884); Kohler, "Vorislamitisches Recht der Araber," in ZVR., VIII; Friedrichs, "Das Eherecht des Islams," ibid., VII; Vincenti, Die Ehe im Islam (Vienna, 1876); Pischon, Der Einfluss des Islams auf das häusliche, soziale, und politische Leben seiner Bekenner (Leipzig, 1881); Perron, Femme arabe (Paris and Alger, 1858); Kremer, Kulturgeschichte des Orients unter den Kalifen (Vienna, 1875); Vámbéry, Der Islam im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1875); his Türkenvolk (Leipzig, 1885); Hanoteau and Letourneux, La kabylie et les coutumes kabyles (Paris, 1893); and Baway, "The Marriage Customs of the Moors of Ceylon," in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, 1887-88, X, 219-33 (Colombo, 1888). Read also Redhouse, Notes on Tylor's 'Arabian Matriarchate,' propounded by Tylor before the British Association, Montreal, 1884.
For the matrimonial institutions of the Australian aborigines, whose so-called "group-marriage" has played so great a part in speculation, see especially Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai (Melbourne, 1880), supplemented by their "Deme and the Horde," in Journal of the Anth. Inst., XIV, 142-68 (London, 1885), comparing Attic and Australian classes and local divisions; Fison's article on "Primitive Marriage," in Pop. Sci. Monthly, XVII (New York, 1880); his paper on "Classificatory Systems of Relationship," in Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. (Oxford, 1894); Howitt's "Remarks on the Class Systems Collected by Mr. Palmer," in Journal of the Anth. Inst., XIII, 335-46 (London, 1884); his "Dieri and Other Kindred Tribes of Central Australia," ibid., XX; "Further Notes on the Australian Class Systems," ibid., XVIII, 31-36 (London, 1889); "Organization of Australian Tribes," in Trans. Roy. Soc. of Victoria, I, Part II (1889); and his "Australian Group Relations," in Rep. Smith. Inst., 1883 (Washington, 1885). Important also are Cunow, Die Verwandtschafts-Organisationen der Australneger (Stuttgart, 1894), supplementing Morgan's Ancient Society, while rejecting some of Morgan's and Fison's conclusions; Kohler, "Das Recht der Australneger," in ZVR., VII; his later Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe below named; McLennan, Studies, II, 278-310; Curr, The Australian Race (Melbourne, 1886), rejecting the theory of "group-marriage" and promiscuity; especially Roth's North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines (Brisbane and London, 1899); and Spencer and Gillen's very able and detailed account of the Native Tribes of Central Australia (New York and London, 1899), both of which works, like those of Kohler, tend to sustain the general, though not all the incidental, conclusions of Fison and Howitt. Among the many papers and books useful for studying the social life of the Australians are Palmer, "Notes on Some Australian Tribes," in Journal of the Anth. Inst., XIII (London, 1884); Mathew, "The Australian Aborigines," in Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales, XXIII (Sydney, 1889); Mathews, "Australian Class Systems," in The Am. Anthropologist, IX, X (Washington, 1896-97); and his "The Victorian Aborigines," ibid., XI (Washington, 1898). Supplementary materials may likewise be found in Dawson, Australian Aborigines (Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide, 1881); Jung, Das Welttheil Australien (Leipzig, 1882); Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria (London, 1878); Smith and Stewart's The Booandik Tribe (1880); Lang, Social Origins; Atkinson, Primal Law (published together, London, New York, and Bombay, 1903); and especially Crawley, Mystic Rose (London and New York, 1902).
McLennan was first systematically and luminously criticised by Spencer, in Part III of his Principles of Sociology (published, in parts, 1874-77; complete, New York, 1879). McLennan replied in two articles in the Fortnightly Review, XXVII (London, 1877); and in turn Spencer has a "Rejoinder," reprinted in his Various Fragments (New York, 1898). Gomme supplements McLennan's evidences for his "Theory of the Primitive Horde," in Journal of Anth. Inst., XVII (London, 1888); and this article is criticised by Wake, Primitive Human Horde, reprinted from ibid., February, 1888. Morgan is supported by Engels, Ursprung der Familie (Stuttgart, 1892). His researches are appreciatively reviewed and supplemented by Bernhöft, Verwandtschaftsnamen und Eheformen der nord-amerikanischen Volksstämme (Rostock, 1888); and they are criticised by Lubbock, "On the Development of Relationships," in Journal of Anth. Inst., I (London, 1872). The views of Morgan and McLennan are examined by Wake in his "Classificatory Systems of Relationship," ibid., VIII (London, 1879); and his "Primitive Human Family," ibid., IX (London, 1880). See also his "Nature and Origin of Group Marriage," ibid., XIII (London, 1884); and his Le mariage communal (Paris, 1875), replying to Barbier. An able conservative writer, vigorously and learnedly attacking the fundamental conclusions of recent sociological and ethnological science, is Schneider, Die Naturvölker: Missverständnisse, Missdeutungen und Misshandlungen (Paderborn and Münster, 1885-86). He is severely criticised by Hellwald, whose Menschliche Familie (Leipzig, 1889) is one of the most original contributions to our subject. This was preceded by the same writer's Kulturgeschichte (3d ed., Augsburg, 1883). Important monographs are Bobbio, Sulle origine e sul fondamento della famiglia (Turin, 1891); and the clear summary of Th. Achelis, Die Entwicklung der Ehe (Berlin, 1893); which may be read in connection with Dr. A. Achelis's "Geschlechtsgenossenschaft," in Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde, No. 148 (Berlin, 1890). Of service also in connection with various topics are Cunow, "Die ökonomischen Grundlagen der Mutterherrschaft," in Neue Zeit, No. 4, XVI. Jahrg., I. Band (Stuttgart, 1897); Ploss, "Ueber das Heirathsalter der Frauen bei verschiedenen Völkern," in Mittheilungen der Ver. für Erdkunde, 1872 (Leipzig, 1873); Redslob, Levirats-Ehe bei den Hebräern (Leipzig, 1836); Danks, "Marriage Customs of the New Britain Group," in Journal of Anth. Inst., XVIII, No. 3; Roth, "Significance of the Couvade," ibid., XXII (London, 1893); Peal, "On the 'Morong,' as Possibly a Relic of Pre-Marriage Communism," ibid., XXII; Ellis, "On Polyandry," in Pop. Sci. Monthly, October, 1891; idem, Tschi-Speaking Peoples (London, 1887); idem, Ewe-Speaking Peoples (London, 1890); Brouardel, L'infanticide (Paris, 1897); Frazer, Totemism (Edinburgh, 1887); Peet, "Tribal Records in the Effigies," in Am. Antiquarian, XV (Chicago, 1893); Lubbock, "Social and Religious Condition of the Lower Races of Man," Rep. Smith. Inst., 1869 (Washington, 1872); Stricker, "Untersuchungen über die kriegerischen Weiber," in Archiv für Anthropologie, V; his Amazonen in Sage und Geschichte (Berlin, 1868); Avery, "Races of the Indo-Pacific Oceans," in Am. Antiquarian, VI (Chicago, 1884); Greenwood, The Wild Man at Home (London, n. d.); Peschel, Races of Man (London, 1889); Zmigrodski's interesting Die Mutter bei den Völkern des arischen Stammes (Munich, 1886); Peet, "Houses and House-Life among the Pre-Historic Races," in Am. Antiquarian, X (Chicago, 1888), taking the same general view as Morgan; and his "Earliest Abodes of Men," ibid., XV (Chicago, 1893). To bring criticism down to date read Tillier's able and suggestive book Le mariage: sa genèse, son évolution (Paris, 1898); Tylor, "The Matriarchal Family," in Nineteenth Century, XL, 81 (July, 1896); Kohler, Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe (Stuttgart, 1897); Giddings, Principles of Sociology (New York and London, 1896); and especially the discussions of the matriarchate, the forms of marriage, and similar topics by Abrikossoff, Westermarck, Letourneau, Kovalevski, and others in Annales de l'institut international (Paris, 1896).
A mass of materials relating to every phase of the subject for many peoples may be found in the large general works of Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit (Leipzig, 1843-52); Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie der Naturvölker (Leipzig, 1860-72; 2d ed., begun 1877); Featherman, Social History of the Races of Mankind (London, 1881-91); and Ratzel, History of Mankind (London and New York, 1896-98). General summaries are given by Adams, "Primitive Rights of Women," in Historical Essays (New York, 1891); McGee, "The Beginnings of Marriage," in Am. Anthropologist, IX (Washington, 1896); Solotaroff, "Origin of the Family," ibid., XI (Washington, 1898); Nadaillac, L'évolution du mariage (Paris, 1893); Brinton, "Religions of Primitive Peoples," in his American Lectures, 2d series (New York and London, 1897); Devas, Studies in Family Life (London and New York, 1886); Lang, "Early History of the Family," in his Custom and Myth (London, 1884); Miln, Wooings and Weddings (Chicago, 1900); and Hutchinson's popular Marriage Customs in Many Lands (London, 1897). An earlier book, inferior though similar in scope to the one last named, is Hamilton's Marriage Rites, Customs, and Ceremonies (London, 1822). Of little value, except as marking the beginning of attempts to write general histories, are Moore, Marriage Customs (London, 1814; 2d ed., 1820); Laumier, Cérémonies nuptiales (Paris, 1829); the anonymous Hochzeitsgebräuche aller Nationen (Swabach, 1783); and Hurtaut's Coup d'œil anglois sur les cérémonies du mariage (Geneva, 1750), compiled from Louis de Gaya's Cérémonies nuptiales (original ed., Paris, 1680). The subject is also treated by Schroeder, Das Recht in der geschlechtlichen Ordnung (Berlin, 1893); Gage, Woman, Church, and State (Chicago, 1893); and Mason, Woman's Share in Primitive Culture (New York, 1894). Mucke, Horde und Familie (Stuttgart, 1895), traces the classificatory systems of kinship to original "space-relationships" in the horde camping-place, and the work is a remarkable example of ingenious though fantastic speculation on a large scale.
For the matrimonial customs of low races, especially valuable are Krause, Die Tlinkit-Indianer (Jena, 1885); Marshall, A Phrenologist amongst the Todas (London, 1873); and the magnificent volumes of Paul and Fritz Sarasin, Die Weddas von Ceylon (Wiesbaden, 1892-93). For examples of sexual practices, commonly regarded as survivals of original promiscuity, see Buch, Die Wotjäken (Helsingfors, 1882); Kohler, "Studien über Frauengemeinschaft," in ZVR., V; Bastian, Rechtsverhältnisse (Berlin, 1872); his "Eheverhältnisse," in ZFE., VI; and his "Matriarchat und Patriarchat," ibid., Verhandlungen (Berlin, 1886); Ploss, Das Weib (Leipzig, 1895); his Das Kind (Leipzig, 1884); and Mantegazza's Geschlechtsverhältnisse des Menschen, constituting with the earlier Physiologie der Liebe and Hygiene der Liebe his so-called "trilogy of love." For the bearings of phallicism on the subject read Howard's Sex Worship (2d ed., Washington, 1898), containing a bibliography. In this connection are also of service the works on "seignorial right," the most elaborate monograph being Schmidt's Jus primae noctis (Freiburg, 1881), containing a full bibliography. See also his Slavische Geschichtsquellen zur Streitfrage über das Jus Primae Noctis (Posen, 1886); his paper in ZFE., XVI; and Kohler's criticism, ZVR., IV, V. Against its existence as a right of the mediæval lord are Veuillot, Droit du seigneur (1st ed., Paris, 1854; 3d ed., 1878); Raepsaet, Recherches (Gand, 1817); Barthélemy, "Droit du seigneur," in Revue des questions historiques, I (Paris, 1866), a critical paper of value; and Labessade, Droit du seigneur et la rosière de Salency (Paris, 1878). In his Réponse (Paris, 1857) Delpit makes a vigorous and detailed reply to the arguments of Veuillot (early edition). See also Foras, Droit du seigneur (Chambéry, 1886); and, for comparison, read "Bibliophile's" Les nuits d'épreuve des villageoises allemandes avant le mariage (Brussels, 1877); Grupen's quaint De uxore theotisca (Göttingen, 1748); and Fischer's remarkably valuable and interesting Probenächte der teutschen Bauernmädchen (Berlin and Leipzig, 1780; reprinted, Leipzig, 1898).
To "break ground" for the study of the subject it may be well in the outset to read chaps. iii and iv of Posada's Théories modernes; Kautsky's "Entstehung der Ehe und Familie," in Kosmos, XII; Friedrichs, "Ursprung des Matriarchats," in ZVR., VIII, in connection with his "Zur Matriarchatsfrage," in ZFE., XX; and especially his "Familienstufen und Eheformen," in ZVR., X. The literature and the theories are also reviewed by Bernhöft, "Zur Gesch. des eur. Familienrechts," ibid., VIII; and Schurman gives an interesting summary and criticism in Ethical Import of Darwinism (New York, 1888).
For the works of Wake, Letourneau, Starcke, Westermarck, and other antagonists of the horde theory, see Bibliographical Note III.]