Both forms of polyandric marriage suppose a complete absence of modesty, of sexual reserve and moral delicacy. But we know that these qualities can only be the fruit of long culture. In this respect both matriarchal and patriarchal polygamy are equal. But it is important to observe that the first enslaves woman much less. On the other hand, the second already permits the establishment of a sort of paternal filiation, since the husbands are generally of the same blood. For this reason it is reputed superior.
In reality matriarchal polyandry always coincides with the primitive family form, the matriarchate—that is to say, with a system that takes no account of paternal filiation, and leaves the children to the tribe of the mother.
Patriarchal polyandry, on the contrary, already presents the outline of a sort of paternal family, with the right of primogeniture attributed to the first-born.
We shall have to study in detail both the patriarchate and the matriarchate. Polyandry, in its reputedly highest form, the Thibetan, only constitutes a patriarchate of the most imperfect kind, since there is still a confusion of fatherhood.
Proof is still wanting to force us to conclude that matriarchal polyandry must always have preceded the other. This appears to be true for ancient Arabia only. In all other places we can merely suppose it to have been so. We should be equally mistaken if we admitted a priori that patriarchal polyandry implies a degree of civilisation superior to that of the countries where matriarchal polyandry prevails. The ancient Arabs, of whom Strabo speaks, practised fraternal polyandry, and yet we know that they were scarcely civilised, they were cannibals, and so ferocious that their wives accompanied them in combats in order to despatch and mutilate the wounded enemies. These furies made themselves necklaces and bracelets for their ankles with the nose and ears of a dead enemy,[212] and sometimes even they ate his liver.
In conclusion, polyandry is an exceptional conjugal form, as rare as polygamy is common. It must be classed with experimental and term marriages. With our European ideas on conjugal fidelity, obligatory by the right of proprietorship, we can scarcely conceive even of the possibility of this perfect absence of jealousy, this placidity of the co-husbands. It is indelicate, doubtless. But how shall we describe our morality and the laws that give to the deceived husband the right of life and death over his faithless companion, and in this respect bring us down to the level of the savage? Do indelicate manners rank lower than ferocious manners? They are both those of the animal.
FOOTNOTES:
[169] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 278.
[170] A. Bertillon.
[171] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 270.