The polygyny of the ancient Hindus seems to have been due chiefly to the fact that men dreaded the idea of dying childless, and M. Le Play observes that even now in the East the desire for offspring is one of the principal causes of polygyny.[3083] Dr. Gray makes the same remark as to the Chinese,[3084] Herr Andree as to the Jews.[3085] In Egypt, says Mr. Lane, “a man having a wife who has the misfortune to be barren, and being too much attached to her to divorce her, is sometimes induced to take a second wife, merely in the hope of obtaining offspring.”[3086]
The more wives, the more children; and the more children, the greater power. Man in a savage and barbarous state is proud of a large progeny, and he who has most kinsfolk is most honoured and feared.[3087] Regarding certain Indians of North America, among whom the dignity of chief was elective, Heriot remarks that “the choice usually fell upon him who had the most numerous offspring, and who was therefore considered as the person most deeply interested in the welfare of the tribe.”[3088] Among the Chippewas, says Mr. Keating, “the pride and honour of parents depend upon the extent of their family.”[3089] Speaking of African polygyny, Sir R. F. Burton observes that the “culture of the marriage tie is necessary among savages and barbarians, where, unlike Europe, a man’s relations and connections are his only friends; besides which, a multitude of wives ministers to his pride and influence, state and pleasure.”[3090] Bosman tells us of a viceroy tributary to the negro king of Fida, who, assisted only by his sons and grandsons with their slaves, repulsed a powerful enemy who came against him. This viceroy, with his sons and grandsons, could make out the number of two thousand descendants, not reckoning daughters or any that were dead.[3091] Moreover, in a state of nature, next to a man’s wives, the real servant, the only one to be counted upon, is the child.[3092]
A husband’s desire for children often leads to polygyny in countries where the fecundity of women is at a low rate. More than a hundred years ago, Dr. Hewit observed that women are naturally less prolific among rude than among polished nations.[3093] This assertion, though not true universally,[3094] is probably true in the main. “It is a very rare occurrence for an Indian woman,” says Mr. Catlin, “to be ‘blessed’ with more than four or five children during her life; and, generally speaking, they seem contented with two or three.”[3095] This statement is confirmed by the evidence of several other authorities;[3096] and it holds good not only for the North American Indians, but, upon the whole, for a great many uncivilized peoples.[3097] Some writers ascribe this slight degree of prolificness to hard labour,[3098] or to unfavourable conditions of life in general.[3099] That it is partly due to the long period of suckling is highly probable, not only because a woman less easily becomes pregnant during the time of lactation, but also on account of the continence in which she often has to live during that period. The mortality of children is very great among savages,[3100] and this, co-operating with other causes to keep the family small, makes polygyny seem to many peoples absolutely necessary. Speaking of the Equatorial Africans, Mr. Reade says, “Propagation is a perfect struggle; polygamy becomes a law of nature; and even with the aid of this institution, so favourable to reproduction, there are fewer children than wives.”[3101]
A man’s fortune is increased by a multitude of wives not only through their children, but through their labour. An Eastern Central African, says Mr. Macdonald, finds no difficulty in supporting even hundreds of wives. “The more wives he has, the richer he is. It is his wives that maintain him. They do all his ploughing, milling, cooking, &c. They may be viewed as superior servants who combine all the capacities of male servants and female servants in Britain—who do all his work and ask no wages.”[3102] Manual labour among savages is undertaken chiefly by women; and, as there are no day-labourers or persons who will work for hire, it becomes necessary for any one who requires many servants to have many wives. Mr. Wood remarks that, when an Indian can purchase four or five wives, their labour in the field is worth even more to the household than his exertions in hunting.[3103] “The object of the Kutchin,” says Mr. Kirby, “is to have a greater number of poor creatures whom he can use as beasts of burden for hauling his wood, carrying his meat, and performing the drudgery of his camp.”[3104] A Modok defends his having several wives on the plea that he requires one to keep house, another to hunt, another to dig roots.[3105] In the Solomon Islands in New Guinea, at the Gold Coast, and in other places where the women cultivate the ground, a plurality of wives implies a rich supply of food;[3106] whilst, among the Tartars, according to Marco Polo, wives were of use to their husbands as traders.[3107]
A multitude of wives increases a man’s authority, not only because it increases his fortune and the number of his children, or because it makes him able to be liberal and keep open doors for foreigners and guests,[3108] but also because it presupposes a certain superiority in personal capabilities, wealth, or rank. Statements such as “a man’s greatness is ever proportionate to the number of his wives,” or “polygamy is held to be the test of his wealth and consequence,” are very frequently met with in books of travels. Thus the Apache “who can support or keep, or attract by his power to keep, the greatest number of women, is the man who is deemed entitled to the greatest amount of honour and respect.”[3109]
However desirable polygyny may be from man’s point of view, it is, as we have seen, altogether prohibited among many peoples, and, in countries where it is an established institution, it is practised, as a rule to which there are few exceptions, only by a comparatively small class. The proportion between the sexes partly accounts for this. But there are other causes of no less importance.
In ethnographical descriptions it is very often stated that a man takes as many wives as he is able to maintain. Where the amount of female labour is limited, where life is supported by hunting, where agriculture is unknown, and no accumulated property worth mentioning exists, it may be extremely difficult for a man to keep a plurality of wives. Among the Patagonians, for instance, it is chiefly those who possess some property who take more than one wife.[3110] Regarding the Tuski, Mr. Hooper states that “each man has as many wives as he can afford to keep, the question of food being the greatest consideration.”[3111] In Oonalashka, according to v. Langsdorf, a man who had many wives, if his means decreased, sent first one, then another back to their parents.[3112]
Again, where female labour is of considerable value, the necessity of paying the purchase-sum for a wife very often makes the poorer people content with monogamy. Thus among the Zulus, Mr. Eyles writes, many men have but one wife because cattle have to be paid for women. Among the Gonds and Korkús, according to Mr. Forsyth, “polygamy is not forbidden, but, women being costly chattels, it is rarely practised.”[3113] Among the Bechuanas, says Andersson, there is no limit, but his means of purchase, to the number of wives a man may possess.[3114] And the same is observed with reference to a great many other peoples, especially in Africa, where the woman-trade is at its height. Polygyny is, moreover, checked to some extent by the man’s obligation to serve for his wife for a certain number of years, and even more by his having to settle down with his father-in-law for the whole of his life.
So far as the woman is allowed to choose, she prefers, other things being equal, the man who is best able to support her, or the man of the greatest wealth or highest position. Naturally, therefore, wherever polygyny prevails, it is the principal men—whether they owe their position to birth, skill, or acquired wealth—who have the largest number of wives; or it may be that they alone have more than one wife. Speaking of the Ainos of Yesso, Commander H. C. St. John says that a successful or expert hunter or fisher sometimes keeps two wives; and, if a woman finds her husband an unsuccessful Nimrod, she abandons him.[3115] Among the Aleuts, “the number of wives was not limited, except that the best hunters had the greatest number.”[3116] Among the Kutchin, “polygamy is practised generally in proportion to the rank and wealth of the man;”[3117] and, among the Brazilian aborigines and the Araucanians, polygyny occurs only or chiefly among rich men and chiefs.[3118] Touching the Equatorial Africans, Mr. Reade remarks, “The bush-man can generally afford but one wife, who must find him his daily bread.... But the rich man can indulge in the institutions of polygamy and domestic slavery.”[3119] In Dahomey, as we are told, “the king has thousands of wives, the nobles hundreds, others tens; while the soldier is unable to support one.”[3120] In the New Hebrides, polygyny prevails especially among the chiefs; in Naiabui of New Guinea, “the head men only have more than two or three wives;” and, in South Australia, “the old men secure the greatest number.”[3121]
Thus polygyny has come to be associated with greatness, and is therefore, as Mr. Spencer remarks, thought praiseworthy, while monogamy, as associated with poverty, is thought mean.[3122] Indeed, plurality of wives has everywhere tended to become a more or less definite class distinction, the luxury being permitted, among some peoples, only to chiefs or nobles.