Among the Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon, says Dr. Gibbs, “a strong sensual attachment undoubtedly often exists, which leads to marriage, as instances are not rare of young women destroying themselves on the death of a lover.”[3182] The like is said of other Indian tribes, in which suicide from unsuccessful love has sometimes occurred even among men.[3183] Colonel Dalton represents the Pahária lads and lasses as forming very romantic attachments; “if separated only for an hour,” he says, “they are miserable.”[3184] Davis tells us of a negro who, after vain attempts to redeem his sweetheart from slavery, became a slave himself rather than be separated from her.[3185] In Tahiti, unsuccessful suitors have been known to commit suicide;[3186] and even the rude Australian girl sings in a strain of romantic affliction—
“I never shall see my darling again.”[3187]
As a man, under certain circumstances, desires many wives, so a woman may have several reasons for desiring a plurality of husbands. But the jealousy of man does not readily suffer any rivals, and, as he is the stronger, his will is decisive. Hence, where polyandry occurs, it is only exceptionally a result of the woman’s wishes.
Various causes have been adduced for this revolting practice. The difficulty of raising the sum for a wife, and the expense of maintaining women may perhaps in part account for it.[3188] Regarding polyandry in Kunawar, the Rev. W. Rebsch says that the cause assigned is not poverty, but a desire to keep the common patrimony from being distributed among a number of brothers.[3189] Some writers believe that polyandry subserves the useful end of preventing the woman from being exposed to danger and difficulty, when she is left alone in her remote home during the prolonged absences of her lord.[3190] According to the Sinhalese, the practice originated in the so-called feudal times, when the enforced attendance of the people on the king and the higher chiefs would have led to the ruin of the rice lands, had not some interested party been left to look after the tillage. But Sir Emerson Tennent remarks that polyandry is much more ancient than the system thus indicated: it is shown to have existed at a period long antecedent to “feudalism.”[3191] To whatever other causes the practice may be attributed, the chief immediate cause is, no doubt, a numerical disproportion between the sexes.
[CHAPTER XXII]
THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
(Concluded)
As to the history of the forms of human marriage, two inferences regarding monogamy and polygyny may be made with absolute certainty: monogamy, always the predominant form of marriage, has been more prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization than at somewhat higher stages; whilst, at a still higher stage, polygyny has again, to a great extent, yielded to monogamy.
As already said, wars, often greatly disturbing the proportion of the sexes among peoples with a highly developed tribal organization, exercise a much smaller influence in that respect in societies of a ruder type. As in such societies all men are nearly equal, and, to quote Mr. Wallace, “each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes place,”[3192] no great scope is left for polygynous habits.
Plurality of wives has comparatively few attractions for the men of rude communities, where life is supported chiefly by hunting, and female labour is of slight value. In societies of a higher kind, the case is different. True, in such societies a man has to buy his wife, and women are often costly chattels; but this obstacle to polygyny is more than counterbalanced by the accumulation of wealth and the distinction of classes.