Nothing, indeed, is more favourable to polygyny than social differentiation. “In its highest and regulated form,” Mr. Morgan justly observes, “it presupposes a considerable advance of society, together with the development of superior and inferior classes, and of some kinds of wealth.”[3193] Speaking of the Iroquois, Colden long ago remarked that, “in any nation where all are on a par as to riches and power, plurality of wives cannot well be introduced.”[3194] According to Waitz, the reason why polygyny is very rare among the Hottentots is, that they do not know of any disparity in rank and wealth.[3195] The Rock Veddahs have no class distinction, and, though each party among them has a headman—the most energetic senior of the tribe,—he exercises scarcely any authority.[3196] Almost the same may be said of most of the monogamous savage peoples whom we have mentioned. Thus, among the Pádams, all, except slaves, are equal in rank;[3197] and of the Kukis it is said that all eat and drink together, and that “one man is as good as another.”[3198] This is true of the Chittagong Hill tribes in general, who enjoy a perfect social equality, their nomadic life precluding any great accumulation of wealth.[3199] Among the Hill Dyaks, as Mr. Spencer observes, chiefs are unable to enforce genuine subordination; the headman of each Bodo and Dhimál village has but nominal authority; and the governor of a Pueblo town is annually elected.[3200] In Tana, where the authority of a chief does not seem to extend a gunshot beyond his own dwelling, few chiefs have more than three wives, and most of them have only one or two.[3201] On the other hand, throughout Africa, polygyny and great class distinctions occur simultaneously. We may therefore safely conclude that polygyny became more prevalent in proportion as differentiation increased with the progress of civilization.
It is a notable fact that the higher savages and barbarians indulge in this practice to a greater extent than the very lowest races. These, with few exceptions, are either strictly monogamous, or but little addicted to polygyny. The lowest forest tribes in Brazil and the interior of Borneo are monogamous. Among the Veddahs and Andamanese, monogamy is as rigidly insisted upon as anywhere in Europe. According to Captain Lewin, the monogamous Toungtha are “unamenable to the lures of civilization,” and he thinks it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to wean them from their savage life.[3202] The Mrús are despised as wild men by the polygynous Khyoungtha;[3203] and the Californians, who, according to Mr. Powers, were far less addicted to polygyny than the Atlantic Indians, are “a humble and a lowly race, ... one of the lowest on earth.”[3204]
Certain peoples who were originally monogamous are known to have adopted polygyny under the influence of a higher civilization. Thus, according to Professor Vámbéry, there is not a single indication that polygyny was an institution of the primitive Turco-Tartars, and even now it is almost unknown among the nomadic peoples of that race.[3205] Dr. Mason and Mr. Smeaton state that, among the Karens, it is occasionally practised only by those who are brought much in contact with the Burmese.[3206] Among the Hindus, according to Mr. Dutt, polygyny seems to have grown in the latter part of the Vedic age, as there are scarcely any allusions to it in the earlier hymns.[3207] Goguet observes that “fables which can be traced back to the earliest times give us no instance of any man’s having more than one lawful wife.”[3208] Although the majority of the heroes in the writings of Kalidasa are described as polygynists,[3209] the principal divinities whom the Hindus acknowledge are represented as married to but one legitimate wife.[3210] The higher position so generally granted to the first married wife in polygynous families seems to indicate in most cases a transition from monogamous to polygynous habits, and not vice versa, as has often been suggested.[3211]
Monogamy is the more likely to have prevailed almost exclusively among our earliest human ancestors, since it does so among the man-like apes. Mr. Darwin certainly mentions the Gorilla as a polygamist;[3212] but the majority of statements we have regarding this animal are to the opposite effect. Relying on the most trustworthy authorities, Professor Hartmann says, “The Gorilla lives in a society consisting of male and female and their young of varying ages.”[3213]
We may thus take for granted that civilization up to a certain point is favourable to polygyny; but it is equally certain that in its higher forms it leads to monogamy.
One of the chief advantages of civilization is the decrease of wars. The death-rate of men has consequently become less, and the considerable disproportion between the sexes which, among many warlike peoples, makes polygyny almost a law of nature, no longer exists among the most advanced nations. No superstitious belief keeps the civilized man apart from his wife during her pregnancy and whilst she suckles her child; and the suckling time has become much shorter since the introduction of domesticated animals and the use of milk. To a cultivated mind youth and beauty are by no means the only attractions of a woman; and civilization has made female beauty more durable. The desire for offspring as we have seen, has become less intense. A large family, instead of being a help in the struggle for existence, is often considered an insufferable burden. A man’s kinsfolk are not now his only friends, and his wealth and power do not depend upon the number of his wives and children. A wife has ceased to be a mere labourer, and for manual labour we have to a great extent substituted the work of domesticated animals and the use of implements and machines.[3214] Polygyny has thus, in many ways, become less desirable for the civilized man than it was for his barbarian and savage ancestors. And other causes have co-operated to produce the same result.
When the feelings of women are held in due respect, monogamy will necessarily be the only recognized form of marriage. In no way does the progress of mankind show itself more clearly than in the increased acknowledgment of women’s rights, and the causes which, at lower stages of development, may make polygyny desired by women themselves, do not exist in highly civilized societies. The refined feeling of love, depending chiefly upon mutual sympathy and upon appreciation of mental qualities, is scarcely compatible with polygynous habits; and the passion for one has gradually become more absorbing.
Will monogamy be the only recognized form of marriage in the future? This question has been answered in different ways. According to Mr. Spencer, “the monogamic form of the sexual relation is manifestly the ultimate form; and any changes to be anticipated must be in the direction of completion and extension of it.”[3215] Dr. Le Bon, on the other hand, thinks that European laws will, in the future, legalize polygyny;[3216] and M. Letourneau remarks that, although we may now look upon monogamy as superior to any other form of marriage yet known, “we need not consider it the Ultima Thule in the evolution of connubial ceremonies.”[3217] But we may without hesitation assert that, if mankind advance in the same direction as hitherto; if, consequently, the causes to which monogamy in the most progressive societies owes its origin continue to operate with constantly growing force; if, especially, altruism increases, and the feeling of love becomes more refined, and more exclusively directed to one,—the laws of monogamy can never be changed, but must be followed much more strictly than they are now.
Mr. McLennan suggests that, in early times, polyandry was the rule and monogamy and polygyny exceptions. According to his view, the only marriage law in which female kinship could have originated was polyandry—polyandry of “the ruder sort,” in which the husbands are not kinsmen. And it is, he says, impossible not to believe that the Levirate—that is, the practice of marrying a dead brother’s widow—is derived from polyandry.[3218] The fallacy of the first inference, which assumes the system of “kinship through females only” to depend upon uncertainty as to fathers, has already been shown. The second inference will be found to be equally erroneous.