Nowhere are unmarried people of both sexes less restrained than among the savage nations of India and Indo-China. Yet among these savage nations there is no promiscuity. Among the Toungtha, for instance, according to Captain Lewin, prostitution is not understood, and, when explained, it is regarded by them with abhorrence. “They draw rightly a strong distinction between a woman prostituting herself habitually as a means of livelihood, and the intercourse by mutual consent of two members of opposite sexes, leading, as it generally does, to marriage.”[368] Among the Tipperahs,[369] Oráons,[370] and Kolyas[371], unmarried girls may cohabit freely with young men, but are never found living promiscuously with them. Among the Dyaks on the Batang Lupar, too, unchastity is not rare, but a woman usually confines herself to one lover. “Should the girl prove with child,” says Sir Spenser St. John, “it is an understanding between them that they marry”; and the men seldom, by denying the paternity, refuse to fulfil their engagements.[372] Again, in Tonga, it was considered disgraceful for a girl to change lovers often. And in Scotland, prior to the Reformation, there was a practice called “hand-fasting,” which certainly may be characterized as unrestrained freedom before marriage, but not as promiscuity. “At the public fairs,” the Rev. Ch. Rogers states, “men selected female companions with whom to cohabit for a year. At the expiry of this period both parties were accounted free; they might either unite in marriage or live singly.”[373]
The attempt to explain free intercourse between unmarried people as a relic of a primitive condition of general promiscuity or rather, to infer the latter from the former, must thus, in every respect, be considered a complete failure.
Sir John Lubbock thinks that his hypothesis of “communal marriage” derives additional support from some curious customs, which he interprets as acts of expiation for individual marriage. “In many cases,” he says, “the exclusive possession of a wife could only be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the pre-existing communal rights.”[374]
Thus Herodotus states that, in Babylonia, every woman was obliged once in her life to give herself up, in the temple of Mylitta, to strangers, for the satisfaction of the goddess; and in some parts of Cyprus, he tells us, the same custom prevailed.[375] In Armenia, according to Strabo, there was a very similar law. The daughters of good families were consecrated to Anaitis, a phallic divinity like Mylitta, giving themselves, as it appears, to the worshippers of the goddess indiscriminately.[376] Again, in the valleys of the Ganges, virgins were compelled before marriage to offer themselves up in the temples dedicated to Juggernaut. And the same is said to have been customary in Pondicherry and at Goa.[377]
These practices, however, evidently belong to phallic-worship, and occurred, as Mr. McLennan justly remarks, among peoples who had advanced far beyond the primitive state. The farther back we go, the less we find of such customs in India; “the germ only of phallic-worship shows itself in the Vedas, and the gross luxuriance of licentiousness, of which the cases referred to are examples, is of later growth.”[378]
Ancient writers tell us that, among the Nasamonians and Augilæ, two Libyan tribes, the jus primae noctis was accorded to all the guests at a marriage.[379] Garcilasso de la Vega asserts that, in the province Manta in Peru, marriages took place on condition that the bride should first yield herself to the relatives and friends of the bridegroom.[380] In the Balearic Islands, according to Diodorous Siculus, the bride was for one night considered the common property of all the guests, after which she belonged exclusively to her husband.[381] And v. Langsdorf reports the occurrence of a very similar practice in Nukahiva.[382]
With regard to Sir J. Lubbock’s interpretation of these customs, as acts of expiation for individual marriage, Mr. McLennan remarks that they are not cases of privileges accorded to the men of the bridegroom’s group only, which they should be, if they refer to an ancient communal right.[383] It may also be noted that, in Nukahiva, the license was dependent upon the will of the bride. Moreover, the freedom granted to the wedding guests may be simply and naturally explained. It may have been a part of the nuptial entertainment—a horrible kind of hospitality, no doubt, but quite in accordance with savage ideas, and analogous to another custom, which occurs much more frequently; I mean the practice of lending wives.
Among many uncivilized peoples, it is customary for a man to offer his wife, or one of his wives, to strangers for the time they stay in his hut. Even this practice has been adduced by several writers as evidence of a former communism.[384] To Sir John Lubbock it seems to involve the recognition of “a right inherent in every member of the community, and to visitors as temporary members.” Were this so, we should certainly have to conclude that “communal marriage” has been very prevalent in the human race, the practice of lending wives occurring among many peoples in different parts of the world.[385] But it is difficult to see how the practice could ever have been in any way connected with communism in women for all men belonging to the same tribe. It is not always the wife that is offered; it may as well be a daughter, a sister, or a servant.[386] Thus the people of Madagascar warn strangers to behave with decency to their wives, though they readily offer their daughters;[387] and it is asserted that a Tungus “will give his daughter for a time to any friend or traveller that he takes a liking to,” and if he has no daughter, he will give his servant, but not his wives.[388]
It can scarcely be doubted that such customs are due merely to savage ideas of hospitality. When we are told that, among the coast tribes of British Columbia, “the temporary present of a wife is one of the greatest honours that can be shown there to a guest;”[389] or that such an offer was considered by the Eskimo “as an act of generous hospitality;”[390] or, that “this is the common custom when the negroes wish to pay respect to their guests,”[391]—I cannot see why we should look for a deeper meaning in these practices than that which the words imply. A man offers a visitor his wife as he offers him a seat at his table. It is the greatest honour a savage can show his guest, as a temporary exchange of wives—a custom prevalent in North America, Polynesia, and elsewhere[392]—is regarded as a seal of the most intimate friendship. Hence, among the Greenlanders, those men were reputed the best and noblest tempered, who, without any pain or reluctance, would lend their friends their wives:[393] and the men of Caindu, a region of Eastern Tibet, hoped by such an offering to obtain the favour of the gods.[394] Indeed, if the practice of lending wives is to be regarded as a relic of ancient communism in women, we may equally well regard the practice of giving presents to friends, or hospitality in other respects, as a remnant of ancient communism in property of every kind.