(Concluded)
Against the hypothesis of promiscuity Sir Henry Maine has urged that a good deal of evidence seems to show that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes tends to a pathological condition very unfavourable to fecundity; and “infecundity, amid perpetually belligerent savages, implies weakness and ultimate destruction.”[612]
Dr. Carpenter refers to the efforts of the American planters to form the negroes into families, as the promiscuity into which they were liable to fall produced infertility, and fertility had become important to the slave-owners through the prohibition of the slave-trade.[613] It is also a well-known fact that prostitutes very seldom have children, while, according to Dr. Roubaud, those of them who marry young easily become mothers.[614] “Il ne pousse pas d’herbe dans les chemins où tout le monde passe,” Dr. Bertillon remarks.[615] And, in a community where all the women equally belonged to all the men, the younger and prettier ones would of course be most sought after, and take up a position somewhat akin to that of the prostitutes of modern society.
It may perhaps be urged that the practice of polyandry prevails among several peoples without any evil results as regards fecundity being heard of. But polyandry scarcely ever implies continued promiscuous intercourse of many men with one woman. In Tibet, for example, where the brothers of a family very often have a common wife, more than one are seldom at home at the same time.[616] Mr. Talboys Wheeler has even suggested that polyandry arose among a pastoral people, whose men were away from their families for months at a time, so that the duty of protecting these families would naturally be undertaken by the brothers in turn.[617] Again, among the Kaniagmuts, the second husband was only a deputy who acted as husband and master of the house during the absence of the true lord;[618] and the same was the case in Nukahiva.[619] But especially remarkable is the following practice connected with polyandry. In the description given by Bontier and Le Verrier of the conquest and conversion of the Canarians in 1402 by Jean de Bethencourt we read that, in the island of Lancerote, most of the women have three husbands, “who wait upon them alternately by months; the husband that is to live with the wife the following month waits upon her and upon her other husband the whole of the month that the latter has her, and so each takes her in turn.”[620] Mr. Harkness tells us about a Toda who, having referred to his betrothal to his wife Pilluvāni and the subsequent betrothal of the latter to two others, Khakhood and Tūmbut, said, “Now, according to our customs, Pilluvāni was to pass the first month with me, the second with Khakhood, and the third with Tūmbut.”[621] Among the Kulus, in the Himalaya Mountains, when parents sell a daughter to several brothers, she belongs during the first month to the eldest brother, during the second to the next eldest, and so on;[622] whilst, as regards the Nairs, whose women, except those of the first quality, may marry twelve husbands if they pleased. Hamilton states that “all the husbands agree very well, for they cohabit with her in their turns, according to their priority of marriage, ten days, more or less, according as they can fix a term among themselves.”[623]
The strongest argument against ancient promiscuity is, however, to be derived from the psychical nature of man and other mammals. Mr. Darwin remarks that from what we know of the jealousy of all male quadrupeds, armed, as many of them are, with special weapons for battling with their rivals, promiscuous intercourse is utterly unlikely to prevail in a state of nature. “Therefore,” he continues, “looking far enough back in the stream of time, and judging from the social habits of man as he now exists, the most probable view is that he aboriginally lived in small communities, each with a single wife, or if powerful with several, whom he jealously guarded against all other men.”[624] Yet, according to the same naturalist, it seems certain, from the lines of evidence afforded by Mr. Morgan, Mr. McLennan, and Sir J. Lubbock, that almost promiscuous intercourse at a later time was extremely common throughout the world;[625] and a similar view is held by some other writers.[626] But if jealousy can be proved to be universally prevalent in the human race at the present day, it is impossible to believe that there ever was a time when man was devoid of that powerful feeling. Professor Giraud-Teulon[627] and Dr. Le Bon[628] assert, indeed, that it is unknown among almost all civilized peoples; but this assertion will be found to be groundless.
Starting from the very lowest races of men: we are told that the Fuegians “are exceedingly jealous of their women, and will not allow any one, if they can help it, to enter their huts, particularly boys.”[629] Several writers assert the same as regards the Australians.[630] Thus, according to Sir George Grey, “a stern and vigilant jealousy is commonly felt by every married man;”[631] and Mr. Curr states that, in most tribes, a woman “is not allowed to converse or have any relations whatever with any adult male, save her husband. Even with a grown-up brother she is always forbidden to exchange a word.”[632] With reference to the Veddahs of Ceylon, Mr. Bailey says that, with the very smallest cause, the men are exceedingly jealous of their most unattractive wives, and are very careful to keep them apart from their companions.[633]
According to a Thlinket myth, the jealousy of man is older than the world itself. There was an age, it is supposed, when men groped in the dark in search of the world. At that time a Thlinket lived who had a wife and sister; and he was so jealous of his wife, that he killed all his sister’s children because they looked at her.[634]
Great jealousy is met with among the Atkha Aleuts, according to Father Yakof; among the Kutchin Indians, according to Richardson and Hardisty; among the Haidahs, according to Dixon; among the Tacullis, according to Harmon; among the Crees, according to Richardson.[635] The Indians on the Eastern side of the Rocky Mountains visited by Harmon, in their fits of jealousy, “often cut off all the hair from the heads of their wives, and, not unfrequently, cut off their noses also; and should they not in the moment of passion have a knife at hand, they will snap it off at one bite, with their teeth.... The man is satisfied in thus revenging a supposed injury; and having destroyed the beauty of his wife, he concludes that he has secured her against all future solicitations to offend.”[636] In California, if a married native woman is seen even walking in the forest with another man than her husband, she is chastised by him, whilst a repetition of the offence is generally punished with speedy death.[637] Among the Creeks, “it was formerly reckoned adultery, if a man took a pitcher of water off a married woman’s head, and drank of it.”[638] The Moquis allow their wives to work only indoors, afraid of having rivals.[639] The Arawaks,[640] as also the Indians of Peru,[641] are stated to commit horrible crimes of jealousy. The Botocudos, who are known to change wives very frequently, are, nevertheless, much addicted to that passion.[642] And, regarding the Coroados of Brazil, v. Spix and v. Martius say that revenge and jealousy are the only passions that can rouse their stunted soul from its moody indifference.[643]
In the Sandwich Islands, according to Lisiansky, jealousy was extremely prevalent,[644] and, in Nukahiva, the men punish their wives with severity upon the least suspicion of infidelity.[645] The Areois of Tahiti, too, although given to every kind of licentiousness, are described by Ellis as utterly jealous.[646] The same is said of the New Caledonians and New Zealanders;[647] whilst, in the Pelew Islands, it is forbidden even to speak about another man’s wife or mention her name.[648] In short, the South Sea Islanders are, as Mr. Macdonald remarks, generally jealous of the chastity of their wives.[649]