Marriage a necessary requirement for the existence of the human race, p. [39].—The hypothesis that the maternal uncle was the guardian of the children, pp. [39]-41.—The father the head of the family, p. [41].—The hypothesis that all the men of the tribe indiscriminately were their guardians, pp. [41], et seq.—Man originally not a gregarious animal, pp. [42], et seq.—The solitary life of the man-like apes, ibid.—Savage peoples living in families rather than in tribes, pp. [43]-47.—Insufficient food supply a hindrance to a true gregarious manner of living, pp. [47]-49.—The gregariousness and sociability of man sprang in the main from progressive intellectual and material civilization, pp. [49], et seq.
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
The hypothesis of promiscuity, pp. [51], et seq.—The evidence adduced in support of it, p. [52].—Notices of savage nations said to live promiscuously, pp. [52]-55.—Some of the facts adduced, no instances of real promiscuity, pp. [55]-57.—Most of the statements obviously erroneous, pp. [57]-59.—The accuracy of the others doubtful, pp. [59], et seq.—Even if correct, they cannot afford any evidence for promiscuity having prevailed in primitive times, pp. 60, et seq.—The free cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, in some parts of the world, given as evidence of ancient promiscuity, p. [61].—Sexual intercourse out of wedlock rare, and unchastity on the part of the woman looked upon as a disgrace, among many uncivilized peoples, pp. [61]-66.—The wantonness of savages in several cases due chiefly to the influence of civilization, pp. [66]-70.—It is quite different from promiscuity, pp. [70], et seq.—Customs interpreted as acts of expiation for individual marriage, p. [72].—Religious prostitution, ibid.—Jus primae noctis accorded to the wedding-guests or to the friends of the bridegroom, pp. [72]-76.—The practice of lending wives to visitors, pp. 73-75.—Jus primae noctis granted to a chief, lord, or priest, pp. [76]-80.—Courtesans held in greater estimation than women married to a single husband, pp. [80], et seq.
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
(Continued)
The ‘classificatory system of relationship,’ pp. [82]-84.—‘Marriage in a group’ and the ‘consanguine family,’ pp. [84], et seq.—Mr. Morgan’s assumption that the ‘classificatory system’ is a system of blood ties, p. [85].—Terms for relationships borrowed from the children’s lips, pp. [85]-87.—Other terms, pp. [87]-89.—Mr. Morgan’s assumption not consistent with the facts he has himself stated, p. [89].—The terms for relationships originally terms of address, ibid.—The names given chiefly with reference to sex and age, as also to the external, or social, relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he addresses, pp. [90]-95.—No inference regarding early marriage customs to be drawn from the terms for relationships, pp. [95], et seq.—The system of ‘kinship through females only,’ p. [96].—Supposed to be due to uncertain paternity, pp. [96], et seq.—A list of peoples among whom this system does not prevail, pp. [98]-104.—The inference that ‘kinship through females only’ everywhere preceded the rise of ‘kinship through males’ inadmissible from Mr. McLennan’s point of view, p. [105].—The maternal system does not presuppose former uncertainty as to fathers, ibid.—The father’s participation in parentage not discovered as soon as the mother’s, though now universally recognized, pp. [105]-107.—Once discovered, it was often exaggerated, p. [106].—The denomination of children and the rules of succession, in the first place, not dependent on ideas of consanguinity, p. [107].—Several reasons for naming children after the mother rather than after the father, apart from any consideration of relationship, ibid.—The tie between a mother and child much stronger than that which binds a child to the father, pp. [107], et seq.—Polygyny, p. [108].—Husband living with the wife’s family, pp. [109], et seq.—The rules of succession influenced by local connections and by the family name, pp. [110]-112.—No general coincidence of what we consider moral and immoral habits with the prevalence of the male and female line among existing savages, p. [112].—Occasional coincidence of the paternal system with uncertainty as to fathers, ibid.—Avowed recognition of kinship in the female line only does not show an unconsciousness of male kinship, pp. [112], et seq.—The prevalence of the female line would not presuppose general promiscuity, even if, in some cases, it were dependent on uncertain paternity, p. [113].—The groups of social phenomena adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of promiscuity no evidence, ibid.
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
(Concluded)
Promiscuous intercourse between the sexes tends to a pathological condition unfavourable to fecundity, p. [115].—The practice of polyandry does not afford evidence in an opposite direction, pp. [115]-117.—The jealousy of man and other mammalian species the strongest argument against ancient promiscuity, p. [117].—Jealousy among existing peoples, pp. [117]-121.—Punishments inflicted for adultery, pp. [121], 122, 130.—Man’s requirement of virginity from his bride, pp. [123], et seq.—A wife considered to belong to her husband, not during his lifetime only, but after his death, pp. [124]-130.—Widows killed, pp. 125, et seq.—Duties towards deceased husbands, pp. [126], et seq.—Widows forbidden to marry again, pp. [127], et seq.—Prohibition of speedy remarriage, pp. [128]-130.—The practice of lending or prostituting wives no evidence for the absence of jealousy, pp. [130], et seq.—Contact with a ‘higher culture’ misleading natural instincts, pp. [131], et seq.—No reason to suppose that the feeling of jealousy ever was restrained by conditions which made it necessary for a man to share his wife with other men, pp. [132], et seq.—The hypothesis of promiscuity essentially unscientific, p. [133].