A somewhat different account of the Bantu race is given by Mr. McCall Theal. “A native of the coast region,” he says, “will not marry a girl whose relationship by blood to himself can be traced, no matter how distantly connected they may be. So scrupulous is he in this respect that he will not marry even a girl who belongs to another tribe, if she has the same family name as himself, though the relationship cannot be traced. He regards himself as the protector of those females whom he would term his cousins and second cousins, but for whom he has only the same name as for the daughters of his own parents, the endearing name of sister. In his opinion, union with one of them would be incestuous, something horrible, something unutterably disgraceful. The native of the mountains, almost as a rule, marries the daughter of his father’s brother.”[1837]
Mr. Conder states that, among the Bechuanas, marrying out of their own tribe seems to be the common practice;[1838] whereas, according to Mr. Casalis, the Basutos frequently marry cousins. Yet, among them also, there are some tribes who consider such marriages incestuous.[1839] The Hottentots are said by Kolben to punish alliances between first and second cousins with death.[1840] In Madagascar, though marriage between brothers’ children is looked upon as the most proper kind of connection, and brothers’ and sisters’ children can marry on the performance of a slight but prescribed ceremony, supposed to remove any impediment or disqualification arising out of consanguinity, the descendants of sisters are not allowed to intermarry down to the fifth or seventh generation, and a marriage of sisters’ children, when the sisters have the same mother, is regarded with horror.[1841]
Among the Romans, alliances between persons under the same patria potestas—i.e., cognati related within the sixth degree—were nefariæ et incestuæ nuptiæ; but these prohibitions were gradually relaxed. From the time of the Second Punic War, according to Livy, even first cousins were allowed to intermarry; and in 49 A.D. the Emperor Claudius, wishing to marry his niece Agrippina, obtained from the Senate a decree that marriage with a brother’s daughter should be legal, though marriage with a sister’s daughter remained illegal.[1842] In the fourth century, however, Constantius again forbade such unions, on pain of death.[1843] Afterwards, under the influence of the ascetic ideas prevalent in the Church, the prohibited degrees were gradually extended. Theodosius the Great forbade under the severest penalties the union of first cousins, paternal and maternal; and at the end of the sixth century the prohibition was extended even to the seventh degree. This prohibition continued in force until in the Western Church it was once more reduced to the fourth degree by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. in the year 1215; that is, marriage was permitted beyond the degree of third cousins.[1844] Such is the nominal law at the present time wherever the canon law prevails.[1845]
Besides the prohibitions relating to actual kinship, there are, among several peoples, others applying to marriage between relatives by alliance. Among the Andamanese, a man or woman may not marry into the family of a brother-in-law or sister-in-law.[1846] The Eastern Greenlanders and the Eskimo of the north-east coast of America forbid or disapprove of marriage with two sisters;[1847] and, according to Dr. Daniell, the same rule prevails among the natives of Accra at the Gold Coast, who even prohibit a man from marrying two cousins of the same parentage.[1848] Again, several tribes in Western Victoria do not permit marriage with a deceased wife’s daughter by a former husband.[1849] But prohibitions of this sort do not seem to be very common among savage and barbarous races. In many of the Indian tribes of North America, all the daughters of a family are, as a rule, married to the same man. A brother very frequently marries his deceased brother’s widow; and, in Africa, a son often weds all his father’s widows except his own mother.
Among civilized peoples, on the other hand, relations by affinity are frequently regarded in the same light as relations by blood. In Yucatan, a man was not allowed to marry his sister-in-law.[1850] According to the Chinese Code, marriage with a deceased brother’s widow is punished with strangulation, whilst marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is exceedingly common, and has always been regarded as particularly honourable.[1851] In Japan, intercourse with a father’s or a grandfather’s concubine, or a son’s or grandson’s wife, involves the same punishment as intercourse with a paternal aunt or a sister.[1852] The ‘Institutes of Vishnu’ declare that “sexual connection with one’s mother, or daughter, or daughter-in-law, are crimes in the highest degree,” there being no other way to atone for these crimes than to proceed into the flames.[1853] According to the laws of Moses[1854] and Mohammed[1855] and the Roman Law[1856] marriage was prohibited with mother-in-law, step-mother, daughter-in-law, and step-daughter—according to Mohammed, however, so far as the step-daughter was concerned, only if she were under the guardianship of her mother’s husband. Moses also forbade marriage with the sister of a wife who was still living,[1857] and with a brother’s wife, if she were widowed and had children by the brother; and Mohammed prohibited marriage with two sisters at the same time.
From very early times thinkers have tried to account for the prohibition of marriage between near kin. Some, says Mr. Huth, ascribe them to a fear lest relationship may become too involved; others to a fear lest affection may become concentrated within too narrow a circle; because marriage would take place too early; because people would be induced to marry each other in order that property might be kept in the family; because such marriages are prohibited by “God’s law”; because they outrage “natural modesty”; and, only in modern times, because they are supposed to prove injurious to the offspring.[1858]
Comparative ethnography has changed the aspect of the question. The horror of incest has been found to prevail among peoples who neither know anything of “God’s law,” nor possess property to keep in the family. New hypotheses have therefore been suggested more worthy of consideration, as being founded on a much firmer basis of facts.
The late Mr. McLennan was the first to call attention to the general prevalence of the rule which forbids the members of a tribe (or clan) to intermarry with members of their own tribe (or clan). This rule he called “exogamy,” in contradistinction to “endogamy,” or the rule which forbids the members of a tribe to intermarry with members of other tribes. In his celebrated essay on ‘Primitive Marriage’ he made an attempt to show that exogamy had arisen from female infanticide, “common among savages everywhere.” He assumes that to tribes surrounded by enemies, and unaided by art, contending with the difficulties of subsistence, sons were a source of strength, both for defence and in the quest for food, whilst daughters were a source of weakness. Hence the cruel custom which left the primitive human hordes with very few young women, thus seriously disturbing the balance of the sexes within the hordes, and forcing them to prey upon one another for wives. Usage, induced by necessity, would then in time establish a prejudice among the tribes observing it—a prejudice strong as a principle of religion, as every prejudice relating to marriage is apt to be—against marrying women of their own tribe.[1859]
Mr. Herbert Spencer has subjected this hypothesis to a searching criticism,[1860] and from an article in the ‘Fortnightly Review’ it appears as if Mr. McLennan himself had in the end some doubts as to its correctness.[1861] To Mr. Spencer’s objections others might be added.