Civil marriage, implying the necessity of the union being sanctioned by secular authority, is not a merely European institution. Among the ancient Peruvians, the king convoked annually, or every two years, at Cuzco all the marriageable young men and maidens of his family. After calling them by name, he joined their hands, and delivered them to their parents. Such marriages among that class were alone denominated lawful; and the governors and chiefs were, by their offices, obliged to marry, after the same formalities, the young men and women of the provinces over which they presided.[2620] In Nicaragua also, marriage was “a civil rite, performed by the cacique.”[2621] And among the savage Pomo of California, who have two chiefs, a “war-chief” and a “peace-chief,” the latter, as being a kind of censor morum, has to perform the marriage ceremonies, so far as they extend, i.e., he causes the parties to enter into a simple covenant in presence of their parents and friends.[2622] Again, among certain tribes no marriage is permitted without the chief’s approval. But such cases seem to be exceptions among non-European peoples, especially those of a lower culture, marriage being generally considered a private matter, with which the authorities or the community have nothing to do, if only it takes place between persons who, by law or custom, are permitted to intermarry.
In this chapter reference has often been made to the validity of marriage. A lawful marriage is, indeed, quite a different thing from a marriage in the natural history sense of the term. The former, which is contracted under the formalities and in accordance with the stipulations prescribed by the written or unwritten laws of the country, implies the recognition by society both of the validity of the union and the legitimacy of the children. Every people is not so happy as the Nukahivans, among whom, according to Lisiansky, no such thing as illegitimacy is known.[2623] The Greeks regarded a union into which the woman entered without dowry as concubinage, rather than as marriage. Among other peoples purchase is the only way of contracting a valid marriage. So it was with the ancient Germans and Scandinavians.[2624] So it is with the Californian Karok, among whom the children of a woman who is not purchased are accounted no better than bastards and constitute a class of social outcasts who can intermarry only among themselves.[2625] Often certain ceremonies are required for a marriage to be legal. Thus the Romans considered an alliance made without sponsalia, nuptiæ, and dos, concubinage.[2626] Among the Nez Percés in Oregon, the consent of the parents is all that is necessary for a marriage to be valid; sometimes, when the parents refuse their consent, a run-away match occurs, “but it is not regarded as a legal marriage, and the woman thereafter is considered a prostitute, and is treated accordingly.”[2627]
[CHAPTER XX]
THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
Most of the lower animal species are by instinct either monogamous or polygynous. With man, every possible form of marriage occurs. There are marriages of one man with one woman (monogamy), of one man with many women (polygyny), of many men with one woman (polyandry), and, in a few exceptional cases, of many men with many women.
Polygyny was permitted by most of the ancient peoples with whom history acquaints us, and is, in our day, permitted by several civilized nations and the bulk of savage tribes.
The ancient Chibchas practised polygyny to a large extent.[2628] Among the Mexicans[2629] and the Peruvian Incas,[2630] a married man might have, besides his legitimate wife, less legitimate wives or concubines. The same is the case in China and Japan, where the children of a concubine have the same legal rights as the children of a wife.[2631] In Corea, the mandarins are even bound by custom, besides having several wives, to retain several concubines in their “yamen.”[2632]
Tradition shows polygyny and concubinage to have been customary among the Hebrews during the patriarchal age. Esau married Judith and Basemath, Jacob married Leah and Rachel.[2633] Later on, we read of Solomon, who had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines;”[2634] and of Rehoboam, who “took eighteen wives and threescore concubines.”[2635] Indeed, polygyny was so much a matter of course that the law did not even criticize it.[2636] According to the Talmudic right also, it was permitted, though the number of legitimate wives was restricted to four.[2637] Among European Jews, it was still practised during the Middle Ages, and, among Jews living in Mohammedan countries, it occurs even to this day.[2638] The Korân allows a man to take four legitimate wives,[2639] and he may take as many concubines as he likes. Between a wife and a concubine the difference is, indeed, not great: the former has her father as her protector, whilst the latter is defenceless against the husband.[2640] A slave, on the other hand, is not permitted to have more than two wives at the same time.[2641]
Diodorus Siculus informs us that the Egyptians were not restricted to any number of wives, but that everyone married as many as he chose, with the exception of the priesthood, who were by law confined to one consort.[2642] The Egyptians had concubines also, most of whom appear to have been foreign women—war-captives or slaves; and these were members of the family, ranking next to the wives and children of their lord, and probably enjoying a share of the property after his death.[2643] With regard to the Assyrians, Professor Rawlinson states that, so far as we have any real evidence, their kings appear as monogamists; but he thinks it is probable that they had a certain number of concubines.[2644] In Media, on the other hand, polygyny was commonly practised among the more wealthy classes;[2645] and the Persian kings, particularly in later times, had a considerable number of wives and concubines.[2646]
None of the Hindu law-books restricts the number of wives whom a man is permitted to marry.[2647] We find undoubted cases of polygyny in the hymns of the ‘Rig-Veda,’[2648] and several passages in the ‘Laws of Manu’ provide for a plurality of wives without any restriction.[2649] Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Balfour says, “By the law a Hindu may marry as many wives, and by custom keep as many concubines, as he may choose.”[2650]