A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 1 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

I. THE PROBLEM OF PROMISCUITY

The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race. The problem is not yet fully worked out; but if in the end the theory of original promiscuity must be abandoned, and the pairing or monogamous family accepted as the primitive social unit, it is not because of the spiritual and moral superiority of man, as compared with other animals, but because sexual communism as a primitive and general phase of life appears to be inconsistent with the biological, economic, and psychological laws which have determined the general course of organic evolution. Strongly supported and highly probable as is the pairing or monogamic theory, it must be clearly understood in the outset that it is still only a theory and has not yet reached the stage of demonstration. It will hardly do, however, to set aside the researches of its adherents as being superficial and devoid of real scientific method; for the champions of the opposite doctrine of primitive communism are nothing if not daring, and their sweeping generalizations often rest solely on comparatively few "survivals" of alleged conditions which are absolutely "prehistoric."[266]

It may be impossible to prove that there ever was a uniform primitive state. "So long as we are within the sphere of experience," says Starcke, "we cannot begin by assuming that there was at any time only a single human community. Experience begins with a plurality of communities, and the single community of which we are in search must be found on the indeterminate boundary between man and animals."[267] Indeed, it seems certain that if we are ever to understand the character of the earliest forms of human marriage and the human family, we must begin by studying the family and marriage as they exist among other and less advanced members of the animal world.[268] Biology, declares Letourneau, is the starting-point of sociology.[269] In this view Starcke coincides. "We have no reason to regard the social life of man as a recent form. Not only do the same psychical forces which influence gregarious man also influence the gregarious animal; probability also leads us to infer that the primitive communities of mankind are derived from those of animals. Since man in so many respects only goes on to develop the previous achievements of animal experience, it may be supposed that he made use of the social experience of animals as the firm foundation of his higher advancement." Besides, "there are human communities which are far less firmly established than those of animals;" and "it may even be asserted that the social faculty is positive in animals and negative in man," for man is "less subservient to instinct."[270] "If we want to find out the origin of marriage," says Westermarck, "we have to strike into another path, the only one which can lead to the truth, but a path which is open to him alone who regards organic nature as one continued chain, the last and most perfect link of which is man. For we can no more stop within the limits of our own species, when trying to find the root of our psychical and social life, than we can understand the physical condition of the human race without taking into consideration that of the lower animals."[271]

Accordingly three principal arguments against the existence at any time of a general state of promiscuity have been advanced:

First is the so-called zoölogical argument, based on a comparison of the sexual habits and institutions of animals with those of the lowest races of men. In the outset it is important to observe that the physical differentiation of the sexes is itself a product of the struggle for existence. This important fact is made the starting-point of the argument by which Hellwald[272] finds the elements of the human mother-group and of mother-right in earlier animal experiences. Among the lowest members of the animal kingdom there is no individual distinction of sex. That first makes its appearance when the "artistically constructed organism, in order to sustain itself in the process of evolution, is called upon to perform a wider series of functions." Thus "when an animal is forced to greater exertion, when it must work in order to exist, when unresistingly it can no longer suffer the stream of events to press upon it, but withstands it and seeks in it to follow its own course, then the separation of the sexes appears, and, indeed, as a division of labor created by nature for the purpose of developing species." With further evolution, male and female characteristics become more pronounced, in response to the special functions which each sex is called upon to perform. The same process continues in the case of man. To see in him anything other than the "highest and foremost representative of the animal world, one must be drunk with metaphysical nectar, and nothing is better fitted than comparative physiology to humble one's pride in this regard." For man's entire physical organization is "homologous to that of the higher species of animals." Accordingly, the lower a group of men stands on the ladder of culture, the less marked is the "bodily differentiation of the sexes." Among various backward peoples there is relatively slight difference in outward appearance between the men and the women.[273] The growth of sexual variation in physical structure keeps pace exactly with progress in civilization. This progress depends mainly on two original forces. Of these "without doubt the mightiest is hunger," the need of nourishment. For everywhere on earth the "first thought and striving" of living beings is the "stilling of hunger." Next to the struggle for food, the sexual and pairing impulse is the most potent factor in the genesis of society. The former influence, it is important to observe, is the more constant and the more imperative. The latter grows and becomes more acute with increase in refinement and the consequent development of the nervous system.[274] It follows that in the origin of social institutions the erotic or pairing impulse, however important, is a less cogent genetic force than the economic necessity of a food supply.

The lives of the lower animals reveal a great variety of sexual relations. The lowest form, and perhaps the most frequent, is that of unlimited promiscuity.[275] Among the invertebrates the preservation of the young is left almost wholly to chance. The duties of the parents are limited mainly to the functions of reproduction. "In the lowest classes of vertebrata, parental care is likewise almost unheard of." It "rarely happens that both parents jointly take care of their progeny."[276] But the chelonia, or tortoise group, are "known to live in pairs;" and here we reach, among animals, the first trace of the family, properly so called. "The chelonia form, with regard to their domestic habits, a transition to the birds, as they do also from a zoölogical and, particularly, from an embryological point of view." Who that has experienced the keen delight afforded by watching the domestic habits of birds, from the building of the nest to the teaching of the young to make the first wavering trial of its wings, cannot bear witness to the high development of marriage and the family among them? The great work of Brehm supplies abundant evidence of their human-like social life.[277] "Parental affection," summarizes Westermarck, "has reached a very high degree of development, not only on the mother's side, but also on the father's. Male and female help each other to build the nest, the former generally bringing the materials, the latter doing the work. In fulfilling the numberless duties of the breeding season both birds take a share. Incubation rests principally with the mother, but the father, as a rule, helps his companion, taking her place when she wants to leave the nest for a moment, or providing her with food and protecting her from every danger. Finally, when the duties of the breeding season are over, and the result desired is obtained, a period with new duties commences. During the first few days after hatching, most birds rarely leave their young for long, and then only to procure food for themselves and their family. In cases of great danger, both parents bravely defend their offspring. As soon as the first period of helplessness is over, and the young have grown somewhat, they are carefully taught to shift for themselves; and it is only when they are perfectly capable of so doing that they leave the nest and the parents."[278] The bird family is usually monogamic, and the marriage is lasting. Birds are generally faithful to the marriage vow; and this is particularly true of the females.[279] "With the exception of those belonging to the gallinaceous family, when pairing," they do so "once for all till either one or the other dies.[280] And Dr. Brehm is so filled with admiration for their exemplary family life that he enthusiastically declares that 'real genuine marriage can only be found among the birds.'"[281]

With the lower mammals the union of the sexes is generally of short duration, often only for a single birth, though in several species the parents remain together even after the arrival of the young. But among the higher members examples of monogamic marriage are not infrequent, such being the case with animals of prey.[282] As a rule, the quadrumana live in pairs. Gorillas, however, are said sometimes to be polygynous. "According to Dr. Savage, they live in bands, and all his informants agree in the assertion that but one adult male is seen in every band."[283] But monogamy is perhaps most common. M. du Chaillu declares that he found "almost always one male with one female, though sometimes the old male wanders companionless."[284] The orang-utan and the chimpanzee, like the gorilla, also live in families.[285] Of a truth, promiscuity is far from universal in the pre-human stage.

Yet it would be easy to overestimate the value of the argument based upon the sexual relations of the lower animals. But it will not do with Kohler and Lippert to set it aside as entirely irrelevant.[286] Upon the precedents afforded by "anthropomorphic" species in particular, as Hellwald justly insists, no "slight weight should be placed;" for these are "not merely the highest organized animals, but they must also be regarded as the nearest animal relatives of man."[287] Indeed, the transition from the family as it exists among the quadrumana to that of the least-developed races of man is not abrupt, although the lowest examples of mankind yet observed are advanced beyond the supposed primitive human stage. The broad characteristics of the one are the characteristics of the other. The "relations of the sexes are, as a rule, of a more or less durable character." There is conjugal affection. The immediate care of the children belongs to the mother. "Among mammals as well as birds," declares Espinas, "maternal love is the corner-stone of the family."[288] The father is the protector and provider, although paternal love is more slowly developed. Like the male among the lower animals, savage or barbarous man may be "rather indifferent to the welfare of his wife and children, ... but the simplest paternal duties are, nevertheless, universally recognized. If he does nothing else, the father builds the habitation, and employs himself in the chase and in war."[289]

But the argument for the pre-human origin of the elements of marriage and the family does not rest merely upon precedents of sexual habits. It is based rather upon the entire experience of animals in the hard struggle for existence. That struggle, as Hellwald suggests, forced upon them primarily the problem of food-supply, the need of a sort of economic co-operation, more lasting in its results than the pairing instinct. It is the entire social, mental, and moral product of animal experience, of living together, so well described among others by Espinas, Schäffle, Groos, and Wundt, which man in some measure inherited as a rich legacy from his humbler predecessor.[290] Accordingly Westermarck believes that marriage was probably "transmitted to man from some ape-like ancestor, and that there never was a time when it did not occur in the human race."[291] With Starcke, and in harmony with the view of Hellwald already quoted, he holds that marriage and the family cannot rest upon the sexual impulse alone. This is too transitory. Among animals it is obvious that "it cannot be the sexual instinct that keeps male and female together for months and years," for the "generative power is restricted to a certain season;" and it seems highly probable that among men a pairing season prevailed in ancient times. Thus the "wild Indians of California, belonging to the lowest races on earth," are said to "have their rutting seasons as regularly as have the deer, the elk, the antelope, or any other animals."[292] According to Powers, the California Kabinapek "are extremely sensual. In the spring when the wild clover is lush and full of blossoms and they are eating it to a satiety after the famine of winter, they become amorous. This season, therefore, is a literal Saint Valentine's Day with them, as with the natural beasts and birds of the forest."[293] The Tasmanians, the Australian Watch-an-dies, and various other peoples appear to show evidences of the same habit.[294] Vignoli reaches a similar conclusion. "The family union in which man originally finds himself is not an essentially human but likewise an animal fact, since that mode of common social life is found with the greater part of animals and always among the higher. It is the necessity of rearing the young which unites the parents and gives them a common life for a shorter or longer period; indeed in some species this marriage of love and care continues throughout their whole existence. Hence the fact of family sociality is not an exclusive product of humanity, but of the universal laws of the whole animal life upon the earth. Let it not be asserted that in man affection between the sexes and toward their offspring ... is more active, more intense, and more lasting; for it manifests itself with equal strength and sometime with equal duration between animals and toward their young. Thus man loves, cohabits, and lives socially in a primitive family community only because he is an animal and moreover an animal higher in the organic series. So the fact of the family is consummated according to the necessity of cosmic laws governing a great part of the reproductive and social activity of the animal kingdom."[295]