[391] Lewis, Ancient Laws of Wales, 56, 57, 196.
[392] Westermarck, op. cit., 323-28.
[393] Tylor, On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions, 261 ff.; cf. Westermarck, op. cit., 328, 329.
[394] Westermarck, op. cit., chap, xiii, and compare chap, xv, 334 ff.
[395] On sterility as the result of crossing in species, see Wallace, Darwinism, 152-86; Darwin, Animals and Plants under Domestication, II, 78 ff.; and on the good effects of crossing and the evil effects of close interbreeding, ibid., II, 92-126, 104. Cf. Quaterfages, The Human Species, 85-88 (crossing species), 276-86 (effects of crossing in mixed races); Mitchell, "Blood-Relationship in Marriage," in Memoirs of London Anth. Society, 1865, II, 402-56; and Withington, Consanguineous Marriages, 2 ff., who believes the injurious effects of such unions on the offspring have been overestimated. On the other hand, it has been maintained that under primitive conditions the advantages of close intermarriage may have outweighed all disadvantages: Mucke, Horde und Familie, 245-47, combating Westermarck's view.
[396] Darwin, Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom, 436.
[397] Cunow, Australneger, 184 ff., rejects Westermarck's theory, first, on the ground that the prohibition of intermarriage in the cases cited often extends far beyond the local group; and secondly, because where the members of a gens do not at the same time form a local community, marriage is not forbidden in the group of persons actually living together. But Westermarck is dealing with origins; and he does not mean to say that all the existing complex systems of kinship which have gradually been developed through association of ideas or other influences actually now conform to the principle for which he contends. On the other hand Hellwald, Die mensch. Familie, 178 ff., following Wagner, in Kosmos, 1886, I, 21, 24-34, reaches a conclusion essentially like that obtained by Westermarck. He finds the origin of exogamy in a dread of close intermarriage producing a horror of incest. During the period of the endogamous mother-group such marriages were the rule. With the rise of fixed habitations for the group, beginning in the glacial age and carried farther in the diluvial period, came more permanent sexual relations, the prototype of real marriage. This close living together, because of its deadening effect on sexual attraction, produced a dislike of unions in the group, leading to exogamy, often accompanied by wife-capture; although neither rape nor exogamy must be regarded as a universal stage of social evolution. Crawley, Mystic Rose, 222, 223, 443 ff., rejects Westermarck's theory of a general human "instinct" against inbreeding. He insists that neither incest nor promiscuity was "ever anything but the rarest exception in any stage of human culture, even the earliest; the former being prevented by the psychological difficulty with which love comes into play between persons either closely associated or strictly separated before the age of puberty, a difficulty enhanced by the ideas of sexual taboo, which are intensified in the closeness of the family circle, where practical as well as religious considerations cause parents to prevent any dangerous connections." Westermarck's theory, he holds, does not account for all the facts; for example, "that to no little extent brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, do not live together. This is a result of sexual taboo, and is originally a part of the cause why such marriage is avoided, and not a result of avoidance of incest." In short, it "is the application of sexual taboo to brothers and sisters, who, because they are of opposite sexes, of the same generation, and are in close contact, and for no other reasons, are regarded as potentially marriageable, that is the foundation of exogamy and the marriage system." Cf. Lang, Social Origins, 10-34, 238-40 note, whose criticism of Westermarck and McLennan follows similar lines; and Atkinson, Primal Law, 209-40, who believes that jealousy may have set up a bar to sexual unions within the "fire-circle" before totems or the idea of incest arose.
[398] Consult the very interesting chapter of Westermarck on "Selection as Influenced by Affection and Sympathy, and by Calculation," op. cit., 356 ff. "Affection depends in a very high degree upon sympathy. Though distinct aptitudes, these two classes of emotions are most intimately connected: affection is strengthened by sympathy, and sympathy is strengthened by affection.... If love is excited by contrast, it is so only within certain limits. The contrast must not be so great as to exclude sympathy."—Ibid., 362. "Civilization," he adds, "has narrowed the inner limit, within which a man or woman must not marry;" while "it has widened the outer limit within which a man or woman may marry and generally marries. The latter of these processes has been one of vast importance in man's history."—Ibid., 376.
[399] McLennan, Studies, I, 116, passim; cf. Spencer, Principles of Sociology, I, 679.
[400] See, especially, Westermarck, op. cit., chaps. xx-xxiii; Starcke, Primitive Family, 128-70; Wake, Marriage and Kinship, chaps. v, vi, vii; and compare Hellwald, Die mensch. Familie, 241 ff. For the literature of polyandry, see p. 80, n. 2, above.