CHAPTER VIII: MONOGAMY.*

§ 310. Already reasons have been given for believing that monogamy dates back as far as any other marital relation. Given a state preceding all social arrangements, and unions of individual men with individual women must have arisen among other kinds of unions.

Indeed, certain modes of life necessitating wide dispersion, such as are pursued by forest tribes in Brazil and the interior of Borneo—modes of life which in early stages of human evolution must have been commoner than now—hinder other relations of the sexes. The Wood-Veddahs exemplify the connexion between monogamy and great scattering; and, again, the Bushmen, who, having no interdict on polygyny are yet rarely polygynous, show us how separation into very small groups in pursuit of food, tends to produce more or less enduring associations between men and women in pairs. Where the habitat permits larger groups, the unregulated relations of the sexes are qualified by rudimentary monogamic unions as early as by unions of Edition: current; Page: [680] the polyandric and polygynic kinds, if not earlier. The tendency everywhere shown among the lowest races for men to take possession of women by force, has this implication; since the monopoly established by each act of violence is over one woman, not over several. Always the state of having two wives must be preceded by the state of having one. And the state of having one must in many cases continue, because of the difficulty of getting two where the surplus of women is not great.

Of course the union of one man with one woman as it originally exists, shows us but the beginning of monogamic marriage as understood by us. Where, as in cases already given, the wills of the stronger alone initiate and maintain such unions—where, as among the Hudson’s Bay Indians, “a weak man, unless he be a good hunter and well beloved, is seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice”—where, as among the Copper Indians, Richardson “more than once saw a stronger man assert his right to take the wife of a weaker countryman;” monogamy is very unstable. Its instability thus caused by external actions is made greater by internal actions—by the disruptive forces of unrestrained impulses. When, even in a superior race like the Semitic, we find wives repudiated with extreme frequency, so that among some tribes of Bedouins a man will have as many as fifty in succession; we may infer that by slow stages only have enduring monogamic unions been established.

§ 311. There have been several aids to the establishment of them. An important one has been a more developed conception of property, with consequent usages of barter and purchase. The wresting of a woman by one man from another, always checked to some extent by the accompanying danger, was further checked when wives came to be bought, or earned by labour. If he had given to her father a price, or a stipulated length of service, a man would resist with greater Edition: current; Page: [681] determination the abstraction of his wife, than if he had obtained her without this sacrifice; and from other men of the tribe who had similarly bought their wives, naturally siding with him, would come reprobation of one who disregarded his claim. From the same cause arises a restraint on divorce. If a wife has been bought or long laboured for, and if another can be had only at like cost, a barrier is raised against desires tending to dissolve the marriage.

Then, too, at later stages, predominance of this higher form of the marital relation is favoured by progress towards equalization of the sexes in numbers. In proportion as war becomes less frequent, and in proportion as an increasing part of the male population is industrially occupied, the mortality of males diminishes, and monogamy spreads. For polygyny new meets with positive resistance. Where there is an approximate balance of men and women, plurality of wives cannot be common without leaving many men wifeless; and from them must come a public opinion adverse to polygyny, tending to restrain and diminish it. That public opinion thus acts even on rulers after a certain stage, is shown by Low’s remark concerning the rarity of polygyny among the Land Dyaks: chiefs sometimes indulge in it, but they are apt to lose their influence over their followers by so doing.

To these negative causes for the spread of monogamy, have to be added positive causes. But before turning to them we must contrast the monogamic type of family with the types already discussed.

§ 312. Evidently, as tested by the definiteness and strength of the links among its members, the monogamic family is the most evolved. In polyandry the maternal connexion is alone distinct, and the children are but partially related to one another. In polygyny both the maternal and paternal connexions are distinct; but while some of the children are fully related, others are related on the paternal side only. In monogamy not only are the maternal and paternal connexions Edition: current; Page: [682] both distinct, but all the children are related on both sides. The family cluster is thus held together by more numerous ties; and beyond the greater cohesion so caused, there is an absence of those repulsions caused by the jealousies inevitable in the polygynic family.

This greater integration characterizes the family as it ramifies through successive generations. Definiteness of descent from the same father, grand-father, great grand-father, etc., it has in common with polygyny; but it has also definiteness of descent from the same mother, grand-mother, great grand-mother, etc. Hence its diverging branches are joined by additional bonds. Where, as with the Romans, there is a legally-recognized descent in the male line only, so that out of the cognates constituting the whole body of descendants, only the agnates are held to be definitely related, the ramifying family-stock is incompletely held together; but where, as with ourselves, descendants of female members of the family are included, it is completely held together.

§ 313. How the interests of the society, of the offspring, and of the parents, are severally better subserved by monogamy during those later stages of social evolution characterized by it, needs pointing out only for form’s sake.

Though, while habitual war and mortality of males leaves constantly a large surplus of females, polygyny favours maintenance of population; yet, when the surplus of females ceases to be large, monogamy becomes superior in productiveness. For, taking the number of females as measuring the possible number of children to be born in each generation, more children are likely to be born if each man has a wife, than if some men have many wives while others have none. So that after passing a certain point in the decrease of male mortality, the monogamic society begins to have an advantage over the polygynic in respect of fertility; and social survival, in so far as it depends on multiplication, is aided by monogamy. The stronger and more Edition: current; Page: [683] widely ramified family-bonds indicated above, aid in binding the monogamic society together more firmly than any other. The multiplied relationships traced along both lines of descent in all families, which, intermarrying, are ever initiating other double sets of relationships, produce a close net-work of connexions increasing the social cohesion otherwise caused. Political stability is also furthered in a greater degree. Polygyny shares with monogamy the advantage that inheritance of power in the male line becomes possible; but under polygyny the advantage is partially destroyed by the competition for power liable to arise between the children of different mothers. In monogamy this element of dissension disappears, and settled rule is less frequently endangered. For kindred reasons ancestor-worship has its development aided. Whatever favours stability in the dynasties of early rulers, tends to establish permanent dynasties of deities, with the resulting sacred sanctions for codes of conduct.

Decreased mortality of offspring is a manifest result of monogamy in societies that have outgrown barbarism. It is true that in a barren region like the snow-lands of Asia, the children of a polyandric household, fed and protected by several men, may be better off than those of a monogamic household. Probably, too, among savages whose slave-wives, brutally treated, have their strength overtaxed, as well as among such more advanced peoples as those of Africa, where the women do the field-work as well as the domestic drudgeries, a wife who is one of several, is better able to rear her children than a wife who has no one to share the multifarious labours with her. But as fast as we rise to social stages in which the men, no longer often away in war and idle during peace, are more and more of them occupied in industry—as fast as the women, less taxed by work, are able to pay greater attention to their families, while the men become the bread-winners; the monogamic union subserves better in two ways the rearing of children. Beyond the Edition: current; Page: [684] benefit of constant maternal care, the children get the benefit of concentrated paternal interest.

Still greater are the advantageous effects on the lives of adults, physical and moral. Though in early societies monogamic unions do not beget any higher feelings towards women, or any ameliorations of their lot; yet in later societies they are the necessary concomitants of such higher feelings and such ameliorations. Especially as the system of purchase declines and choice by women becomes a factor, there evolve the sentiments which characterize the relations of the sexes among civilized peoples. These sentiments have far wider effects than at first appear. How by their influence on the domestic relations they tend to raise the quality of adult life, materially and mentally, is obvious. But they tend in no small degree otherwise to raise the quality of adult life: they create a permanent and deep source of æsthetic interest. On recalling the many and keen pleasures derived from music, poetry, fiction, the drama, etc., all of them having for their predominant theme the passion of love, we shall see that to monogamy, which has developed this passion, we owe a large part of the gratifications which fill our leisure hours.

Nor must we forget, as a further result of the monogamic relation, that in a high degree it favours preservation of life after the reproductive period is passed. Both by the prolonged marital affection which it fosters, and by the greater filial affection evoked under it, declining years are lengthened and their evils mitigated.

§ 314. May we, in ending the discussion occupying this and preceding chapters, conclude that monogamy is the natural form of sexual relation for the human race? If so, how happens it that during the earlier stages of human progress the relations of the sexes have been so indeterminate?

Among inferior creatures, inherited instinct settles the fit arrangement—the arrangement most conducive to the Edition: current; Page: [685] welfare of the species. In one case there is no continuous association of male and female; in another there is a polygynous group; in a third there is monogamy lasting for a season. A good deal of evidence may be given that among primates inferior to man, there are monogamic relations of the sexes having some persistence. Why, then, in groups of primitive men did there come divergences from this arrangement prompted by innate tendencies? Possibly with association into larger groups than are formed by inferior primates, there came into play disrupting influences which did not before exist; and perhaps these were not checked because the resulting marital forms furthered survival of the groups. It may be that during certain transitional stages between the first extremely scattered, or little gregarious, stage, and the extremely aggregated, or highly gregarious, stage, there have arisen various conditions favouring various forms of union: so causing temporary deviations from the primitive tendency.

Be this as it may, however, it is clear that monogamy has long been growing innate in the civilized man. For all the ideas and sentiments now associated with marriage, have, as their implication, the singleness of the union.