or to leave her, and if he sends her back to her father, he holds no further intercourse with her.1

Among the Scottish Highlanders there was a custom of handfasting; that is, two chiefs agreed that the heir of the one should live with the daughter of the other as her husband for a year and a day; if at the end of that time, the woman had become a mother, or, at any rate, if she was pregnant, the marriage was regarded as valid, even if unblest by a priest; but if there was no sign of pregnancy the connection was dissolved, and each party was at liberty to enter into another connection, either by marriage or handfasting.2 Evidence of a similar process of thought may be traced in the Kafir custom of fining a man whose children were born out of wedlock; in Kunavan, the father is bound to support such children; in Assam, he is enjoined to marry the mother, and the Muskohgis dislike to see unmarried girls become mothers; although among all these peoples unchastity is not condemned.

This process of thought leads us to infer that the conception of marriage is sharply distinguished from the mere relations of passion. We have seen that a man connects himself with a woman in order that she might keep house for him, and to this may be added a second motive, that of obtaining children. His ownership of the children does not depend upon the fact that they were begotten by him, but upon the fact that he owns and supports their mother. In the case of the Italmanians, the wooer attaches himself to the family of the woman of his choice without a word, and assists her in all her labours, and no one asks what his intentions are; only if she becomes pregnant by him, he has to provide for her and the child. Bagos children are betrothed in their eighth year and live together after their betrothal, but

1 Herrera, p. 363.

2 Skene, p. 166.

3 Klemm, Die Frauen, vol. i. p. 64. Journal Asiat. Soc. of Bengal, vol. xiii. p. 1. Cunningham, p. 204. Cooper, p. 228. Jones, p. 69. Charlevoix, Nouv. France, vol. i. p. 195.

the wedding is only celebrated after it appears that the woman has lost her virginity.1 Thus it is evident that marriage does not imply permanent relations of love, but relations in which the man is the provider and protector.

In primitive communities children are of great service to the father. They add to his importance, which increases with the number of dependants and friends he is able to gather round him. The child which was carried in its mother's bosom belongs to that mother's owner, and we can readily understand that he who wishes to possess the child will not willingly separate from its mother. We have already spoken of the local bond between mother and child, and have sought to estimate the significance of the conflicting interests of the mother's and father's family in deciding to which the child shall belong. The interest felt in children must have exerted its influence on the form of marriage, since it furnishes a motive for polygamy which is not included in the need of a housekeeper. A man will be actuated by this motive in proportion to the number of available women, and to his power of purchasing and providing for them. It follows from the nature of things, and we have so repeatedly dwelt upon the fact that we need not say more about it, that polygamy can never have been the normal condition of a tribe, since it would have involved the existence of twice as many women as men. Polygamy must necessarily have been restricted to the noblest, richest, and bravest members of the tribe. This would, however, furnish a fresh motive for polygamy, since it was held to be a sign of high position. We must, moreover, admit the difficulty of making any clear distinction between polygamy, and monogamy combined with permitted concubinage; concubines are always slaves, and subject to the true wife, but where there are several wives, it is also usual that one should be regarded as the chief. Only one way remains open for us-to 1 Caillié, vol. i. p. 244.

ascertain whether the customary wedding ceremonies are as fully observed in the case of all the wives, or if they are in use at one special wedding.

As we have repeatedly said, the significance of these ceremonies consists in the illustration they afford of the different thoughts which pass through the minds of other members of the family at their complete or partial separation from one of the daughters, which always ensues from marriage. The mind is either occupied with the fact of separation, which furnishes the symbol of rape, or with the duties which the bride has to perform for the bridegroom, whence we have the symbol of preparing food; or, finally, prominence is given to the bridegroom's duties, and this gives us the symbol of a protector and provider, of the wooer's efficiency as a hunter, etc. These ceremonies afford a public and legal declaration that the persons in question are for the future to be regarded as married people; they create the centre of association round which all the ideas which refer to these persons will henceforward gather. The force exerted on the consciousness by these ceremonies will be great in proportion to their solemnity, and so will be the difficulty of a divorce. Since the marriage was effected by a contract to which the relations and friends gave their assent, that assent will also be required for its dissolution.1 The sanctity of marriage is thereby increased, and its sacramental meaning begins to be developed. Several reasons arise for only one observance of the complete ceremonial, and consequently the suppression of polygamy as a valid form of marriage followed.

Marriage does not merely affect the bride and bridegroom, but the relative position of their respective families, since they, and especially the kinsfolk of the bride, not only have a voice in the conditions of marriage, but also continue to feel an interest in the married pair. The

1 Hunter, p. 253. Carver, p. 313. Bartrams, p. 487. Cooper, p. 101. Butler, p. 83.

female line was the strongest assertion of this interest, but there are many other confirmations of its existence. The Californian enjoins his daughter to maintain her conjugal fidelity, but he adds that she must come to him if she has any cause of complaint. The Hassanyah stipulates that if the bride performs her conjugal duties for four days of the week, she must be quite at liberty for the other three.1 Polygamy may have obtained some support from the interest which the bride's family continued to take in her, since it may be important to the man to be connected with as many distinguished families as possible, and many overtures may be made to a distinguished warrior that he should marry this or that woman. Yet this interest would generally exert a tendency opposed to polygamy, since it is impossible to avoid making a distinction between the several wives of a polygamous family.

Where the man goes to live with the family of his chosen bride in order to woo her, he can do so only on the occasion of his first marriage, and he must therefore endeavour to obtain his subsequent wives in other ways. This must also be the case when members of his family, and especially his father, do the wooing for him, since a man who is already married is too independent for the further continuance of such guardianship. The first wife would, as the first-comer, naturally try to assert her authority over those which come later; and since, moreover, she is usually the only one who has been wooed, we can easily understand that she would not be satisfied with any position but that of mistress of the house. And conversely, the growing dignity of the first wife must be included in the reasons which led to the neglect of ceremonial observances in the case of subsequent connections.3 Thus the conditions react on each other.

1 Duflos de Mofras, vol. ii. Descr. Soc., No. 5, p. 8.

2 Thus the Jakute has a wife in each place which he visits in his wanderings. Forster, Neue Beiträge, vol. v. Lesseps, p. 85.

3 Hunter, p. 249. Lafitau, vol. i. p. 555. Von Martius, pp. 101, 108, 109. Burchell, vol. ii. p. 60. Orbigny, vol. iv. p. 226.

Since the eldest or noblest wife is commonly called the chief, a girl's family is unwilling to give her to a man who is already married. This is decidedly the case among the Malays; they refuse to give their daughters to a man of their own class if he is already married. If a man wishes to have more than one wife, he must have recourse to a lower class, and these women are only regarded as concubines, since the ceremonies are observed at the first marriage alone. In Sumatra, polygamy occurs in Djudur marriages, but not in Semando marriages. In Nicaragua, it is forbidden, under pain of death, to make use of ceremonial observances in more than one marriage. The fact that a Marauha who has brothers is forbidden to have more than one wife is probably due to another train of thought, namely, to that which, as we have already seen, leads to polyandry, or to the order that only one of several brothers may marry, which is the case amongst the Malabar Brahmans.3

2

In this way we find that polygamy is threatened on many sides, and since mutual jealousy is an additional obstacle, the facts entitle us to infer that polygamy is based upon motives which only superficially affect the minds of men, instead of being deeply rooted in the conditions under which their social life is developed. Polygamy must disappear as soon as a growing development brings into play permanent motives and fundamental forces. Like primitive monogamy, and most cases of polyandry, polygamy is not a form of marriage which can be regarded as the expression of a marriage law; that is, it is not a form of marriage which is striv

1 Freycinet, vol. i. p. 639. Crawfurd, p. 77. Earl, p. 58. Forster and Sprengel, vol. ii. p. 63.

2 Marsden, p. 270. Herrera, p. 320.

Spix and Martius, vol. iii. p. 1185.

The woman keeps a jealous watch upon her husband. Charruas, Azara, vol. ii. p. 23; New Zealand, Dieffenbach, vol. ii. p. 37; Marianas, Freycinet, vol. i. p. 477; Touaregs, Duveyrier, p. 340; Battas, Forster, and Sprengel, vol. i. p. 15; Moors, Caillié, vol. i. P. 12.