I. Has there been a Stage of Promiscuity?—Promiscuity rare among the superior vertebrates—It has been exceptional in mankind.
II. Cases of Human Promiscuity.—Promiscuity among the Troglodytes, the ancient Arabs, the Agathyrses, the Anses, the Garamantes, the ancient Greeks, in the Timæus, in China, in India, among the Andamanites, in California, among the aborigines of India, among the Zaporogs, and the Ansarians—Insufficience of these proofs.
III. Hetaïrism.—Jus primæ noctis—Religious hetaïrism at Babylon, in Armenia—Religious prostitution—Religious defloration—The jus primæ noctis with the Nasamons, in the Balearic Isles, in ancient Peru, in Asia, etc.—The right of the chief with the Kaffirs, in New Zealand, in New Mexico, in Cochin-China, in feudal Europe—The right of religious prelibation—Religious defloration in Cambodia—The reason of the right of prelibation—The jus primæ noctis confounded with the simple licence of unmarried women—Shamelessness of girls in Australia, Polynesia, America, Malaya, Abyssinia, etc.—The indotata in primitive Rome—Loan and barter of women in America and elsewhere, and among the ancient Arabs—Actual promiscuity has been rare in humanity.
I. Has there been a Stage of Promiscuity?
Having made our preliminary investigation of love, sexual unions, marriage, or what corresponds to it, and the family in the animal kingdom, we are now in a position to approach the examination of corresponding social facts in regard to man. The method of evolution requires us to begin our inquiry with the lowest forms of sexual association, and there is none lower, morally and intellectually, than promiscuity; that is to say, a social condition so gross that within a group, a horde, or a tribe, all the women belong, without rule or distinction, to all the men. In a society so bestial there is surely no room for what we call love, however grossly we may understand this sentiment. There is no choice, no preference; the sexual need is reduced to its simplest expression, and absolutely debased to the level of the nutritive needs; love is no more than a hunger or thirst of another kind; there is no longer any distinction between the man and the tatoway.
Some sociologists have affirmed, without hesitation, that community of women represented a primitive and necessary stage of the sexual associations of mankind. Surely they would have been less dogmatic on this point if, before approaching human sociology, they had first consulted animal sociology, as we have done. We have seen that many vertebrated animals are capable of a really exclusive and jealous passion, even when they are determined polygamists. As a matter of fact, the vertebrates with whom love is merely a need, like any other, seem to be a very small minority. Some among them, especially birds, are models of fidelity, constancy, and devoted attachment, which may well inspire man with feelings of modesty. Mammals, while less delicate in their love than many birds, are, however, for the most part, already on a moral level incompatible with promiscuity. The mammals nearest to man, those whom we may consider as the effigies of our nearest animal ancestors, the anthropoid apes, are sometimes monogamous and sometimes polygamous, but, as a rule, they cannot endure promiscuity. Now, this fact manifestly constitutes a very strong presumption against the basis of the theory according to which promiscuity has been, with the human species, the primitive and necessary stage of sexual unions. Do we thus mean to say that there is no example of promiscuity in human societies, primitive or not? Far from it. It would be impossible to affirm this without neglecting a large number of facts observed in antiquity or observable in our own day. But we are warranted in believing that the very inferior stage of promiscuity has never been other than exceptional in humanity. If it has existed here and there, it is that by the very reason of the relative superiority of his intelligence, man is less rigorously subject to general laws, and that he knows sometimes how to modify or infringe them; there is more room for caprice in his existence than in the life of the animals.
II. Some Cases of Human Promiscuity.
Human groups have, then, practised promiscuity, and it is not quite impossible that some of them practise it still. Exceptional as these facts may be, they are interesting to sociologists, and it is important to mention and to criticise them also. We are indebted for our knowledge of a certain number of them to the writers of Greco-Latin antiquity. I will give them in full, at least those that deserve or have obtained more or less credit.
“Throughout the Troglodyte country,” relates Strabo, “the people lead a nomad life. Each tribe has its chief, or tyrant. The women and the children are possessed in common, with the exception of the wives and children of the chief, and whoever is guilty of adultery with one of the wives of the chief is punished by a fine consisting of the payment of a sheep.”[66]
Another passage of Strabo’s, which is better known, is often quoted as proving a primitive epoch of promiscuity among the ancient Arabs also. This passage is curious and interesting, but it has not in the least the extent of signification that is attributed to it. Concerning the conjugal customs of the peoples of Arabia Felix, Strabo speaks as follows:—“Community of goods exists between all the members of the same family, but there is only one master, who is always the eldest of the family. They have only one wife between them all, and he who can forestall the others enters her apartment the first, and enjoys her, after having taken the precaution of placing his staff across the door (it is the custom for every man to carry a staff). She never spends the night with any but the eldest, the chief. This promiscuity makes them all brothers. We must add that they have commerce with their own mothers. On the other hand, adultery, which means for them commerce with a lover who is not of the family, is pitilessly punished with death. The daughter of one of the kings of the country, who was marvellously beautiful, had fifteen brothers, all desperately in love with her, and who, for this reason, took turns in enjoying her without intermission. Fatigued with their assiduity, she invented the following stratagem. She procured staffs exactly similar to those of her brothers, and when one of them left her, she quickly placed across the door the staff similar to that of the brother who had just quitted her, then replaced it shortly after by another, and so on, taking care not to place there the staff like the brother’s whose visit she was expecting. Now, one day, when all the brothers were together in the public place, one of them went to her door, and concluded, at the sight of the staff, that some one was with her; but, as he had left all his brothers together, he believed in a flagrant act of adultery, hastened to seek their father, and led him to the spot. He was, however, forced to acknowledge in his presence that he had slandered his sister.”[67]
Even admitting the perfect accuracy of the fact related by Strabo (and there is nothing in it to surprise an ethnographical sociologist), the word promiscuity is here quite inappropriate. The custom of maternal incest, which is not without example, perhaps warrants the supposition of ancient familial promiscuity; but in reality the Arabs of whom Strabo speaks were simply polyandrous, and they were so precisely in the manner of the Thibetans of the present day; they practised fraternal polyandry—a conjugal form to which we shall presently return.
The other examples of so-called promiscuity related by the writers of antiquity are, unfortunately, so briefly given that it is difficult to judge of their value.
“The Agathyrses” (Scythians), says Herodotus, “are the most delicate of men; their ornaments are chiefly of gold. They have their women in common in order that they may all be brothers, and that, being so nearly related, they may feel neither hatred nor envy against each other.”[68]
In another passage Herodotus says of the Massagetes (Scythians), “Each man marries a wife, but they use them all in common.” The assertion is grossly contradictory, and can only relate to the extremely loose manners of the unmarried women. As a matter of fact, amongst many savage or barbarous peoples chastity is not imposed on the women, as long as they have no proprietors. “When one of them desires a woman,” continues Herodotus, “he suspends his quiver in front of his chariot, and tranquilly unites with her.”[69]
This is merely a trait of very free manners, which may be placed by the side of many others, proving that modesty has been slow of growth in the human brain. The Tahitians were still more cynical than the Massagetes. Herodotus himself speaks of black Indians (Tamils) “who coupled as publicly as beasts” (iii. 101), and V. Jacquemont has related that Runjeet Singh would ride with one of his wives on the back of an elephant and take his pleasure publicly with his companion, careless of censure (V. Jacquemont, Corres., 16th March 1831). It would be very easy, by searching into ethnography, to accumulate facts of this kind; but for the moment I have only to continue my examination of old Greco-Roman texts relating more or less to promiscuity. I therefore return to them. Herodotus again relates, in speaking of the Anses, an Ethiopian tribe: “Their women are common; they do not live with them, but couple after the manner of beasts. When a vigorous child is born to a woman, all the men go to see it at the third month, and he whom it most resembles acknowledges it for his.”[70] And here we have Pliny saying also of the Garamantes: Garamantes matrimoniorum exsortes, passim cum feminis degunt.[71]
Strabo, too, affirms of the Celtic population of Ierne (Ireland), “the men have public commerce with all kinds of women, even with their mothers and sisters.”[72]
The passages that I have just quoted are those which are most frequently used to support the pretension that human societies have begun with promiscuity; they are at once the most ancient, most authentic, and most explicit. We may add to them the assertion of Varro, quoted by Saint Augustine,[73] according to which the Greeks, prior to the time of Cecrops, lived in promiscuity. But how is it possible not to be struck with the weakness of these historical proofs? Some of them are mere general assertions, while others plainly relate either to social anomalies or to cases of polyandry. There is no doubt as to this in regard to the ancient Arabs of whom Strabo speaks, and also to the Protohellenes of Varro. This last instance certainly relates to the matriarchal family, of which I shall have to speak again at some length. In fact, after having stated that the Protohellenes had no marriage, Varro adds that the children only knew their mother and bore her name. The proof is decisive, for the matriarchate does not in the least exclude marriage, as we shall see later, and in the case of the Lydians it lasted until the time of Herodotus.
In order to complete this review of ancient texts, I will mention further the passage of the Timæus in which Socrates speaks of the community of wives:—“On the subject of the procreation of children we established a community of wives and children; and we devised means that no one should ever know his own child. They were to imagine that they were of one family, and to regard those who were within a certain limit of age as brothers and sisters; and again, those who were of an elder generation as parents and grandparents, and those who were of a younger generation as children and grandchildren.”
But Plato had a lively imagination. He was a “great dreamer,” as Voltaire said of him, and this passage evidently describes a purely utopian society.
Traditions relative to a very ancient epoch of promiscuity are found here and there outside the Greco-Roman world. In China, for example, the women are said to have been common until the reign of Fouhi.[74] A tradition of the same kind, but more explicitly stated, is mentioned in the Mahabharata (i. 503): “Formerly it was not a crime to be faithless to a husband; it was even a duty.... This custom is observed in our own days among the Kourous of the north.... The females of all classes are common on the earth; as are the cows, so are the women; each one has her caste.... It is Civéta-Ketou who has established a limit for the men and women on the earth.”[75] This assertion is vague, and has not the least proof to support it.
If, continuing our inquiry, we attempt to correct these historical documents by ethnographical information, we shall hardly find, on this side of the subject more than on the other, anything but simple assertions, which are either too vague or too brief, or evidently open to dispute.
In the Andaman Islands, or at least in certain of them, the women are said to have been held in common till quite recently. Every woman belonged to all the men of the tribe, and resistance to any of them was a crime severely punished.[76] This time we seem to have found, at length, a case of actual legal promiscuity. But, according to other accounts, the Andamanite man and woman contract, on the contrary, a monogamic and temporary union, and remain together, in case of pregnancy and maternity, until the child is weaned, as do many animals.[77] Now, however short a conjugal union may be, it is incompatible with promiscuity.
The indigenous Indians of California, who are among the lowest of human races, couple after the manner of inferior mammals, without the least formality, and according to the caprice of the moment.[78] They are said even to celebrate feasts and propitiatory dances, which are followed by a general promiscuity.[79]
According to Major Ross King, some aboriginal tribes of India, notably the Kouroumbas and the Iroulas, have no idea of marriage, and live in promiscuity.[80] The only prohibitory rule consists in not having intimate commerce with a person belonging to another class or caste; but there seem only to be two classes in the tribe.
Barbarous tribes belonging to white races are said also to have practised promiscuity in modern times. Among certain tribes of the Zaporog Cossacks the women are said to be common, and are confined in separate camps.[81] Besides these, the Ansarians, mountaineers of Syria, are said to practise, not promiscuity pure and simple, or civil promiscuity, but a religious promiscuity, analogous to that of the ancient Gnostics[82] and the Areoïs of Tahiti. These Ansarians must doubtless have been confounded with the Yazidies, a sect of Arabs, also Syrians, practising a sort of manichæism, and who, it is said, assemble periodically every month, or every three months, in fraternal agapæ, at the conclusion of which they unite in the darkness without heed as to adultery or incest. Throughout the Syrian Orient the erotic festival of the Yazidies is called by a significant name, Daour-el-Cachfeh—the game of catching.[83] But even if the fact were true, what does it show? Only one more aberration to the score of the phallic religions.
Here I end my enumeration. Evidently nothing very convincing results from it. The greater number of the facts that I have just quoted have either been carelessly observed, or contested, or affirmed by a single witness, or depend merely on hearsay evidence. It is prudent, therefore, to regard them with lawful suspicion, and even if certain of them are exact, we must be careful not to draw general conclusions from them. Promiscuity may have been adopted by certain small human groups, more probably by certain associations or brotherhoods. Thus the chiefs of the Namaquoi Hottentots willingly held their wives in common.
When we come to study the family we shall find that among the Kamilaroi of Australia all the women of one clan are reputed to be the wives of all the men of another. But this community is often only fictitious, and, besides, it is already regulated; it is not promiscuity pure and simple. So far, nothing proves sufficiently that there has been a universal stage of promiscuity among mankind. Some theorists have been so hasty to come to a conclusion on this point that they have gone beyond actual experience. Moreover, as I have been careful to remark, the simple fact that man is a mammalian primate weakens this hypothesis in advance, since the nearest relations of man in the animal kingdom are in general polygamous, and even sometimes monogamous.
III. Hetaïrism.—Jus primæ noctis.
Not only is it impossible to admit that mankind has, in all times and places, passed through a necessary stage of promiscuity, but we must go further, and also renounce a theory which has had some degree of success lately—the theory of obligatory primitive hetaïrism. According to this theory, when the instinct of holding feminine property arose in man, some individuals arrogated the right to keep for themselves one or more of the women hitherto common. The community then protested, and while tolerating this derogation from ancient usage, exacted that the bride, or purchased woman, should make an act of hetaïrism, or prostitution, before belonging to one man only.
It is Herodotus who has transmitted to us the most striking example of this kind, the one invoked by all the theorists of hetaïrism. I shall, therefore, quote it at length: “The most disgraceful of the Babylonian customs is the following. Every native woman is obliged, once in her life, to sit in the temple of Venus and have intercourse with some stranger. And many, disdaining to sit with the rest, being proud on account of their wealth, come in covered carriages, and take up their station at the temple with a numerous train of servants attending them. But the far greater part do this: many sit down in the temple of Venus, wearing a crown of cord round their heads; some are continually coming and others are going out. Passages marked out in a straight line lead in every direction through the women, along which strangers pass and make their choice. When a woman has once seated herself, she must not return home till some stranger has thrown a piece of silver into her lap and lain with her outside the temple. He who throws the silver must say thus: ‘I beseech the goddess Mylitta to favour thee;’ for the Assyrians call Venus Mylitta. The silver may be ever so small, for she will not reject it, inasmuch as it is not lawful for her to do so, for such silver is accounted sacred. The woman follows the first man that throws, and refuses no one. But when she has had intercourse, and has absolved herself from her obligations to the goddess, she returns home; and after that time, however great a sum you may give her, you will not gain possession of her. Those that are endowed with beauty and symmetry of shape are soon set free; but the deformed are detained a long time, from inability to satisfy the law, for some wait for a space of three or four years. In some parts of Cyprus there is a custom very similar.”[84]
After having read this passage, we are surprised at the import that has been attributed to it. Even admitting the obligation and universality of the custom in ancient Babylon, it is only an example of religious prostitution, with traces of exogamy. The Babylonians honoured Mylitta, just as the Armenians, according to Strabo,[85] venerated the goddess Anaïtis. “They have erected temples to Anaïtis in various places, especially in the Akilisenus, and have attached to these temples a good number of hierodules, or sacred slaves, of both sexes. So far, indeed, there is no ground for astonishment; but their devotion goes further, and it is the custom for the most illustrious personages to consecrate their virgin daughters to the goddess. This in no way prevents the latter from easily finding husbands, even after they have prostituted themselves for a long time in the temples of Anaïtis. No man feels on this account any repugnance to take them as wives.”
I quote in full these venerable passages, which have been so much used and abused, in order that it may not be possible to mistake their signification. Once more we repeat that they merely relate to erotico-religious aberrations. The procreative need, or delirium, has inspired men with many foolish ideas, and probably will continue to do so. A very slight knowledge of mythology is enough to show us that numerous cults have been founded on the sexual instinct, and these cults are naturally accompanied by special practices, little in accordance with our European morality. Religious prostitution, which was widely spread in Greek antiquity, has been also found in India, where every temple of renown had its bayadères, the only women in India to whom, until quite recently, any instruction was given.
The far more peculiar custom of Tchin-than, or religious defloration, formerly in use in Cambodia[86] and in Malabar, is evidently akin to religious prostitution. But this custom is nothing else than a mystic transformation of what was called the jus primæ noctis, of which I must first speak. It is important to distinguish several varieties of it. The first and most simple was the custom by which every newly-married woman, before belonging to her husband, was obliged to give herself, or be given, to a certain number of men, either relatives, friends, or fellow-citizens. This was the custom among the Nasamons, according to Herodotus: “When a Nasamon marries, custom requires that his bride should yield herself on the first night to all his guests in turn; each one who has had commerce with her makes her a present, which he has been mindful to bring with him.”[87]
A similar custom is said to have existed in various countries of the globe, in ancient times in the Balearic Isles, more recently among the ancient Peruvians, in our own times among several aboriginal tribes of India; in Burmah, in Cashmere, in the south of Arabia, in Madagascar, and in New Zealand;[88] but always as an exceptional practice, in use only in a small group or tribe. It is not impossible that here and there this usage, which is rare enough, may have been derived traditionally from an ancient marriage by classes, analogous to that still found among the Kamilaroi of Australia; but it may have been simply a mark of good-fellowship, or of conjugal generosity on the part of the bridegroom.
The seignorial jus primæ noctis, the right of the lord, is much more widely spread, and its existence cannot be contested. Among the Kaffirs, says Hamilton,[89] the chiefs have the choice of the women for several leagues round. So also, until lately, in New Zealand, every pretty girl was taboo for the vulgar, and had to be first reserved for the chief.[90] In New Mexico, with the Tahous, as Castañeda informs us, it is necessary, after having purchased the girl from her parents, to submit her to the seignorial right of the cacique, or to a priest of high rank. Religion already begins to insinuate itself into this singular right.[91]
According to Marco Polo, the same custom existed in the thirteenth century in Cochin-China. “Know,” says the old chronicler, “no woman can marry without the king first seeing her. If she pleases him, he takes her to wife; if she does not please him, he gives her enough from his own property to enable her to marry.
“In the year 1280 of Christ, when Messire Marco Polo was in that country, the king had three hundred and eighty-six children, male and female.”[92]
Under the feudal system in Europe this right of prelibation, or marquette (designated in old French by the expressive term droit de culage), has been in use in many fiefs, and until a very recent epoch. Almost in our own days certain lords of the Netherlands, of Prussia, and of Germany, still claimed it. In a French title-deed of 1507 we read that the Count d’Eu has the right of prelibation in the said place when any one marries.[93] More than this, ecclesiastics, and even bishops, have been known to claim this right in their quality of feudal lords. “I have seen,” says Boetius, “in the court at Bourges, before the metropolitan, an appeal by a certain parish priest, who pretended to claim the first night of young brides, according to the received usage. The demand was rejected with indignation, the custom unanimously proscribed, and the scandalous priest condemned to pay a fine.”
“In a kingdom of Malabar,” says J. Forbes, “the ecclesiastical power took precedence of the civil on this particular point, and the sovereign himself passed under the yoke. Like the other women, the queen had to submit to the right of prelibation exercised by the high priest, who had a right to the first three nights, and who was paid fifty pieces of gold besides for his trouble.”[94] In Cambodia, according to an ancient Chinese traveller, religious prelibation was obligatory on all the young girls, and was performed every year with great ceremony. The parents who had daughters to marry made a declaration of it, and a public functionary fixed the day for the celebration of Tchin-than, or the legal and religious defloration. For this the intervention of a Buddhist priest, or a tao-sse priest, was indispensable. The parents entreated his service, which was very costly, and for this reason girls who were poor retained their virginity longer than the rich. It even sometimes happened that pious persons, moved by a sentiment of charity, took on themselves the payment of the costs of the ceremony for those who had been waiting a long time. Great display attended it. On the appointed day the officiating priest was carried in the evening with much pomp to the festive house, and the next morning he was reconducted home in a palanquin with parasol, drum, and music, and not without being offered fresh presents. A. de Rémusat has given, in Latin, some curious particulars of the intimate details of the ceremony, which I cannot relate here.[95]
These few examples suffice to show how very much morality is a relative thing, but they cannot serve as a basis to a general theory of hetaïrism.
The seignorial right of prelibation is simply an abuse of force and good pleasure; only, viewed in the light of our morality, it shocks us more than the others. One might justify it, however, by reasons which Bossuet considered sufficient to render slavery lawful. The right of conquest has given, or still gives, all over the world, every sort of right over the vanquished, even the right of life and death. The conqueror, “in a just war,” says the sage of Meaux, may legitimately kill the vanquished and, a fortiori, enslave him; and one may add, following out a logical conclusion, that it is lawful for him to dispose as he pleases of his wife and daughter. As a matter of course, the priest, in his quality of lord, can claim the same privileges as the layman; but besides this, if it should happen that his particular religion lends itself to the idea by being founded in some manner on the worship of the principle of procreation, as is so frequently the case with oriental religions, a sort of superstitious prestige will come to adorn and clothe this sacerdotal shamelessness.
In all this there is hardly any room for hetaïrism considered as a compensation to the community for damage to its ancient rights.
Admitting that the jus primæ noctis of relatives and friends does not imply simple polyandry, it may very naturally be explained by primitive laxity of morals. Among the greater number of peoples who are very slightly or not at all civilised, the women are free to give or sell themselves before marriage as they please, and as it does not entail any disgrace, they use the liberty largely. Besides, in many countries the husband had, or still has, over his wife or wives all the rights of a proprietor over the thing possessed. Now, considering he is a stranger to all modesty and sexual restraint, nothing seems more natural, if he has some instinct of sociability, than to lend his wife to his friends, just as he would do them an act of politeness, make them a present, or invite them to a feast, all without thinking any evil. This view of the practice is supported by many facts.
Doubtless it is the great sexual licence accorded to young girls in so many countries which has led many observers and travellers to conclude that promiscuity has been systematically established. In Australia the girls cohabit from the age of ten with young boys of fourteen or fifteen, without rebuke from any one, and there are even great sexual orgies in which the signal is given to the young people for liberty to unite freely in open day.[96]
In the greater number of savage countries these customs are common. At Nouka-Hiva, or more generally all over Polynesia, the young girls did not marry, that is to say, did not become the chattel of a man, before the age of nineteen or twenty, and until then they contracted a great number of capricious unions, which became lasting only in case of the birth of children.[97]
In all these islands, moreover, modesty was unknown, and the members of each family passed the night side by side on mats, and entirely naked. The place of honour, in the centre, was occupied by the master of the house, flanked by his wife or wives.[98]
Analogous customs, extremely licentious in our eyes, but perfectly natural for primitive peoples, were in full force among all the indigenous races of America.
The Chinouk girls give or hire themselves out as they please. In the latter case the parents often take the payment.[99]
The Aymaras, who have no word for marriage, and who are such a simple folk that, in their opinion, any crime can be committed with impunity on Good Friday, since God is dead on that day, contract without scruple free unions merely for the duration of the evening of a feast. The contract is made in mimic language, and in settling it the man and woman exchange head-gear only.[100]
Similar manners prevail among the Esquimaux, the Kaffirs, and the Dyaks of Borneo. In Japan the parents willingly hire out their daughters, either to private individuals or to houses of prostitution, for a period of several years, and the girls are in no way dishonoured thereby. In Abyssinia, says Bruce, outside of the conjugal bond, which is easily tied or untied, the women dispose of their person as they please.
In primitive Rome, as with us, the young girl without dowry, the indotata, was held in moderate esteem; and therefore many young girls procured themselves a dowry by trafficking their persons. An old Latin proverb has handed down the souvenir of this ancient fashion of procuring a dowry: Tusco more, tute tibi dotem quæris corpore.[101]
Now, in all these customs, at once so simple and so gross, it is impossible to see the traces of an enforced hetaïrism, derived from an antique period of promiscuity, which was also equally obligatory. They are simply traits of animal laxity. Men were still almost devoid of moral training, and the care for decency and modesty was of the slightest.
If in a primitive country a certain amount of restraint is imposed on a woman who is married, or rather owned by a man, it is solely because she is considered as property, held by the same title as a field or a domestic animal. For her to dispose of her person without authorisation is often a capital crime; but the husband, on the contrary, has in many countries the undisputed right to lend, let out, or barter his wife or wives: jus utendi et abutendi. I will mention a few of these marital customs.
In America, from the land of the Esquimaux to Patagonia, the loan of the wife is not only lawful, but praiseworthy. Egidius says of the Esquimaux, “that those who lend their wives to their friends without the least hesitation are reputed in the tribe as having the best and noblest character.”[102] The English traveller, Captain Ross, relates that one of the Esquimaux prowling around his ship was accompanied by the wives and children of one of his intimate friends, to whom he had, in the preceding autumn, confided, on his side, his own two wives. The exchange was to terminate at a fixed time, and the Esquimaux of whom Captain Ross speaks was very indignant with his friend because the latter, having forgotten himself while chasing the deer in distant regions, was not exact in keeping the engagement.[103]
On this point the Redskins are not more delicate than the Esquimaux. Thus the Natchez make no difficulty of lending their wives to their friends.[104] In New Mexico the Yuma husbands willingly hire out their wives and their slaves, without making any difference. And, besides, with them, as in many other countries, to furnish a guest with a temporary wife is simply one of the duties of hospitality.[105] The chiefs of the Noutka Columbians barter their wives among each other as a sign of friendship.[106] Nothing would be easier than to enumerate a great number of facts of the same kind observed in Australia, Africa, Polynesia, Mongolia, and almost everywhere. But it is more remarkable to meet with the same custom in a Mussulman country. Nevertheless, Burckhardt relates that the Merekedeh, a branch of the great tribe of Asyr, understood hospitality in this primitive manner. To every stranger received under their tents or in their houses, they offered a woman of the family, and most often a wife of the host himself. The young girls alone were exempt from this strange service. It was considered the duty of the traveller to conform with a good grace to the custom, otherwise he was hooted and chased from the village or camp by the women and children. This extreme manner of understanding hospitality was very ancient and deeply rooted, and it was not without difficulty that the conquering Wahabites brought the Asyrs to renounce it.[107] But these customs were not specially confined to the Asyrs; they were in force throughout prehistoric Arabia. An old Arab writer, Ibn al Moghawir, mentions them. “Sometimes,” he says, “the wife was actually placed at the disposition of the guest; at other times, the offer was only symbolic. The guests were invited to press the wife in their arms, and to give her kisses, but the poignard would have revenged any further liberties.”[108] It is not very long since the same practice prevailed in Kordofan and Djebel-Taggale.[109] Certain traits of morals related by the Greco-Latin writers show that in Rome, and Greece also, if it was not the husband’s duty to lend his wife to his friends, he had at least the right to do so. At Sparta, Lycurgus authorised husbands to be thus liberal with their wives whenever they judged their friends worthy of this honour. And, further, the public opinion of Sparta strongly approved the conduct of an aged husband who took care to procure for his wife a young, handsome, and virtuous substitute.[110]
The same customs prevailed at Athens, where Socrates, it is said, lent his wife Xantippe to his friend Alcibiades; and at Rome,[111] where the austere Cato the elder gave up his wife Marcia to his friend Hortensius, and afterwards took her back, much enriched, it is true, at the death of this friend.
All these facts relate, therefore, to a very widely-spread and almost universal custom, which is in perfect accord with the extremely low position that has been granted to women in the greater number of savage and barbarous societies. The married woman, being exactly assimilated to a slave or a thing possessed, might thenceforth be treated as such; and the right of property, soon becoming sacred, easily stood before any scruples of decency which were still rare and weak.
After the preceding investigation, there appears to be no difficulty in refuting the sociological theory, far too prevalent, according to which the entire human race has passed through a primitive period of promiscuity followed by hetaïrism. Our first ancestors, the precursors of man, were surely very analogous to the other primates. We may, therefore, conclude that, like them, they generally lived in polygamous families. When these almost human little groups were associated in hordes or tribes, it is quite possible that great laxity of morals may have prevailed amongst them, but not a legal or obligatory promiscuity. In a society sufficiently numerous and savage it is no easy task for a man to guard his feminine property, for the women are not by any means averse to adventures. Their modesty is still very slight, and before belonging specially to one man they have generally been given or sold to many others. At that period of the social evolution public opinion saw no harm in all this. And, besides, the husband or the proprietor of the woman considered her absolutely as his thing, and did not scruple to lend her to his friends, to barter her, or to hire her out.
These primitive customs, combined with polyandrous or collective marriage and the matriarchate, have deceived many observers, both ancient and modern.
When we come to scrutinise these facts, and to view them in the light of animal sociology, we arrive at the conclusion that human promiscuity can only have been rare and exceptional, and that the theory of the community of wives and of obligatory hetaïrism will not bear examination.
The procreative need is one of the most tyrannical, and primitive man has satisfied it as he best could, without the least delicate refinement; but the egotism of individuals has had for its result, from the origin of human societies, the formation of unions based on force, and, correlatively, a right of property which fettered more or less rigorously the liberty of the women who were thus possessed.
These primitive unions were concluded according to the chance caprices or needs of extremely gross societies, who cared little to submit to a uniform conjugal type. There are some very singular ones among them, which differ essentially from the legal forms of marriage finally and very tardily adopted by the majority of mankind. It is these isolated conjugal unions, extravagant and immoral in our eyes, that we now have to consider.