Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/426

 Ancient Law in Modern Life. have sprung up in a few out-of-the-way places, owing to peculiar local conditions. It is, therefore, unscientific to assume the general existence of polyandry in order to account for the change from kinship by females to kinship by males. (3) The assertion so frequently made that all races start with kinship by females can not be supported. It is true that we find such a system very widely spread; but it is equally true that among some of the rudest races we find no trace of it. and as regards the Aryan peoples the evidence of its exist ence before the historic period is very un convincing (Westermark, p. 104). So far as we know, there are many races .which from the earliest times have followed the system of kinship by males. On the whole it seems unsafe to assume that kinship by females everywhere preceded kinship by males. It is more probable that different circumstances led to one race adopting the one custom, and another race the other custom. The co-existence of these two systems is, no doubt, difficult to explain. The clue to the solution lies, perhaps, in the different position enjoyed by the husband in different tribes. Among many tribes, as among the Indians to whom I referred some time ago, a man on marrying has to leave his own home, and go to live in the home of his wife's father, of whose family he becomes a member. In Sumatra, in the mode of mar riage called ambel anak, the father of a virgin makes choice of some young man for her husband, and he lives in the father-in-law's house "in a state between that of a son and that of a debtor" (Westermark, p. 109). Among. other tribes, on the contrary, the men are less meek. They steal, or buy, or coax wives to come to live with them in their homes. Curiously enough, in one case at least, both customs are found side by side among the same people. (See e. g. McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, p. 42).

389

Among the Singhalese there are two rec ognized forms of marriage: the becnah mar riage, in which the husband goes to the wife's hut: and the deega marriage, in which he carries her away to his village. Матcircumstances may have led to a difference of custom. Where wives are scarce it may be necessary to propitiate their parents in many ways. Even where purchase in its coarser form is not met with, the intended mother-in-law may expect little attentions to be shown her. We may find it wise to take her now and then to a theatre. Among the Padams of India the lover presents the young lady's parents from time to time with small delicacies, such as field mice and squir rels. The beenah marriage is not unknown among ourselves. When we say that the husband "hangs his hat up" in the house of his wife, or of her father, this is essentially the same thing. Now where such a practice is customary, one is not surprised that the children bear the name of the mother, and belong to her family. But when the hus band has carried off his wife, like voting Lochinvar, or even in a more peaceful mode has persuaded her to leave her home, and go to his, and to follow his fortunes; it would seem a very odd thing if the children were to be accounted as related only to their mother's family. Whatever explanation we may adopt of these curious customs, there seems to me to be great force in the modern criticism of McLennan's theory. That the patriarchal family, as we find it in India, is really primitive can hardly be considered likely. But it is very possible that among our Aryan forefathers there never was a time when no family system ex isted, and perhaps there never was a time when the husband did not successfully assert his claim to be the head of the house. —La Revnc Légale.