New-York tribune., 1891-08-30
THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE
SOME NEW AND BOLD THEORIES.

n
scholar It is introduced by Professor Alfred Russeh
wallace who does not commend II too highly. Tm
ou,bor has made study Of human marriage from the
noint of view Of the evolutionary hypothesls W
methods which yield conclusions In several importai.
narcuars contrary TO those which have been reaoheu
Inv The best known anthropologlss The tiaVcrshs VI
onin,ons held by so many distinguished men vi
ancofor he boldly challenges the views Of Tyler
Irhbock Darwin. Spencer, Morgan, McLennan ana
many others-mght be thought proof OF rash anu
unbalanced Judgment, but for the fact that abuhua'
and corcnt evidence is brought In support OF all .o
anthors contentious, while there can be no ques"oh
that be reasons from wider indnction thah musV
OF the writer's he opposes. HIS tte Is apt 10 s''"'
the reader as somewhat peculiar. Why "Humah
Morroqc1, ,, Il may be said. Is there any other hhu
And Mr. Westermarck who Is an intrepid evolutionlst
calmly replies that there other kinds that prues
marry as we'll as men that human marriage 49, h
fact later form Of institution which was mrs es
tablished by the nuhropoid apes and he proceeos W
cite testimony TO the effect that the gorilla o'ans
outanq and chmpanzce live In families, and what is
more. arc homogeneous. And this evidence Is not
without Importance for ono OF the authors main con-
ieptons namely that the human race has, from the
beginning tended to monogamy more than to any other
form Of marriage. .
Most anthropologsts he asserts have made the MS
take OF taking exceptions for rules in examining .o
customs of savage and barbarous peoples Iius .o
arsen belief for Which there IS no sufficient evidence
while IL Is essentially unscentfc We Know lie says
that carly man was but little above the anthrUpou
apes from which he sprung. Now lneSe ap0' 80
solitary lives. They go in pair usually "iui si's1
young one Practically. these httle groups oon'9. "
husband, wife and child. There is reason u oo"e,
that their pairing is permanent but in any case 'e
reasons which determine their manner OF HE MUS. nav
annlied with equal forco TO the first men, who' "eter
az featers or later as fesh-caters, must nave oeen
ron-gregarous. OF course polygamy mas eA'''ou onu
still exists to considerable extent wiz" WV"
meant riches every one being an cA'cieion VI u0
mans working force and when women were pientlni'
novramy wos naturally rsorted 10. In countries Wec'
owing 10 various causes. such as female h'al''ouo.
women were greatly IN the minority, the prnctice oi
| novondry grow I'D one wife having seveNi huSpsnuS'
| mt Mr. Wesermarck will notalow thatpfomscui'S e'e'
could have been general practice, ana ne oeNoe '0
cbapters TO the discussion Of this pont' ior'hsi"s
his position by abundant and pertinent i'iuS,i'.'o"9 %
The very strong instinct Of acquisition whch Is lou"u
in all human beings must have been ariayed astii''
spcb q system Man has always and everywhere
eonyht IN the savage state to treat women as prop
o and the attitude OF mind underlying that tchoency
is quite incompatible with anything IN the lorh Vi VIA"
Morgan terms communal marriage
| The strongest argument for the theory Oh pro-
miscuty has always been the recognition by Sa'aeo'
NJ descent by the female line only. This pracuce'
| u s hold signifies that it was found impossible 10
| establish descent bv the paternal side. But MT.
Westermarc takes the ground that the female descenV
system has been misinterpretcd, and that 1t really
does not support the theory ii Is employed 10 sus'a
His argument here is ingenious ana acute DuV NOV
altogether conclusive. He does not succeed M oe-
strovinr the position Of his opponents though he casts
| doubt upon IT, As regards the evidence upon wmch
tho hypothesis OF promscuity rests he maintains that
there Is nothing to show that the facts aIegeI were
anywhere or at any time other than eXceptionai' ana
therefore they arc not trustworthy foundations upon
which 10 build. These chapters VIII no doubt give
rise 10 much controversy, for Mr. Westermarck, even
| II his name is new 10 science. is too thorough a
scholar and too formidable reasoner 70 be ignored
and since he virtually all his predecessors OF
unscentHc methods in the treatment OF their ma
te-ia they are put upon their defence In manner,
and will find 1t necessary to rcstate the grounds Of
their conviction This audacious stranger even dc es
TO touch the shield of Darwin with the sharp end Of
| his lance and in a chapter upon sexual selection
among animals, and decorative characteristics en-
ployed in courtng, he undertakes to show that
Darwin's theories cf natural and sexual selection
contradict one another and that in fact the sexual
selection OF the lower animals Is entirely subordinate
to the great law of the survival Of the ttest.s lie
also disputes Darwn's explanation Of the connection
between love and beauty In mankind according
to Mr.. Darwin" he says, "racia differences arc due
to the different standar'T of beauty, whereas, ac
cordng to the theory indicated In this book, the
ences." The distinction here is broad and the argu-
ment close and c0gent.
Proceeding from the courtshIp OF birds, animals and
reptiles to that Of man. Mr. Westcrmarck has curous
and interesting chapter upon the many ways in which
the in life endeavor please another.
This inquiry involves original specuations upon
the origin OF Clothes which would certainly have in
terestcd the author of sartor Resartus7 According
to this theory the wearing Of clothes grew originally
out of coquety and the desire to attract and please the
opposite If this be It Is in way surprising
that the agencies should be in operation at the
present day. and II may we'll be believed that they have
always governed this department Of life. 1t would
also tend 10 dsprovc the assertion that women
dress for one another, and not for Mr.. Wes;er-
marck incidentally discusses the ethics Of clothes
and oonclusively demonstrates that the sentiment
shame has had nothing whatever to do with the pas.
sage from nudity to clothing. The which wear
no clothes in fact not less modest than those who
clothe themselves. In certain indeed what Is
called clothing by savages is ar removed from
ing the conventional costume Of the modern ballet
girl. Dress at first devised for purely ornamental
purposes, and 1t in extent with the progress
rivalry and emulation. This and the various deconI
tons. mutllations and dcformatOns practised by
savages have precisely the same object namely, sexua
attraction Tattoone, painting the body. knocking
out or filing the teeth the insertion of Ii gs or plugs
in the ears, the septum OF the nose and the lower
lip the devotion Of much time 10 dressing the hair
these practices each and all belong TO the machinery
OF courtship. according to Mr. westemarck and very
little il at oil to religious cults.
5 The examination Of the forms OF marriage which
have at various times subSsted Is made TO reinforce
the authors theory that there has been general ten
dency TO poygamy at certain stage Of civilization
that when that stage is passed the tendency revert
TO monogamy. The immense array of facts marshaed
with great skin in this volume, and the bewdernI
, discrepancies OF practice In various counties and Al
various periods indicate the enormous difficulties en-
counered In the search for theory which is generally
applicable, and which can he regarded as scientific
For as yet hypothesis has been invented which is
not opposed by facts almost IL not quite strongly as
IL is supported 1t would seem that systems Of mar
rage often the result of extaneous clrcum
stances, of the environment In short than OF any
natural Tendencies tlc tha