THE SEXUAL RELATION.
Origin of Sex.—The bisexual division of the species into male and female is by no means universal among animals. Some of these, in a rather high stage of development, have but one sex. Why the distinc tion of the two sexes arose has not been fully explained by naturalists. Spencer and Darwin suggest that the vitality of a species is strengthened by the crossing of blood. It is doubtless a part of that general special ization of function which we witness in tracing the evolution of organic forms everywhere. The important process of reproduction is more thor oughly performed by a division of labor.
Primitizv. Relation of the Sexes.—The relation of the sexes in the primitive condition of the human species has been supposed by several later writers to have been one of promiscuity—that called " communal marriage," where no tie stronger than caprice existed between the sexes. As Darwin has pointed out, however, this is contrary to the analogy of many species of animals, particularly the highest mammals. They are generally either monogamous or polygamous, and the males wage bitter conflicts to retain the exclusive possession of the females. Nor do the latter seek other males.
The emotions of modesty in woman and jealousy in man, which are usually found fully developed in savage tribes, indicate that chastity and fidelity are traits of the race. In such communities adultery is, as a rule, severely punished, though it may be differently understood than as among us. Among a certain community of Nubian Arabs the wife is held to a rigid fidelity three days out of four, while on the fourth she is free to act as she likes. During some religious festivals, even among civilized nations, the bonds of marriage have been released by a common consent. The Indian is of a jealous disposition, and will brutally beat his wife whom he suspects of improprieties, but he will loan her temporarily to a guest without hesitation. In all such cases the theory of morals of a community must first be understood before we pronounce on their views of the sexual relation.
Undoubtedly, the most usual form of marriage has always been polyg amy. The male chose two or more females as his companions, and did his best to prevent any relations arising between them and other males.
The number he chose was limited only by his ability to support and pro tect them against his fellows. Such was marriage throughout most of the ancient world, and also as it exists now in nearly all non-Christian nations. It is the rare exception to find either the law of the land, the prejudices of society, or the dogmas of religion pronounce against it. Darwin relates that an intelligent Kandyan chief, brought up, of course, in the polygamous notions of his tribe, was quite scandalized at the barbarism, as it appeared to him, of living with only one wife until sep arated by death. " Why," he exclaimed, " it is just like the wanderoo monkeys !" The large and generally intelligent body of the Mormons in the midst of the monogamous population of the United States cling tenaciously to their polygamous doctrines and practices, and defend them with earnest arguments. Their position may be regarded as a reversion to the formerly universal practice of the race.
stranger form of marriage is polyandry, where the woman has several husbands living peacefully together. Although this is comparatively rare, some ethnologists have assigned it a high import ance, and asserted that at one time it was the prevailing custom with the race. These writers (McLennan, Lubbock, etc.) argue that at first the relation of the sexes was that of promiscuity, to this followed polyandry, and after that either polygamy or monogamy. Their order of social development is—first, the tribe ; second, the gens or household ; and, last of all, the family. The household consisted of one wife with her various husbands. These husbands were sometimes unrelated men who agreed among themselves to this arrangement, or they were brethren or near of kin. The latter form of polyandry appears in greatest perfection in some tribes in Thibet, where all the brothers of a family have but one wife in common ; and a closely similar arrangement prevailed, according to Cmsar, among the Britons of his time, and continues to-day in the Neilgherry Hills, India, and with the Herero tribe of South Africa.