Plutarch's Romane Questions · Plutarch
XI. ARYAN MARRIAGE.
John. | Will, John's son. | +—————————-+————————-+ | | John, Tom, Will's son. Will's son. | | +————-+————+ +————-+———-+ | | | | Will, Harry, Will, Jack, John's son. John's son. Tom's son. Tom's son. | | | | +——+——+ +——+——-+ +—-+—-+ +——-+——+ | | | | | | | | John Frank John Bill Tom Dick Tom Richard Wilson. Wilson. Harrison. Harrison. Wilson. Wilson. Jackson. Jackson. We may now sum up. The oldest form of family organisation historically traceable amongst the Aryans is that of the joint undivided family. The pro-ethnic Aryans were probably averse to marriages between members of the same joint undivided family. They may also have been averse to marriages between second cousins once removed, even when those second cousins had ceased to dwell in the same joint household. If so, then, as language afforded no term even for "cousins," the memory of the relationship may have been kept up in one of three ways. As the members of a _genos_ at Athens had no common family name, and as they were notoriously related, not by blood, but merely by the possession of a joint-worship, so amongst the Aryans a joint-worship may have served as the mark of kinship (as it does among the Hindoos still). Or the remote kin may have been enabled to claim kindred by means of a patronymic system, which survived at Athens. Or, third, gentile names may have been developed out of patronymics even in pro-ethnic times, in which case marriage would be prohibited, as amongst the Hindoos, between all persons of the same family name.
But there is nothing in this patriarchal organisation of the family and of the tribe which compels us to assume that it was evolved out of some earlier non-patriarchal form of family. The warrant for such an assumption, if to be found, must be sought elsewhere. Let us seek. Analogy will not help us. The patriarchal system may, elsewhere in the world, have been evolved out of the matriarchate; but, as the late Mr. M‘Lennan warned us, we may not assume that marriage has everywhere had the same history. The widest survey of the various forms of human marriage (Westermarck's) that has yet been made warrants no presumption in favour of the priority of the matriarchate. If the matriarchate was a pro-ethnic Aryan institution, it is on Aryan ground that traces of it must be discovered. Such traces are said to be discernible.
There are traces amongst some Aryan peoples of the levirate. The levirate is said to indicate polyandry, and polyandry to presuppose the matriarchate. This is a perfectly legitimate line of argument, but before resorting to polyandry for an explanation of the Aryan levirate, it is worth while to inquire whether there is anything in known Aryan customs capable of supplying an explanation. According to Aryan custom, the estate of a man who leaves no son passes to the next of kin, _i.e._, his brother, or it may be a more distant relative. If the deceased leaves no son, but a daughter, then according to Athenian law, according to the Gortyn Code, and probably also according to Aryan custom, the next of kin (whether brother or not) must not only take the estate, but also marry the heiress, if any (whether wife or daughter of the deceased). According to the Gortyn Code, if the next of kin is married, he must put away his wife; if the heiress is already married, she must leave her husband. Now, if the obligation to raise up seed to the deceased extended only to his brothers, the Tibetan form of polyandry would afford an explanation which, whether correct or not, would, at any rate, account for all the facts.
But inasmuch as the obligation is binding on all the near kin, and extends to the daughter as well as the wife of the deceased, it cannot be explained by the hypothesis of the Tibetan form of polyandry or any other form short of incest in every degree possible, not only amongst the members of the same joint undivided family, but also with the women who have married out of that family into some other. In truth, so far from _mutterrecht_ being the source of the Aryan custom, that custom bears on its face the marks of the rudest and most savage application of the agnatic theory. The provisions of the Gortyn Code which require that the next of kin shall marry the heiress, even if the marriage necessitate divorce on both sides, show that the mother was held absolutely incapable of transmitting rights—only a kinsman could do that. A devotion to the principle of agnation so strong as to over-ride the innate Aryan aversion to endogamous marriages, so strong even in the days of civilised Athens as to afford the Orestes of Æschylus with the defence that the mother whom he had killed was not of his blood, cannot be explained as a survival from times when kinship was counted exclusively through the female line.
The savage practice must have its roots in some equally crude and savage theory. What the Aryan theory was we can hardly hope to discover, but we may conjecture that it was at least as barbarous as that which leads savages to eat their dead kinsmen, and European peasants to eat corpse-cakes, in the belief that thereby "the virtues and advantages of the departed ... and the living strength of the deceased passed over ... into the kinsman who consumed them, and so were retained within the kindred" (Mr. E. S. Hartland in _Folk Lore_, III. ii. 149). The _Leichen-nudeln_ of the Bavarian peasant, or the beans of the primitive Italian funeral feasts, would, when eaten, qualify the next of kin to wed the heiress and to raise up seed to the dead kinsman.
Before leaving the subject of the levirate we may note that the joint undivided family survived in historic times at Athens and in Sparta, and that in both places brothers lived on the joint-estate as well after the death as during the life of their father. In Sparta, if one only of the brothers had a son, that son was naturally heir to the joint-estate, and was considered the son of all. Amongst the Hindoos, too, Vasishtha says (xvii. 10), "If amongst many brothers who are begotten by one father, one have a son, they all have offspring through that son" (_cf._ Vishnu, xv. 42).[130] Now, a casual observer, ignorant of the nature and constitution of the joint undivided family, might thus easily draw the mistaken inference that the wife of one brother was common to them all; and this may be the origin of Cæsar's statement with regard to the polyandry of the ancient Britons, and of Polybius' with regard to the Spartans. Or, again, it is possible that the joint undivided family may in these instances have given rise to this form of polyandry. It is thus not safe to infer that where polyandry is, the matriarchate must previously have been.
There remains the argument from totems. Unfortunately their very existence in Europe is questioned, and this is not the place to discuss the question. It is safer not to meddle in European totems at present. Their appearance in Greek mythology, however, may fittingly here be made the subject of a brief allusion. The value, to the anthropologist, of ancient Roman customs and beliefs is that they show us the Italians at a much lower stage of civilisation than that in which the Vedas show us the Hindoos or the Homeric poems the Greeks. They show us an Aryan people having no mythology, and they warrant the inference that myths were unknown to the pro-ethnic Aryans. The Greek myths about the amours of Zeus in animal form cannot go back, therefore, to Aryan times. They may be the peculiar invention of the early Greeks, or it may be that the families which claimed to be descended from animals were pre-Hellenic, and that, when they joined the immigrating Greeks, they learnt the worship of Zeus, and were aided in their conversion by identifying Zeus with their animal ancestor.
Against the instances of polyandry and the survivals of totemism, which may or may not show that the matriarchate was known to Aryan peoples, we may fairly set the evidence of comparative philology. The original Aryan language possessed terms for grandfather, father, son, and grandson; and these are just the direct ascendants and descendants who could compose a joint undivided family. There was a word for the paternal uncle, whom the children brought up in such a family would know; there is none for the maternal uncle, with whom they would not dwell. There were special designations for husband's father, husband's mother, husband's brother, husband's sister, and even for husband's brothers' wives—just the words which would be required if the wife left her own family to dwell in that of her husband. There were none for wife's father, mother, &c., which would be required if the husband became a member of his wife's family. And this—which is inconsistent with the matriarchal system—is in accord with the evidence afforded by wedding customs, viz., that the wife left father and mother, and was brought, by the _domum deductio_, to her husband's home.
Still, it would be as unjustifiable to say that the matriarchate could never have established itself on Aryan ground, as it is to say that the agnatic family must have been developed out of the system of "maternal rights" and "female descent." The list of prohibited degrees varies among early Aryan peoples from the minimum possible for a civilised people (as at Athens) to the maximum possible even for savages (as amongst the Hindoos). There may have been a similar variation in the organisation of the family. Nor can we say with confidence that the pro-ethnic Aryans were more uniform than their descendants. The different languages evolved out of the common Aryan tongue existed as dialects from the beginning, and in the beginning there may have been differences in social organisation. But whereas we can certainly trace the joint undivided family and the principle of agnation as far back as modern science enables us to trace the Aryans at all, the evidence for the existence of the matriarchate at any time amongst any Aryan people is inferior both in amount and in value.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.