Yet another group of facts is adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of ancient communism in women. Sir J. Lubbock and Professor Giraud-Teulon cite some cases of courtesans being held in greater estimation than women married to a single husband, or, at least, being by no means despised.[428] Such feelings, Sir John believes, would naturally arise “when the special wife was a stranger and a slave, while the communal wife was a relative and a free woman,” and would, in some instances, long survive the social condition to which they owed their origin.[429] The courtesans are thus regarded as representatives of the communal wives of primitive times. But it seems to me much more reasonable to suppose that if, in Athens and India, courtesans were respected and sought after even by the principal men, it was because they were the only educated women.[430] Besides, as Mr. McLennan justly remarks with regard to such “communal wives,” “if any inference is to be made from their standing in Athens, in the brilliant age of Pericles, as to the state of matters in the primitive groups, proof of primitive communism in women might as well be sought in London or Paris in our own day. Far back in the interval between savagery and the age of Pericles are the heroes of Homer with their noble wedded wives.”[431]
It is true that, among some uncivilized peoples, women having many gallants are esteemed better than virgins, and are more anxiously desired in marriage. This is, for instance, stated to be the case with the Indians of Quito,[432] the Laplanders in Regnard’s days,[433] and the Hill Tribes of North Aracan.[434] But in each of these cases we are expressly told that want of chastity is considered a merit in the bride, because it is held to be the best testimony to the value of her attractions. There are thus various reasons why courtesans and licentious women may be held in respect and sought after, and we need not, therefore, resort to Sir John Lubbock’s far-fetched hypothesis.
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
We are indebted to Mr. Lewis H. Morgan for information as to the names of various degrees of kinship among no fewer than 139 different races or tribes. This collection shows that very many peoples have a nomenclature of relationships quite different from our own. Mr. Morgan divides the systems into two great classes, the descriptive and the classificatory, which he regards as radically distinct. “The first,” he says, “which is that of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, rejecting the classification of kindred, except so far as it is in accordance with the numerical system, describes collateral consanguinei, for the most part, by an augmentation or combination of the primary terms of relationship. These terms, which are those for husband and wife, father and mother, brother and sister, and son and daughter, to which must be added, in such languages as possess them, grandfather and grandmother, and grandson and granddaughter, are thus restricted to the primary sense in which they are here employed. All other terms are secondary. Each relationship is thus made independent and distinct from every other. But the second, which is that of the Turanian, American Indian, and Malayan families, rejecting descriptive phrases in every instance, and reducing consanguinei to great classes, by a series of apparently arbitrary generalizations, applies the same terms to all the members of the same class. It thus confounds relationships, which, under the descriptive system, are distinct, and enlarges the signification both of the primary and secondary terms beyond their seemingly appropriate sense.”[435]
