in the male, expressed in the form of excessive egoism. Man's attention began to be concentrated on himself and his own superiority, and, as his feeling of self-importance grew, regard for the importance of others diminished. Although this period of mental development signifies advance, it is not one which commands admiration. The personality was just beginning to be aroused from a condition of lethargy and the stimulus responsible for the awakening, in early times at least, was chiefly increase of wealth and its individual appropriation. The change in some cases was brought about by the passage of a group from the hunting to the pastoral stage of economic life. In other cases the same result was achieved through successful warfare and the acquisition of material plunder and of slaves. Always, however, the new phase of the personality has been immediately reflected in the character of the family. The male has been more affected by new economic conditions than the female, because he has been the one to appropriate the new property and has usually succeeded also in appropriating the female for his own gratification. In the family these conditions are represented by polygyny. In it the male demands complete constancy on the part of his wives towards himself, as unfaithfulness would be an indignity to his self-esteem. The wife being property is, like other forms of property, at the disposal of the husband. The male on the other hand sees no reason to place restrictions on himself, because he is not property and the superiority of the monogamic relation is not yet recognized.

The proprietary period is characterized then by private ownership of property, the beginnings of the development of male personality, the subordination of the female, and the conception of property right in the marriage relation.

The monogamic stage of family development is characterized by a higher appreciation of the value of all individuals and by a growing recognition of the principle of equality of rights. The improvement in the position of woman and her growing independence has helped to bring about equality in marriage and has cleared the way for a higher type of monogamy. Equality of the sexes alone might mean merely equality of license; but, inasmuch as license would be inconsistent with the

welfare of the next generation as well as with the continued development of the individual, the interests of society demand that equality of the sexes should signify similarity in restriction within the marriage bond. The sexes, being supplementary in nature, normally find their highest development in the life in common; but the union to be complete requires exclusiveness. Free intimacy of the sexes is inconsistent with that form of union which makes monogamy a superior type of marriage. Therefore the highest stage of the marital relation is realized only when equality between the sexes is accompanied by complete exclusiveness in the sex relation.

The conclusion is that these general stages in the development of the marriage relation, from conditions of laxity on the part of both sexes through the period of male domination to the state of equality, are due primarily to the development of the personality. This fact is brought out both by a historical comparison of societies in different stages of development, and also by an analysis of existing conditions in modern societies; for present day societies, being composed of persons of varying stages of development, exhibit practically all forms of sex relations. Economic differences in modern societies are also extreme and deserve consideration; but the different forms of sex relations do not follow closely economic status, and therefore cannot be explained by that factor alone. The economic factor is always important, however, and the nature of its influence deserves careful consideration.

Influence of the Economic Factor. On primitive family relations. In the hunting stage of economic life marriage seems to be partly, sometimes primarily, an economic partnership rather than a means of satisfying the sex instinct. The wife assists her husband by carrying away or by preparing the game which he has killed; or she herself collects small animals and vegetable foods; and she manufactures utensils and performs simple domestic duties.1 Under these conditions the economic life must determine, or modify materially, the form and character of the marriage relation. The number of wives which a man may possess will be influenced partly by his ability to secure

1 See Lowie, Primitive Society, p. 66.

food; and it will depend also of course on the number of women available; but this again is sometimes related to economic conditions, for it depends upon the practice of female infanticide which is in turn regulated by the amount of the food supply. Some tribes which orginally practised female infanticide have with improved conditions abandoned the custom altogether.

The duration of marriage is influenced chiefly perhaps by the presence of offspring, separation being much easier if the union is childless; but economic conditions are not without effect. Among the Esquimaux the union may be severed temporarily, if not permanently, by the absence of the male on a hunting trip. In those environments where women have economic value, that value serves as a check on divorce. Divorce is infrequent where wife-purchase is the custom, as is the case with the Basutos, the Kirgiz, and other tribes. The husband naturally hesitates to separate from a wife who possesses high economic value.

Whether the line of descent should be through the male or through the female has been determined usually by the relative economic value of the two sexes. The change from the metronymic to the patronymic method of descent was brought about chiefly by the increasing prominence of the male, or perhaps, more accurately, the diminishing importance of the female,as the producer of wealth and the owner of property. In all stages of culture the economic importance of woman has greatly influenced her position in the social group. Starcke says: "It is the woman's position with respect to property which enables her to assert her equality with her husband and which finally among the Negroes and Bantus in West Africa makes the child's descent dependent on its mother."

1

ment have necessitated the scattering of the people in small family groups; and this separation has engendered a feeling of exclusiveness in the family circle not felt by primitive peoples living in larger groups.

On polyandry. In the second or proprietary stage of the family life, the economic influence is more complicated and difficult to analyze, although it is fully as strong. Polyandry is now considered an exceptional form of the family, traceable according to Westermarck to excess of men due to poor economic conditions and to inbreeding. To say that an excess of males is favorable to polyandry would be merely stating a truism; but to say that it is the cause of polyandry is quite a different matter. The evidence is insufficient to justify such an assertion. To illustrate the fact that inequality in the ratio of the sexes is by no means uncommon among primitive peoples, Westermarck cites many examples where males are in excess and many others where females preponderate. From the context the casual reader would conclude that the cases of male preponderance coincided with the practice of polyandry and cases of female preponderance with the practice of polygyny; but a closer analysis shows that this is not always so. Thirty-three peoples or districts are enumerated in which males are in excess; and among these are to be found fourteen cases of polygyny and twelve of polyandry, the remainder being practically monogamous. An excess of males may be regarded as a condition favorable to polyandry; but, inasmuch as polyandry is not even the most usual form of marriage in cases where males preponderate, it could not logically be accepted as the primary cause. The determining cause, at least of the most common type, seems to be property conditions. Families in unfavorable environments accumulate only small amounts of property which cannot be advantageously divided, and which at the same time cannot be cared for by the labor of one person. Under such conditions polyandry is advantageous, for it means common participation in property and coöperation in labor. The system indicates poverty as compared with peoples in rich environments, but greater accumulation than that of primitive peoples. Property conditions existing among the Thibetans, the Tirs, the Todas, and the Lancerote are such as to give rise to a polyandry of the Thibetan type.

Polyandry does exist also as a by-product in societies practising polygyny or monogamy, chiefly on account of general scarcity of women, due to appropriation of the majority of the women by the wealthier men.

The group marriage of the Todas develops very naturally from the Thibetan form of polyandry. If the wealth of the family group permits, and if women are sufficiently plentiful, some of the younger brothers may take wives, but these new wives, like the ife of the oldest brother, belongs to all the brothers in common. Thus group marriage represents a halfway stage in progress to monogamy, tenacity of custom as well as economic advantage keeping the brothers from separating and forming independent family groups.

The form of marriage known as Nair polyandry is not true polyandry, for the husbands are not confined to the one common wife but are free to enter other polyandrous unions; consequently it is less definite than the Thibetan form and seems to tie on the border line of the indefinite family relations of more primitive peoples. However the Nairs are in a higher stage of culture than most of the peoples practising the Thibetan form of polyandry, and Letourneau argues that the Nair form is the superior one. In support of his contention he points out the fact that in it women are freer and are held in higher esteem than is the case with many of the so-called superior types of marriages. But this is an unsatisfactory basis for classifying forms of the family, because unfortunately the evolution of the family relation does not always ensure the elevation of the position of woman. In the lowest stages of culture as well as in the highest, women are much more the equals of men than in some of the intermediate stages. Consequently Nair marriage cannot be given a high rank simply because of the comparative freedom enjoyed in it by women. There are reasons for suspecting that it may be a degenerate form.

The causes of the Nair form of polyandry are not the same as those of the Thibetan form. The Nairs belong to a high caste, and are not notably lacking in resources. Furthermore