ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE FAMILY. 133 



dence against this view : the allegation being that, from Greek and 

 Roman times downward, these peoples, though militant, have been 

 monogamic. It may, however, be replied that ancient European so- 

 cieties, though often engaged in wars, had large parts of their popu- 

 lations otherwise engaged, and had industrial systems characterized 

 by considerable division of labor and commercial intercourse. Fur- 

 ther, there must be remembered the fact that in Northern Europe, 

 during and after Roman times, while warfare was constant, monogamy 

 was not universal. Tacitus admits the occurrence of polygyny among 

 the German chiefs. Already we have seen, too, that the Merovingian 

 kings were polygamists. Even in the Carlovingian period we read 

 that 



" The confidence of Conan 11. was kept up by the incredible number of men- 

 at-arms whicli his kingdom furnished ; for you must know that here, besides 

 that the kingdom is extensive as well, each warrior will beget fifty, since, bound 

 by the laws neither of decency nor of religion, each has ten wives or more 

 even." (Ermold. Nigellus, iii., ap. Ser. . Fr., vi., 52.) 



And Koenigswarter says that " such was the persistence of legal con- 

 cubinage in the customs af the people that traces of it are found at 

 Toulouse even in the thirteenth century." 



Thus considering the many factors that have cooperated in modi- 

 fying marital arrangements considering also that some societies, 

 becoming relatively peaceful, have long retained in large measure the 

 structures acquired during previous greater militancy, while other 

 societies which have considerably developed their industrial struct- 

 ures have again become predominantly militant, causing mixtures of 

 traits the alleged relations are, I think, as clear as can be expected. 

 That advance from the primitive predatory type to the highest indus- 

 trial type has gone along with advance from prevalent polygny to 

 exclusive monogamy, is unquestionable ; and that decrease of mili- 

 tancy and increase of industrialness have been the essential cause of 

 this change in the type of family, is shown by the fact that this 

 change has occurred where such other supposable causes as culture, 

 religious creed, etc., have not come into play. 



The domestic relations, thus far dealt with mainly under their 

 private aspects, have now to be dealt with under their public aspects. 

 For, on the structure of the family, considered as a component of 

 a society, depend various social phenomena. 



The multitudinous facts grouped in foregoing chapters show that 

 no true conception of the higher types of family, in their relations to 

 the higher social types, can be obtained without previous study of the 

 lower types of family in their relations to the lower social types. In 

 this case, as in all other cases, error results when conclusions are 

 drawn from the more complex products of evolution, in ignorance 



