July 20, igi 1] 



NATURE 



and we have high authority for the dictum, " Omni' 

 tulil punctum qui miseuit utile dulci." The illustra- 

 tions, of which there is a vast variety, are scarcely 

 less interesting' than the letterpress. Once published 

 the book becomes an essential vadc mecum of the 

 detective and the writer of detective stories. To the 

 Detective it supplies innumerable facts and suggestions 

 which cannot fail to be useful in the practical work 

 of his profession. To the writer it is a veritable mine 

 of valuable material. The general public, who read 

 plainly for amusement, but do not object to a little 

 instruction unostentatiously slipped in as they go 

 ■long, will find the book as fascinating as a new 

 volume of Sherlock Holmes's adventures, and a great 

 deal more instructive. 



THE GENESIS OF CIVILISATION. 



(i) Marriage, Totemism, and Religion. An Answer 

 to Ciitics. By the Rt. Hon. Lord Avebury. Pp. 

 xi+243. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 

 1911.) Price 4s. 6d. net. 



(2) The Golden Bough : a Study in Magic and Reli- 

 gion. By Prof. J. G. Frazer. Third edition. 

 Part ii., Taboo and the Perils of the Soul. Pp. 

 xv + 416. (London : Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 

 1911.) Price ios. net. 



(1) T ORD AVEBURY opens his "answer to 

 J— < critics " with the following just remark : — 



"In spite of the profound study which has been 

 devoted by many learned and able philosophers to 

 the origin and evolution of civilisation, there are still 

 great differences of opinion on the subject." 



His book, "The Origin of Civilisation and the 

 Primitive Condition of Man," published forty-one 

 years ago, was, as Mr. Lang rightly described it, 

 "a pioneer work of great value and importance." 

 But the best of theories would be expected to grow or 

 change with the accumulation of new evidence and 

 a closer analysis of the old, and both these conditions 

 have been satisfied in the interval. 



Among the author's original theories, that which 

 showed most insight was the demonstration of the 

 antagonism between idolatry and fetichism, in later 

 terms, between religion and magic. Later research, 

 however, has not so decidedly corroborated his views 

 on the origins of marriage, exogamy, and totemism. 

 A good deal of misconception that has existed, owing 

 to the use of the same terms with different meanings, 

 is now being removed, as in the case of "religion" 

 itself. The one term for which there is no use is 

 "superstition." But the- modern distinction between 

 "magic" and "religion," which Lord Aveburv laid 

 down long ago, while distinguishing between man's 

 control of nature and " supernature's " control of 

 man, between coercion and prayer, and so forth, 

 rather ignores that vital component of both tendencies, 

 which is known as animism, the belief in "spirit." 

 The antagonism, on which Tylor has laid such stress, 

 between animistic and non-animistic thinking, and 

 the origin of animism itself, are certainly of profound 

 importance in the evolution of culture. 



In the case of marriage, however, there is as yet 

 NO. 2177, VOL. 87] 



little agreement as to the meaning of the term in 

 reference to origins. Lord Avebury himself, "for 

 want of a better term," spoke of the 'primitive'.' 

 condition as "communal marriage," both words con- 

 noting legalism. "Promiscuity" erred in the oppo- 

 site direction; its modern substitute is "group-mar- 

 riage." Lord Avebury 's view that exogamy and in- 

 dividual "marriage" arose from "marriage by cap- 

 ture" was largely based on customs which were cases 

 not of capture but of elopement, a very different 

 thing. He does not seem yet to have realised the 

 difference ; for instance, he brings forward the Kurnai 

 custom, reported as capture by Fison and Howitt. 

 But their actual words prove it to have been elope- 

 ment. Speaking of "marriageability" between exo- 

 gamous sections of a tribe, I once ventured to say 

 that no "rights" were exercised in virtue of it. I 

 meant rights as against the actual husband. In reply 

 to this Lord Avebury (p. 20) quotes a case of "cap- 

 ture " where the captor has a right to the captive. 

 He concludes, " Mr. Crawley is mistaken in question- 

 ing the right of the conqueror to his captive," a 

 statement I did not make. But, further, the case he 

 quotes is merely a case of elopement! 



The defloration of the bride among the Central 

 Australians by other men than the bridegroom was 

 explained bv Spencer and Gillen as a rudimentary 

 (sic) right of marriage deriving from a previous 

 promiscuity, by Lord Aveburv as an "expiation" (to 

 the tribe) for individual marriage, a vestigial right of 

 communal marriage. Here, as in the analogous 

 custom of "svmbolic capture," the whole question 

 is the psvchological question of the nature of " sur- 

 vivals." Can. for instance, such a custom as that 

 of a mock capture of the bridegroom (a not uncommon 

 custom) be explained as a survival, in "play" or 

 ceremony, from a previous real and serious practice 

 of kidnapping? All cases of symbolic capture can be 

 explained as quasi-magical or symbolic expressions 

 of the idea of connubial possession. Similarly with 

 the other custom. We may explain it as a quasi- 

 magical or svmbolic expression of the idea of consum- 

 mation. Spencer and Gillen themselves note that the 

 participators wear magical decorations. Similar acts 

 of phvsical preparation with or without a magical 

 irradiation are found everywhere; they are often per- 

 formed bv the parents of the bride. A case is just 

 to hand (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insti- 

 tute. \1 (1910), 29S) from the tribes near Lake Xyasa, 

 where a man (it may be any man) is "called in to 

 oblige." I have enlarged on this point because it is 

 crucial in the question of marriage-origins, and largely 

 made use of by the supporters of the hypothesis of 

 primitive promiscuity. On the face of it the custom 

 has nothing to do with group-marriage of to-day, and 

 all analogy is against its being a survival from the 

 " horde "-rights of the past. Lord Avebury approves 

 the conclusion of Spencer and Gillen that " individual 

 marriage does not exist either in name or in practice 

 in the Urabunna tribe." But they themselves admit 

 that everv woman is the special nupa of one man, 

 that those men who have the right of "access" (not 

 the same thing as marriage) must obtain his consent, 

 and that this is asked only in such circumstances as 



