their death than he would for his own possible children—namely, those of his own wife.[1]
In comparing the two kinds of polyandry that I have just described, the patriarchal polyandry of the Thibetans, and the matriarchal polyandry of the Naïrs, the majority of sociologists consider the first as superior to the other. In so doing they seem to me not to be able to shake off sufficiently our European ideas. Doubtless the fraternal Thibetan polyandry, while leaving undecided the paternal filiation of the children, assures them a sort of collective paternal parenthood, since the fathers are of the same blood. This polyandrian family consequently differs less than the Naïr family from our own system of patriarchal kinship, which is reputed superior; but surely the liberty, and even the dignity of the woman, which must count for something, are more respected under the Naïr system, which not only does not reduce the woman to a thing possessed, that one lends to one's friends, but gives her the power of choosing her husbands.
Fraternal polyandry being declared superior to polyandry of the Naïr type, it has been concluded that in virtue of the law of progress it must have been preceded in all times and places by the latter. As regards the greater number of cases of Thibetan polyandry, the supposition is gratuitous; it seems, however, established as far as ancient Arabia is concerned, where, thanks to a very learned treatise recently published by Mr. W. Robertson Smith, professor of Arabic at the University of Cambridge,[2] we may note the causes of polyandry and follow its evolution.
III. Polyandry in Ancient Arabia.
The chief cause of ancient Arabian polyandry was the one we find in nearly all the polyandric countries—that is to say, the infanticide of daughters.
The primitive Arabs, extremely savage and even anthropophagous, were led to adopt the custom of female infanticide by the difficulty of living in their arid country,
