Reviews. 207
witness to the strong social feeling within the community. Indeed, while denying, or undervaluing, the solidarity of the kin, he insists on sexual solidarity, which of course is no less incompatible with the intense individualism he sees everywhere than is the solidarity of the kin. But the examples of sexual solidarity he chooses are not carefully distinguished from examples of sexual timidity. At their highest they are very far from proving sexual solidarity as a general characteristic of humanity, while some of them might fairly be adduced as examples of the solidarity of the kin.
It would be interesting to know how far Mr. Crawley's theory of the marriage-relation is the result of his own independent in- vestigation, and how far he has been swayed by Dr. Westermarck's History of Human Marriage. That book, which marks a reaction against the theories of Bachofen and McLennan, has rightly had an important influence on anthropological inquiry. Yet Dr. Westermarck's conclusions on almost every point require the closest scrutiny. They are too often founded on special pleading, or imperfect acquaintance with savage modes of thought and practice, or on far too limited an induction. Mr. Crawley does not always follow him. He recognises his shortcomings where they are concerned with psychology and ceremonies, and agrees with MM. Langlois and Seignobos in criticising him for applying biological analogies to the explanation of social evolution. But he evidently goes the whole dista'nce with him in his rejection of and departure from " the old theory of primitive communism and the matriarchate." Probably no one now holds McLennan's opinions in their entirety, still less Bachofen's, or either of these subjects. The change is in part due to Dr. Westermarck's criti- cisms. But I venture to think that on both subjects Dr. Wester- marck is at least as far from the truth as McLennan. It is not necessary to consider his arguments here. It must suffice to say that they are seriously challenged on anthropological as well as on biological grounds. Mr. Crawley simply follows him on these points. He repeatedly asserts, but never proves, primitive mono- gamy. He tells us that " there is no evidence that the maternal system was ever general or always preceded the paternal system." But from cover to cover his book may be searched in vain for evidence that he has attempted to investigate for himself the facts on which the arguments for the priority and meaning of " the maternal system " are based.
