The state of having more wives than one at once. Though this article, (like some others we have inserted, ) cannot be considered as strictly theological, yet, as it is a subject of importance to society, we shall here introduce it. The circumstances of the patriarchs living in polygamy, and their not being reproved for it, has given occasion for some modern writers to suppose that it is not unlawful: but it is answered that the equality in the number of males and females born into the world intimates the intention of God that one woman should be assigned to one man; "for (says Dr. Paley) if to one man be allowed an exclusive right to five or more women, four or more men must be deprived of the exclusive possession of any; which could never be the order intended. This equality, indeed, is not quite exact. The number of male infants exceeds that of females in the proportion of 19 to 18, or thereabouts; but this excess provides for the greater consumption of males by war, seafaring, and other dangerous or unhealthy occupations. It seems also a significant indication of the divine will, that he at first created only one woman to one man. Had God intended polygamy for the species, it is probable he would have begun with it; especially as by giving to Adam more wives than one, the multiplication of the human race would have proceeded with a quicker progress.
Polygamy not only violates the constitution of nature, and the apparent design of the Deity, but produces to the parties themselves, and to the public, the following bad effects: contests and jealousies amongst the wives of the same husband; distracted affections, or the loss of all affection in the husband himself: a voluptuousness in the rich which dissolves the vigour of their intellectual as well as active faculties, producing that indolence and imbecility, both of mind and body, which have long characterized the nations of the East; the abasement of one half of the human species, who, in countries where polygamy obtains, are degraded into instruments of physical pleasure to the other half; neglect of children; and the manifold and sometimes unnatural mischiefs which arise from a scarcity of women. To compensate for these evils, polygamy does not offer a single advantage. In the article of population, which it has been thought to promote, the community gain nothing (nothing, I mean, compared with a state in which marriage is nearly universal;) for the question is not, whether one man will have more children by five or more wives than by one; but whether these five wives would not bear the same or a greater number of children to five separate husbands.
And as to the care of children when produced, and the sending of them into the world in situations in which they may be likely to form and bring up families of their own, upon which the increase and succession of the human species in a great degree depend, this is less provided for and less practicable, where twenty or thirty children are to be supported by the attention and fortunes of one father, than if they were divided into five or six families, to each of which were assigned the industry and inheritance of two parents. Whether simultaneous polygamy was permitted by the law of Moses, seems doubtful, Deu 17:16. Deu 21:15; but whether permitted or not, it was certainly practised by the Jewish patriarchs both before that law and under it. the permission, if there were any, might be like that of divorce, "for the hardness of their heart, " in condescension to their established indulgences, rather than from the general rectitude or propriety of the thing itself. The state of manners in Judea had probably undergone a reformation in this respect before the time of Christ; for in the New Testament we meet with no trace or mention of any such practice being tolerated. For which reason, and because it was likewise forbidden amongst the Greeks and Romans, we cannot expect to find any express law upon the subject in the Christian code.
The words of Christ, Mat 19:9. may be construed by an easy implication to prohibit polygamy; for if "whoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery;" he who marrieth another without putting away the first is no less guilty of adultery; because the adultery does not consist in the repudiation of the first wife (for however unjust or cruel that may be, it is not adultery, ) but entering into a second marriage during the legal existence and obligation of the first. The several passages in St. Paul’s writings which speak of marriage, always suppose it to signify the union of one man with one woman, Rom 7:2-3. 1Co 7:1-40. the manners of different countries have varied in nothing more than in their domestic constitutions. Less polished and more luxurious nations have either not perceived the bad effects of polygamy, or, if they did perceive them, they who in such countries possessed the power of reforming the laws, have been unwilling to resign their own gratifications. Polygamy is retained at this day among the Turks, and throughout every part of Asia in which Christianity is not professed. In Christian countries it is universally prohibited. In Sweden it is punished with death. In England, besides the nullity of the second marriage, it subjects the offender to transportation or imprisonment and branding for the first offence, and to capital punishment for the second.
And whatever may be said in behalf of polygamy, when it is authorized by the law of the land, the marriage of a second wife, during the life- time of the first, in countries where such a second marriage is void, must be ranked with the most dangerous and cruel of those frauds by which a woman is cheated out of her fortune, her person, and her happiness." Thus far Dr. Paley. We shall close this article with the words of an excellent writer on the same side of the subject. "When we reflect, " says he, "that the primitive institution of marriage limited it to one man and one woman; that this institution was adhered to by Noah and his sons, amidst the degeneracy of the age in which they lived, and in spite of the examples of polygamy which the accursed race of Cain had introduced; when we consider how very few (comparatively speaking) the examples of this practice were among the faithful; how much it brought its own punishment with it; and how dubious and equivocal those passages are in which it appears to have the sanction of the divine approbation; when to these reflections we add another, respecting the limited views and temporary nature of the more ancient dispensations and institutions of religion how often the imperfections and even vices of the patriarchs and people of God in old times are recorded, without any express notification of their criminality how much is said to be commanded, which our reverence for the holiness of God and his law will only suffer us to suppose were for wise ends permitted; how frequently the messengers of god adapted themselves to the genius of the people to whom they were sent, and the circumstances of the times in which they lived; above all, when we consider the purity, equity, and benevolence of the Christian law, the explicit declaration of our Lord and his apostle Paul respecting the institution of marriage, its design and limitation; when we reflect, too, on the testimony of the most ancient fathers, who could not possibly be ignorant of the general and common practice of the apostolic church; and, finally, when to these considerations we add those which are founded on justice to the female sex, and all the regulations of domestic aeconomy and national policy, we must wholly condemn the revival of polygamy." Paley’s Moral Philosophy, vol. 1: p. 319 to 325; Madan’s Thelyphthora; Towers’s Wills’s, Penn’s, R. Hill’s, Palmer’s and Howeis’s answers to Madan, Mon. Rev. vol. 63: p. 338, and also vol. lxix; Beattie’s El. of Mor. Science, vol. 2: p. 127-129.
[MARRIAGE]
Polygamy. See Marriage.
By: Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., Julius H. Greenstone
The fact or condition of having more than one wife or husband at a time; usually, the practise of having a plurality of wives. While there is no evidence of a polyandrous state in primitive Jewish society, polygamy seems to have been a well-established institution, dating from the most ancient times and extending to comparatively modern days. The Law indeed regulated and limited this usage; and the Prophets and the scribes looked upon it with disfavor. Still all had to recognize its existence, and not until late was it completely abolished. At no time, however, was it practised so much among the Israelites as among other nations; and the tendency in Jewish social life was always toward Monogamy.
That the ideal state of human society, in the mind of the primitive Israelite, was a monogamous one is clearly evinced by the fact that the first man (Adam) was given only one wife, and that the first instance of bigamy occurred in the family of the cursed Cain (Gen. iv. 19). Noah and his sons also are recorded as having only one wife each (ib. vi. 7, 13). Abraham had only one wife; and he was persuaded to marry his slave Hagar (ib. xvi. 2, 3; see Pilegesh) only at the urgent request of his wife, who deemed herself barren. Isaac had only one wife. Jacob married two sisters, because he was deceived by his father-in-law, Laban (ib. xxix. 23-30). He, too, married his wives' slaves at the request of his wives, who wished to have children (ib. xxx. 4, 9). The sons of Jacob as well as Moses and Aaron seem to have lived in monogamy. Among the Judges, however, polygamy was practised, as it was also among the rich and the nobility (Judges viii. 30; comp. ib. xii. 9, 14; I Chron. ii. 26, iv. 5, viii. 8). Elkanah, the father of Samuel, had two wives, probably because the first (Hannah) was childless (I Sam. i. 2). The tribe of Issachar was noted for its practise of polygamy (I Chron. vii. 4). Caleb had two concubines (ib. ii. 46, 48). David and Solomon had many wives (II Sam. v. 13; I Kings xi. 1-3), a custom which was probably followed by all the later kings of Judah and of Israel (comp. I Kings xx. 3; also the fact that the names of the mothers of most of the kings are mentioned). Jehoiada gave to Joash two wives only (II Chron. xxiv. 3).
Prophetic Attitude.
There is no Biblical evidence that any of the Prophets lived in polygamy. Monogamous marriage was used by them as a symbol of the union of God with Israel, while polygamy was compared to polytheism or idolatrous worship (Hos. ii. 18; Isa. l. 1; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. xvi. 8). The last chapter of Proverbs, which is a description of the purity of home life, points to a state of monogamy. The marriage with one wife thus became the ideal form with the great majority of the people; and in post-exilic times polygamy formed the rare exception (Tobit i. 10; Susanna 63; Matt. xvii. 25, xix. 9; Luke i. 5). Herod, however, is recorded as having had nine wives (Josephus, "Ant." xvii. 1, § 3).
The Mosaic law, while permitting polygamy, introduced many provisions which tended to confine it to narrower limits, and to lessen the abuse that might arise in connection with it. The Israelitish woman slave who was taken as a wife by the son of her master was entitled to all the rights of matrimony(see Husband and Wife), even after he had taken another wife; and if they were withheld from her, she had to be set free (Ex. xxi. 9-11; see Slaves). One who lived in bigamy might not show his preference for the children of the more favored wife by depriving the first-born son of the less favored one of his rights of inheritance (Deut. xxi. 15-17; see Inheritance). The king should not "multiply wives" (ib. xvii. 17; comp. Sanh. 21a, where the number is limited to 18, 24, or 48, according to the various interpretations given to II Sam. xii. 8); and the high priest is, according to the rabbinic interpretation of Lev. xxi. 13, commanded to take one wife only (Yeb. 59a; comp. Yoma 2a).
Rabbinic Aversion to Polygamy.
The same feeling against polygamy existed in later Talmudic times. Of all the rabbis named in the Talmud there is not one who is mentioned as having lived in polygamy. The general sentiment against polygamy is illustrated in a story related of the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi (Ket. 62a). A peculiar passage in the Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) to Ruth iv. 6 points to the same state of popular feeling. The kinsman of Elimelech, being requested by Boaz to marry Ruth, said, "I can not redeem; for I have a wife and have no right to take another in addition to her, lest she be a disturbance in my house and destroy my peace. Redeem thou; for thou hast no wife." This is corroborated by R. Isaac, who says that the wife of Boaz died on the day when Ruth entered Palestine (B. B. 91a). Polygamy, was, however, sanctioned by Jewish law and gave rise to many rabbinical discussions. While one rabbi says that a man may take as many wives as he can support (Raba, in Yeb. 65a), it was recommended that no one should marry more than four women (ib. 44a). R. Ami was of the opinion that a woman had a right to claim a bill of divorce if her husband took another wife (ib. 65a). The institution of the Ketubah, which was introduced by the Rabbis, still further discouraged polygamy; and subsequent enactments of the Geonim (see Müller's "Mafteaḥ," p. 282, Berlin, 1891) tended to restrict this usage.
Rabbi Gershom's Decree.
An express prohibition against polygamy was pronounced by R. Gershom b. Judah, "the Light of the Exile" (960-1028), which was soon accepted in all the communities of northern France and of Germany. The Jews of Spain and of Italy as well as those of the Orient continued to practise polygamy for a long period after that time, although the influence of the prohibition was felt even in those countries. Some authorities suggested that R. Gershom's decree was to be enforced for a time only, namely, up to 5000 A.M. (1240 C.E.; Joseph Colon, Responsa, No. 101; see Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, i. 10, Isserles' gloss), probably believing that the Messiah would appear before that time; but this opinion was overruled by that of the majority of medieval Jewish rabbis. Even in the Orient monogamy soon became the rule and polygamy the exception; for only the wealthy could afford the luxury of many wives. In Africa, where Mohammedan influence was strongest, the custom was to include in the marriage contract the following paragraph: "The said bridegroom . . . hereby promises that he will not take a second wife during the lifetime of the said bride . . . except with her consent; and, if he transgresses this oath and takes a second wife during the lifetime of the said bride and without her consent, he shall give her every tittle of what is written in the marriage settlement, together with all the voluntary additions herein detailed, paying all to her up to the last farthing, and he shall free her by regular divorce instantly and with fitting solemnity." This condition was rigidly enforced by the rabbinic authorities (see Abrahams, "Jewish Life in the Middle Ages," p. 120).
Later Instances.
The Jews of Spain practised polygamy as late as the fourteenth century. The only requirement there was a special permit, for which a certain sum was probably paid into the king's treasury each time a Jew took an additional wife (Jacobs, "Sources," p. xxv., No. 104, London, 1894). Such cases, however, were rare exceptions. The Spanish Jews, as well as their brethren in Italy and in the Orient, soon gave up these practises; and today, although the Jews of the East live under Mohammedan rule, but few cases of polygamy are found among them.
In some exceptional cases bigamy was permitted (see Bigamy); but this was in very rare cases only, and the consent of 100 learned men of three different states was required (see Insanity). While in the case of the 'Agunah one witness who testifies to the death of her husband is sufficient to permit the woman to remarry, in the case of the woman's disappearance some authorities ("Bet Shemuel" on Eben ha-'Ezer, 158, 1; 15, 20) are of the opinion that the testimony of one witness is not sufficient to permit the husband to remarry (see Fassel, "Mishpete El; Das Mosaisch-Rabbinische Civilrecht,"§§ 63, 112, Nagy-Kanizsa, 1852). Later authorities, however, permit him to remarry even when there is only one witness to testify to the death of his wife, and even when that witness did not know her personally, providing that after he had described the deceased woman the husband recognized the description as that of his wife ("Noda' Bihudah," series ii., Eben ha-'Ezer, 7, 8; comp. "Ḥatam Sofer" on Eben ha-'Ezer, responsum 2; "Pitḥe Teshubah" on Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 10).
Survivals of Polygamy.
In spite of the prohibition against polygamy and of the general acceptance thereof, the Jewish law still retains many provisions which apply only to a state which permits polygamy. The marriage of a married man is legally valid and needs the formality of a bill of divorce for its dissolution, while the marriage of a married woman is void and has no binding force (Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 10; comp. "Pitḥe Teshubah," § 20, where is quoted the opinion of some authorities that after a man takes a second wife he is not compelled to divorce her). The Reform rabbis in conference assembled (Philadelphia, 1869) decided that "the marriage of a married man to a second woman can neither take place nor claim religious validity, just as little as the marriage of a married woman to another man, but,like this, is null and void from the beginning." Still, with the majority of Jews, this is not even an open question, and the marriage of a married man is considered just as valid as that of an unmarried man; it not only requires the formality of divorce in the case of separation, but also makes him subject to the laws of relationship; so that he can not afterward marry the wife's sister while the wife is living, nor can he or his near relatives, according to the laws of consanguinity, enter into matrimonial relations with any of her near relatives (see Marriage).
Bibliography:
Hastings, Dict. Bible, s.v. Marriage;
Hamburger. R. B. T., s.v. Vielweiberei;
Frankel, Grundlinien des Mosaisch-Talmudischen Eherechts, Breslau, 1860;
Lichtenstein, Die Ehe nach Mosaisch-Talmudischer Auffassung, ib. 1879;
Klugman, Stellung der Frau im Talmud, Vienna, 1898;
Rabbinowicz, Mebo ha-Talmud, Hebr. transl., p. 80, Wilna, 1894;
Buchholz, Die Familie, Breslau, 1867;
Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, Cincinnati, 1884;
Duschak, Das Mosaisch-Talmudische Eherecht, Vienna, 1864.
POLYGAMY.—See Family, Marriage.
1. Meaning of the Term
2. Origin of Polygamy
3. The Old Testament and Polygamy
4. Polygamy Unnatural
The Eunuch
5. Weakness of Polygamy
1. Meaning of the Term:
Polygamy has been and is the open blazon by the human race of sex vice. The very term is a misnomer. Since man became moralized he has apprehended that the proper marriage relation between the sexes is monogamy. Whatever may have been the practice, since man could ask himself, What is right? he has known that
“To steal the livery of the court of heaven
To serve the Devil in.”
Polygamy is a general term and might mean a multiplicity of partners in the family relation by one of either sex. But it does not. Polygamy practically means exactly “polygyny” (
Why polygamy has captured the whole position philologically covered by polygyny is readily apparent. The might of the physically strongest has dictated the situation. Man has on the average one-fourth more muscular force than woman. When it comes to wrong in sex relation, man has that advantage, and it has given him the field covered by the word “polygamy.” There he is master and woman is the victim.
2. Origin of Polygamy:
It is plainly evident that polygamy is primarily largely the outcome of tribal wars. When men had separated into clans and had taken up different places of abode, collisions would soon occur between them. What would happen in such cases would be what we know did happen in North America soon after its first settlement by Europeans, to wit, the destruction of the Hurons by the Iroquois. The great majority of the men were massacred; the women and children, driven to the abode of the conquerors, disappearing there mainly in concubinage and slavery. What shall be done with this surplus of women? Here again the might of the strongest comes to the front. The chief or the most heroic fighter would assert his right to choice of captives, and thus concubinage or what is the same thing - polygamy - would be set up. Successes in further wars come and add other women to be distributed. Of course to the sheik or king there soon comes the seraglio and the harem. Polygamous practices will come in in other ways. The prisoner of war becomes property and passes from hand to hand by gift or sale. So woman - the weaker party - endures what comes to her as slave, concubine. We have now no longer the “helpmeet” originally destined for man - “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” - for whom he would “leave his father and his mother” and to whose single self he would “cleave” for life (Gen 2:18, Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5, Mat 19:6). Monogamy, with its unity in labor, thought and feeling, with its immeasurable modifying influences of moral, ideal and spiritual cast, is gone. Woman is reduced to the position of ministrant to man’s unmodified sensuality.
3. The Old Testament and Polygamy:
The complications introduced into morals by polygamy are not often considered. But the Bible sets them forth in plainness. The marriage of Abraham and Sarah seems to have been an original love match, and even to have preserved something of that character through life. Still we find Sarah under the influence of polygamous ideas, presenting Abraham with a concubine. Yet afterward, when she herself had a son, she induced Abraham to drive out into the wilderness this concubine and her son. Now Abraham was humane and kind, and it is said “The thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight” (Gen 21:11). But he was in the toils of polygamy, and it brought him pain and retribution. A Divine direction may be hard to bear.
The conditions of Jacob’s marriages were such that it is hard to say whether any of his children were of any other than of polygamous origin (Gen 35:22-26). Where the family idea and affection went, in such mixed condition, is evidenced by the unblushing sale, for slavery in Egypt, of one of the brothers by the others (Gen 37:28).
David was a singer of sweet and noble songs and wanted to be a righteous man with his whole heart. Yet, probably in common with all the military leaders and kings of the earth of his day, he had a polygamous career. His retributions ran along an extended line. There was a case of incest and murder among his children (2 Sam 13). The son in whom he had most hope and pride organized treason against his throne, and lost his life in the attempt. David left his kingdom to Solomon, of whom much might be said, but of whom this can be said - evidently originally a man bright, keen-witted, wise, yet in his old age he went to pieces by the wiles of the women with whom he had loaded his harem. Partly by his extravagance in his polygamous life, and partly in attempt to build temples in distant places for the religions represented by the inmates of his harem, he bankrupted his nation. As a consequence his kingdom was divided at his death, and there was never again a united Israel (1Ki 11:12). Polygamy may be justly charged with these untoward results.
4. Polygamy Unnatural:
It can be demonstrated scientifically, even mathematically, that polygamy is a moral wrong. Statistics show that births are substantially equally divided between the sexes. Excess seems slightly on the side of males. When this fact is considered and also the fact of the wide prevalence of polygamy, it would seem that polygamy (polygyny) is a greater crime against Nature than polyandry. To put out of view for a moment the wrong to woman in denying to her the rights and privileges of monogamous marriage, the interference with the rights of man to such marriage looms up in vast proportion. Every harem is the denial to men of the right to seek among its inmates wives according to the dictates of their own hearts.
The Eunuch.
But we are not done with the crime against man. Given a harem, and he who set it up has made, or there brought, the eunuch. The lord of the harem must be served by emasculated men. A search in history will reveal an amount of this wickedness that is past belief. The eunuch has been everywhere among all nations and peoples and tongues. They have not only been servitors to women in harems, but they have acquired such influence with their masters that they have sometimes even dictated the policy of government. They have been the secret cabinet that has had the last word in public affairs. They have sometimes held public positions and shown therein astonishing ability. Witness Narses, the brilliant general of the emperor Justinian. See EUNUCH.
5. Weakness of Polygamy:
Gibbon noticed the fact that nations began to decline in power when their policies were dictated and managed by eunuchs. But that is taking a symptom for the disease. There are weaknesses behind that weakness. We have found woman in muscular strength equal to three-fourths of a man. If we claim nothing more for woman than that ratio through the whole scale of her potencies, what would be thought of a nation that should try to reduce that three-fourths of potency as nearly to zero as it could? This is what polygamy has done - reduced woman as nearly to a cipher as it could in all the departments of her being. She has been held to the lowest and most primitive industrial pursuits. She has been deprived of intellectual development. She has been debarred from society, permitted to look at it only through a home lattice, or, if abroad, through a swathod face. The harem of sheik or sultan has fixed the condition of woman in province or nation - set the bounds to her life. The highest office assigned her has been breeder of children, and for one-half of them - the daughters - she could have no possible hope or ambition. See WOMAN.
Where in such degradation is the “helpmeet” for man in all his problems? This condition is reflected back over man. What possible appeal can there be to him for thought and energy except to repeat the same dull round exhibited in his daily life? Polygamous nations have never been industrial inventors, have contributed little to science. They have usually ruined the fertility of the lands they have occupied. They have been heavily weighted with the lethargy of a system that appeals to nothing but the most primitive instincts and vices of man.
The monogamous have been the forceful nations. Rome conquered the world while she was monogamous, and lost control of it when she dropped to the moral level of the sex corruption of the peoples that she had conquered. The Teuton trundled into and over Europe in ox-carts mounted on solid wood trucks. But his cart carried one wife, and now all polygamy is held under the trained guns of the Tenton.
There may seem to be two exceptions - the establishment of the Mogul empire in India and the subjugation of Western Asia and Eastern Europe by the Turk. That in both cases there was great success in war is granted. They were authorized by their religion to exhibit the frenzy of bloodshed and indulge in lust. Indeed, enjoyment of the latter was a bright hope for the life to come. But when they had possession of a country, and massacres and ravishing were over, what then? For what is mankind indebted to them?
A Lyric.
A lyric has been put in the hand of the present writer by a friend who wrote it at the last date of the title. It is one of the lyrics of the centuries in its synthesis of history and in its insight into the forces physical, moral and immoral at work in the Mogul empire of India. Notice the dates. The text will show what took place between.
The Mogul 1525-1857
A war steed coursed out the wind-swept north,
Jarring the crags with hoofs of fire,
Snuffing far battle with nostril wide,
Neighing the joy of fierce desire.
The crisping herbage of arid plains
Had toughened his sinews like bands of steel;
The snow-fed waters of Zarafshan
Had nerved the might of a northern will.
The war steed grazed in the fertile meads,
Drinking the waters of indolent streams:
He rested at eve on bloom-dight beds,
Toyed with by maidens in the goldening gleams.
They charmed his ear with dalliant song:
They closed his eyes in witchery’s glee:
They fed him the vineyards’ wildering draught -
He slept in the breath of the lotus tree.
White bones lie strewn on the flowering mead,
In flesh-rank grass grown high and dark.
The carrion bird hath flown - hath died -
Riseth the war-horse? Neigheth? Hark!
- Josiah Torrey Reade, Amherst, 1856.
The above lyric may be taken as the epitaph of any polygamous nation. The last words are significant - “Neigheth? Hark!” Would the old war steed arise? “Hark!” The Sepoy rebellion was on! We “hearkened,” but the rebellion went to pieces and an end was put to the Mogul empire. We have listened for half a century and heard no sound. We hear mutterings now, but the end will be as before - even if the “war-horse” riseth and is victorious. He will then again lie down in “flesh-rank grass grown high and dark,” and the “carrion bird” will fly from his “white bones.” Streams cannot rise higher than their fountains. The causes remaining, the same effects will follow. See DIVORCE; FAMILY; MARRIAGE.
See Marriage.