vage races is the following: As soon as
the two sexes are free, the monogamous instinct of the woman and
jealousy of both sexes combine to reestablish marriage. True
promiscuity can only exist by means of a sort of legal obligation,
such as exists in the colony of Oneidas in New York. In this colony
the members formally agree to mutual and free sexual intercourse. We
must not forget that prostitution is only kept up in women by the
thirst for lucre, and ceases immediately this element disappears.

Before the Reformation there existed in Scotland a singular custom
called "hand-fasting," by which young men had the right to choose a
companion for a year, at the end of which time they could either
separate or become married according to their inclination.

On the other hand, Lubbock mentions certain customs in Greece and
India, the worship of _phallus_, for example, which obliged young
girls to give themselves to all men. But these customs were not among
primitive races but resulted from the eroticism of highly civilized
nations. Thus, Lubbock's argument concerning the existence of
primitive promiscuity falls to the ground.

Certain savage nations offer their daughters or their servants, rarely
their wives, to their guests. A _jus primae nocti_ (right to the first
night) has also existed and will sometimes exist in some tribes, but
this right is reserved for the chiefs, kings or priests, and allows
them to have sexual intercourse before the husband with every newly
married woman during the first night of the nuptials. This is a
barbarous custom based on the right of the stronger, and analogous to
the privileges claimed by the European nobles from their serfs or
peasants. But such abuses do not constitute promiscuity, as Lubbock
maintains.

In many countries the courtesans and concubines were held in high
esteem, and are so even at the present day, more than is supposed; but
this again is not a question of promiscuity.

Morgan has deduced his theories of promiscuity from terms employed in
certain savage dialects to designate relationship. These conclusions
are false and Morgan, like others, has been led into error by the
obscurity of the language of these people. The simple fact that
paternal parentage is recognised among them proves the absurdity of
Morgan's reasoning, for promiscuity cannot recognize paternal
parentage.

In 1860 Bachofen drew attention to the ancient custom of naming the
children after the maternal