In the face of such facts, can we agree with Rousseau that to a savage one woman is as good as another?  The question is very difficult to answer, because if a man is to marry at all, he must choose a particular girl, and this choice can be interpreted as preference, though it may be quite accidental.  It is probable, as I have suggested, that with a people as low as the Australians it would be difficult to find a man having sufficient predilection for one young woman to refuse to exchange her for two others.  Probably the same is true of the higher savages and even of the barbarians, as a rule.

UTILITY VERSUS SENTIMENT

We do, indeed, find, at a comparatively early stage, evidences of one girl or man being chosen in preference to others; but when we examine these cases closely we see that the choice is not based on personal qualities but on utilitarian considerations of the most selfish or sensual description.  Thus Zoeller, in the passage just referred to, says of the negro: 

“It is true that when he buys a woman he prefers a young one, but his motive for so doing is far from being mental admiration of beauty.  He buys the younger ones because they are youthful, strong, and able to work for him.”

Similarly Belden, who lived twelve years among the Plains Indians, states (302) that “the squaws are valued by the middle-aged men only for their strength and ability to work, and no account whatever is taken of their personal beauty.”  The girls are no better than the men.  Young Comanche girls, says Parker (Schoolcraft, V., 683) “are not averse to marry very old men, particularly if they are chiefs, as they are always sure of something to eat.”  In describing Amazon Valley Indians, Wallace says (497-498) that there is

“a trial of skill at shooting with the bow and arrow, and if the young man does not show himself a good marksman, the girl refuses him, on the ground that he will not be able to shoot fish and game enough for the family.”

These cases are typical, and might be multiplied indefinitely; they show how utterly individual preference on personal grounds is out of the question here.  It is true that many of our own girls marry for such utilitarian reasons; but no one would be so foolish as to speak of these marriages as love-matches, whereas in the cases of savages we are often invited by sentimentalists to witness the “manifestation of love” whenever a man shows a utilitarian or sensual interest in a particular girl.  A modern civilized lover marries a girl for her own sake, because he is enamoured of her individuality, whereas the uncivilized suitor cares not a fig for the other’s individuality; he takes her as an instrument of lust, a drudge, or as a means of raising a family, in order that the superstitious rites of ancestor-worship may be kept up and his selfish soul rest in peace in the next world.  He cares not for her personally, for if she proves barren he repudiates her and marries another.  Trial marriages are therefore widely prevalent.  The Dyaks of Borneo, as St. John tells us, often make as many as seven or eight such marriages; with them marriage is “a business of partnership for the purpose of having children, dividing labor, and by means of their offspring providing for their old age.”