an occasional calamity which befalls any of them will be enough to excite the imaginative faculty in the highest degree; and if no prohibition previously existed, the absolute condemnation of such marriages would then be pronounced." In a word, "the intermarriage of individuals of the same family implies that persons who have no legal right to dispose of themselves and their property nevertheless agree upon such legal disposition, an encroachment which would certainly be violently opposed by primitive men." In the same way, exogamy will arise between clans; and the co-existence of endogamy and exogamy seems to be consistently explained by this theory. "Exogamy prohibits marriage between persons who are so nearly related that they have no legal independence of each other; endogamy prohibits the marriage of persons whose legal status is too remote from each other."[376] In corroboration of his view, Starcke finds evidence that, here and there, a distinction is made between regular marriage and sexual intercourse, the former being forbidden, unless for special reasons, while the latter is allowed.[377] [373] This is the view of MORGAN, _Ancient Society_, 512-14; also of MAINE, _op. cit._, 221 ff.; FISON AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 117, 138 ff.; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 363. [374] STARCKE, _op. cit._, 212, 223, 224. [375] In this part of his argument Starcke's generalizations are scarcely sustained by the evidence. See the criticism of CUNOW, _Australneger_, 180-84, who urges the well-known fact that many of the lowest peoples are not acquainted with wife-purchase at all; and even where wife-purchase exists, it might seem to be of as much advantage to a father to marry his daughter to her brother as, for instance, to allow the son to obtain a wife by offering his sister in exchange. [376] STARCKE, _op. cit._, 233, 229, 230. [377] _Ibid._, 227, 228.