marriage, which has given rise to these terms of relationship,’ says Mr. Crawley.[19] But what gave rise to the system? Mr. Fison has told us. 1. ‘The division of a tribe (community) into two exogamous intermarrying classes....’ 2. ‘The subdivision of these two classes into four,’ or, he suggests, the amalgamation of two tribes. 3. ‘Their subdivision into gentes distinguished by totems.’[20] But all of this theory we have already declined to accept for reasons given, and mainly because it involves (as I try to show) deliberate primeval reformatory legislation--without any conceivable motive. Again, we cannot accept Mr. Fison’s system because it involves the hypothesis that a tribe, or ‘community,’ large enough to feel the necessity of bisecting itself for social and moral purposes, existed at a period when the difficulties of commissariat, of food supply, and of hostility, could seldom, if ever, permit its existence. A tribe is, I repeat, a local aggregate of small groups become friendly: it is not a primeval horde which keeps on subdividing itself, legislatively, for reformatory purposes. What social cement kept such a primeval horde, such an ‘undivided commune,’ together; and how did the animal jealousy of men so near to the brutal stage fail to rend it into pieces? How was it fed? How can we imagine a human herd--how supplied with food, who knows?--wherein each male sees each other male approach what female he pleases, perhaps his own preferred girl, without internecine jealousy? I cannot imagine this indifference to love in such a primitive Agapemone; I cannot understand its economics; any more than I can guess why such a state of affairs ever seemed--to its members--‘abominable’ and ‘objectionable,’ and a thing to be reformed; yet they ‘bisected’ it, and ‘subdivided’ the segments, all in the interests of morality--such is the theory. As for the good-humoured laxity which enables all men and women to live together matrimonially at random, Mr. Morgan found an example, as he thought, in the _Punalua_ of the Hawaiians. The word _Punalua_, when observed (1860) by Judge Andrews, meant ‘dear friend,’ or ‘intimate companion.’ A man called his sister’s husband (our ‘brother-in-law) his ‘dear friend,’ and a woman styled the wife of her husband’s brother (her sister-in-law), _her_ ‘dear friend,’ or _Punalua_. This shows that relations-in-law were not ‘Foes-in-law,’ or, at least, that this was not the official view of the case. It really does not follow that all the wives ‘shared their remaining husbands in common.’ Judge Andrews thought that this happy family ‘_were inclined_ to possess each other in common.’ That was only the Judge’s theory, also the theory of the Rev. Artemus Bishop. Probably there was a great deal of genial license and indifference among loose luxurious barbaric people, living in ‘summer isles of Eden,’ where food and necessaries were ready made by benignant Nature.[21]