Each shepherd clasped, with unconcealed delight, His yielding fair, within the Captain’s sight; Each yielding fair, as chance or fancy led, Preferred new lovers to her sylvan bed.[22] This is vastly well, and the poet adds, in a liberal spirit, What Otaheite is, let England be! It is very well, but it by no means represents, probably, the manners of primitive man. ‘We may conclude,’ says Mr. Darwin, ‘from what we know of the jealousy of all male quadrupeds,... that promiscuous intercourse, in a state of nature, is extremely improbable.... The most probable view is that primeval man aboriginally lived in small communities, each with as many wives as he could support and obtain, whom he would have jealously guarded against all other men. Or he may have lived with several wives by himself, like the Gorilla, for all the natives agree that but one adult male is seen in a band; when the young male grows up a struggle takes place for mastery, and the strongest, by killing and driving out the others, establishes himself as the head of the community. The younger males, being thus expelled and wandering about, would, when at last successful in finding a partner, prevent too close interbreeding within the limits of the same family,’ just as the other male did.[23] This second view of Mr. Darwin’s is much like the theory of Mr. Atkinson, and is very unlike Mr. Morgan’s theory of a human horde, living in communal marriage, or group marriage. Mr. Darwin’s idea, moreover, the primitive groups being small, does not encounter the economic difficulties raised by the hypothesis of the ‘undivided commune.’ The strongest male practically enforced exogamy, as far as he was able, and maybe conceived to have entertained no scruples as to connection with his daughters. Mr. Darwin admitted that ‘the indirect evidence’ for communal marriage, and fraternal incest, was ‘extremely strong,’ but then ‘it rests chiefly on the terms of relationship which are employed between members of the same tribe, implying a connection with the tribe alone, and not with either parent.’ If, however, we have successfully explained these terms of relationship as not usually meaning degrees of consanguinity, but of customary legal status, under the prevalent customary law, the evidence which these terms yield for promiscuity, or group marriage, is extremely weak, or is nil, above all if our theory of how the legal status arose is accepted. And, if it is not accepted, back we come to primeval ‘reformatory movements.’