POLYGYNY. — From Gk. πολύς = much and γυνή = wife, it is the simultaneous marital cohabitation of one man with several women.
I. MORAL THEOLOGY AND CANON LAW
Polygyny is first of all contrary to positive divine law, proclaimed by God to the first parents Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:23) and later recalled and confirmed by Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:31–32, 19:4–9; cf. also St Paul: 1 Cor. 10:11). For this reason the Council of Trent, drawing also on the traditions of the holy Fathers and theologians, declared anathema whoever should assert that polygyny is not prohibited by any divine law (Session XXIV, Canons on the Sacrament of Matrimony, 2: Denz-U, no. 972); and the Code of Canon Law lists unity as an essential property of marriage (can. 1013 § 2 and the sources cited there).As regards natural law, it must be said that polygyny is not contrary to the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of offspring), as is polyandry, and therefore does not directly violate the established order nor substantially pervert it; yet it is contrary to the secondary end, so much so as to render the very attainment of the primary end difficult. It contradicts, in fact, the equality between husband and wife (whereas the woman in this case gives herself completely and exclusively to one man for the conjugal union, the man gives himself to several women, whence the impediment to the full self-gift, at least on the part of the husband, with the consequent weakening of the *mutuum adiutorium*, which is the duty of the spouses); it opposes the dignity of the wife, who easily becomes not a consort but a slave; it makes inevitable the husband’s preferences for one or another, whence jealousies, envies, and quarrels; which can also occur among half-brothers, with no small obstacles to the education of the entire family.
Polygyny, inasmuch as it does not oppose the primary end of marriage, could exist by explicit divine dispensation, as happened in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 16:2; 21:12; Deut. 21:15). As to the time when this dispensation began, the Bible provides no definite and certain data; the common opinion is that until the Flood at least the monogamy was in force, at least juridically, and that the concession was made after the Flood for a more rapid repopulation of the earth. Nor can it be established from Scripture whether the concession applied only to the Hebrew people or also to the Gentiles, which is the more probable opinion. In any case, the dispensation was revoked by Jesus Christ, who wished to restore the institution of marriage to its primitive state (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18) and declared that the dispensation had been granted “because of the hardness of your hearts,” whereas from the beginning it was not so (Matt. 19:8); the revocation applies also to pagans (cf. Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Rome 1907, no. 1354).
For the penalties imposed on bigamists, V. BIGAMY.
II. ETHNOLOGY
Modern ethnology has shown that polygyny exists, if at all, only as an exception among the most ancient ethnological peoples called gatherers (v. MARRIAGE, II. Marriage among primitives; MONOGAMY), nor is it possible among peoples who are strictly matriarchal, since in the intermingling of these with those who are strictly patriarchal polyandry has arisen (v.), nor is it the rule among nomadic pastoral peoples, who take a second wife when the first is sterile or when it is a matter of levirate or inheritance. Among other peoples, even of mixed culture resulting from the encounter of two peoples, polygyny in fact exists only for chiefs.The missionary C. Salerio noted this in the last century (1855) among the inhabitants of the Woodlark Islands (east of New Guinea), of mixed culture (totemist-agricultural-matriarchal), saying that polygyny was not in vogue there; only chiefs and aspiring chiefs had two wives. Elsewhere, however, he added, there is no limit; the chief of the Trobriand Islands, who was also at Muju (one of the Woodlark Islands), had 17 wives in habitual service and a harem of girls at his future disposal. With regard to the same inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands, Malinowski, a modern explorer of theirs, has written that polygyny (*vilayatva*) is permitted by custom for people of high rank, for chiefs or persons of great importance, such as, for example, famous magicians, in order to have greater wealth thanks to the work of the women. But he has also written, of the Trobrianders, that monogamy is so much the rule among them that he was obliged to treat of their marriage customs as if there were only one wife. The same can be said of other primitive peoples of secondary ethnological civilization in other parts of the world, especially in Africa, wherever the marriage of purchase is practiced, by which the woman is reduced to an instrument of pleasure or a beast of profitable labor.
Polygyny is widely practiced, insofar as wealth permits, among peoples of what ethnology calls tertiary civilizations: the Medes, the Persians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Egyptians, the ancient Mexicans, etc. Among the latter a distinction was made between principal wife, secondary wife, and concubine. The nuptial ceremonies were performed only with the principal bride, while with the secondary wife there was only the ceremony of tying the garments of the spouses. The concubines stood in a de facto relationship with the man, but there was no juridical statute in this regard. The children of secondary wives were in a state of legal inferiority. The principal wife held a special position with respect to the secondary wives and the concubines. Among the Chinese polygyny is prohibited, but concubinage is admitted without any limitation, except that of giving the concubine the place of a legitimate spouse, which is forbidden by law under penalty of beating. The concubine is regarded as a vile being: she lives with the man’s wife, serves her as a domestic, or assists her in the administration of the household. The children of concubines are considered as children of the wife. The children call the wife “mamma” and the concubine “aunt.” The concubine is compared to the star and the wife to the moon.
From ethnological study polygyny appears as a phenomenon disturbing to true marital life and destructive of family harmony. The husband often shows his preferences for one or another of his wives, whence arises jealousy among the women of the household. In ancient Chinese literature it is read that the Empress was advised not to be jealous, given that the Emperor had several orders of concubines. The polygynous father, even under the influence of his preferred woman, favors certain children over others. This occurs especially when it is a matter of inheriting the father’s authority as head of the clan or tribe, for in this case the father’s preference for the son of the favored woman easily puts in danger even the right of the eldest son by primogeniture. Scandals also occur in the family. The aforementioned Malinowski observed, for example, that among the numerous wives, divided into three classes, of a chief of the Trobriand Islands, it was the youngest who were lacking in fidelity to their lord. He also recounts that the men who committed adultery with the wives of the chief were his own sons. Not to speak then of the deleterious effects that polygyny has on the character of the man and the debasement that ensues for the woman. It is clear, moreover, that these effects take on a broader significance, because they involve the political life of an entire people, in the polygyny of the harems of sovereigns and princes, as appears, for example, in the dynastic histories of China. With the harem is connected the custom of eunuchs, unhappy people who have often exercised a sinister influence on courts.
A great deal of importance has been attached in ethnology to the use of piraruri among the Dieri and the Arabani (Urabunna) of Australia, and among certain peoples of the extreme northeast of Asia. This practice is a kind of polygyny connected with polyandry. Wundt, in his Völkerpsychologie, regarded it as an effect of marriage by capture. Among the aforementioned Australians, the woman abducted would become the regular wife (tippa-malcu) of the abductor and the secondary wife (piraruri) of the companions who assisted the abductor. These companions, by virtue of the assistance they rendered, would acquire the right to have as secondary wives the regular wives of their own companions.
The same practice has been considered by evolutionists as a relic or an example of group marriage, one of the usual stages in the evolution of human marriage. However, research by Thomas in Australia shows that