At the door the bride makes a last effort to resist; but she is lifted forcibly over the threshold, and even in the house she is held fast by the arms, until at last she is fully initiated into the sacred rites of the bridegroom's house.[528] It is noteworthy that the custom of dragging the bride into the husband's house, or of lifting her over the threshold, exists even now in many places. It appears in Africa; among the Ests, Kalmucks, and Bedouins; the Indians of southern California, and elsewhere in North America.[529] In "China, when the bridal procession reaches the bridegroom's house, the bride is carried into the house by a matron, and lifted over a pan of charcoal at the door."[530]
The symbol of capture is especially prominent in Celtic song and custom. As in the German epics, it was not thought unseemly for the daughter to marry the hero who had slain her father.[531] "According to tradition the Picts robbed the Gaels of their women, so that the latter were compelled to intermarry with aboriginal inhabitants of the land."[532] Near the beginning of last century the following marriage ceremony was customary in Wales: "On the morning of the wedding day the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends on horseback, demands the bride. Her friends, who are likewise on horseback, give a positive refusal, upon which a mock scuffle ensues. The bride, mounted behind her nearest kinsman, is carried off and is pursued by the bridegroom and his friends, with loud shouts. It is not uncommon on such an occasion to see two or three hundred sturdy Cambro-Britons riding at full speed, crossing and jostling, to the no small amusement of the spectators. When they have fatigued themselves and their horses, the bridegroom is supposed to overtake his bride. He leads her away in triumph, and the scene is concluded with feasting and festivity."[533] Still more real is the sham contest in Ireland. As late as the middle of last century, in mountain districts, the bridegroom "was compelled in honor, to run off with his betrothed, even when there was not the least need of it."[534] On the day of home-bringing, after the purchase-contract had been concluded, "the bridegroom and his friends rode out to meet the bride and her friends, at the place where the contract was made. Being come near each other the custom was of old to cast short darts at the company that attended the bride, but at such distance that seldom any hurt ensued. Yet it is not out of memory of man that the Lord of Hoath on such an occasion lost an eye."[535]
A custom, almost identical with that last mentioned, prevails in the Punjab;[536] and in many parts of India the sham contest and the pretended abduction appear.[537] But nowhere are the symbols of capture found in such wonderful variety and profusion as in Germany and Slavonic lands. The mass of illustration presented by Dargun is almost bewildering for its richness.[538] Every form and type of ceremonial capture is there represented. Elopement, the sham combat, abduction by an armed band, is the regular order of the wedding day in every country of the Slavonic race. In Germany, besides these practices, reminiscences of capture are found in a great variety of pranks and fantastic sports. The bride is concealed from her lover before the wedding; or, after it takes place, she is stolen and concealed by the young people of the village. The bridegroom is hindered from entering the home of his intended on the wedding day; or he finds his way barred to or from the church, and is permitted to proceed only after paying a fine or treating the crowd.[539] Sometimes, as in Sweden, the bride is stolen by her lover and hidden away.[540] In upper Bavaria, on the day of the wedding, she clothes herself in mourning, black or violet;[541] and the practice of covering or veiling her head is as familiar in Germany as it was in ancient Rome.[542] "To veil the woman," quên liugan, is the Gothic name for marriage; in Lorraine it is called Brautjagd, or "bride-hunt;" while Brautlauf, or "bride-race," for the entire nuptial celebration is a common designation in German lands.[543] The original meaning of Brautlauf is probably revealed in the existing custom of chasing the bride. Thus, in Altmark, after the wedding feast, followed by a dance, a runaway match takes place between the newly married pair. "Two lusty young fellows take the girl between them, the bridegroom gives her a 'start,' and the race begins. If the lover does not succeed in overtaking her, he must look out for the gibes of the crowd."[544]
As illustration of social custom and mental attitude the extraordinary prevalence of the so-called symbol of capture is undoubtedly a fact of unusual interest; and it constitutes an important chapter in the history of marriage. But it does not follow, as a matter of course, that the symbol must necessarily be regarded as a survival of actual capture. It is scarcely credible that its origin can be traced to a single source. On the contrary, it is far more likely that in different places, or even in the same place, it takes its rise in a variety of causes, though these may be less simple in character. Thus, in spite of the protest of McLennan,[545] who asserts that "no case can be cited of a primitive people among whom the seizing of brides is rendered necessary by maidenly coyness," it is highly probable that the real or assumed modesty of the woman has exerted a strong influence, here and there, in producing the form of capture.[546] Sometimes the simpler explanation of Starcke may suffice. Ceremonial capture, he declares, merely represents the "sorrow of the bride on leaving her former home; her close dependance on her family is expressed by her lamentation."[547] Again the symbol may appear as the sign of the subjection or subordination of the wife; for many of the so-called minor survivals seem to have this end in view. In a society where woman, on occasion, is seized in the bloody foray; where, often, she is bought like a beast of burden; and where, generally, she is exposed to the cruelty and brutality of her master, it is not surprising that the token of the wife's humility should find its way into the ceremony of marriage.[548] Furthermore the suggestion of Letourneau is worthy of special consideration. The symbol of rape, he holds, is first of all a "mental survival;" a "tradition" of an epoch more or less remote when violence was held in high esteem and when it was glorious to procure slaves by force of arms. The period of rapine may have passed away, but its spirit lingers. Men love to figure in the ceremonial of marriage the abductions of old, which they cannot or dare not any longer commit.[549]
"Connubial and formal capture," according to Crawley, "are very widely spread, but are never survivals of real capture." "In fact, formal capture, far from being itself a survival, either of connubial or of actual hostile capture, is the ceremonial mode of which connubial capture is the non-ceremonial; each is a living reality, the one being material and the other ideal."[550]
Nevertheless, after all is said, it seems hard to believe that ceremonial capture does not sometimes have a more real significance. Often it may symbolize the coyness or mark the subjection of woman. More frequently it may stand as a mere general reminiscence of the good old times of force and lawlessness. Still it would be strange, indeed, if it did not also appear as a direct survival of actual wife-capture.[551] Granting this, however, the significance of capture de facto remains the same. We perceive more clearly that it has very widely prevailed; yet it must still be regarded as a mere incident of war and pillage. It has nothing whatever to do with the institution of marriage. It could never on any wide scale have been the normal manner of procuring wives. To assume that wife-stealing has been a universal phase in the evolution of marriage is not one whit more reasonable than to hold that robbery has been a normal stage in the evolution of property.[552] In spite of Hobbes or McLennan, it remains to be proved that a state of chronic hostility was ever a general phase in the history of mankind. Such a state is inconsistent with the prevalence of the blood-feud.[553] Even the rule of exogamy among primitive peoples does not harmonize with general wife capture. For the coexistence of clan-exogamy and tribal endogamy means, under normal conditions, a tendency toward peace within the tribe.[554] There is strong reason to believe that in every period of social development consent and contract, in some form, have been the cardinal elements of marriage. Captured or stolen women have usually become slaves or concubines; and, except in rare instances, the relatively small number of them made wives must always have been insignificant as compared with the number of wives obtained in other ways. Thus the solution of the problem of so-called marriage by capture appears to be similar to that of polygyny. The practice of taking several wives is exceedingly common; but on close examination we discover that polygyny is relatively unimportant, and that it has never been able to displace monogamy as the normal type. So it is with the practice of capturing women for wives. However prevalent the custom, it does not seem ever to have greatly influenced the natural laws or modified the fundamental motives upon which marriage and the family rest. But the value of the evidence upon which this conclusion is based can be thoroughly appreciated only after we have traced the origin of contract in marriage. Let us begin with wife-purchase, especially in its relation to the custom of capturing women.
It is a common opinion that marriage by purchase supersedes wife-capture as a later and higher stage of development. Such apparently is the view of McLennan, who regards the purchase-contract as of late origin and as the principal means by which the transition from the maternal to the paternal system of kinship and to the individual family was brought about.[555] Post declares that bride-purchase is a universal phase of development, more advanced than that of wife-capture;[556] and he agrees with McLennan in regarding it as a mark of transition.[557] A similar position is taken by Heusler, Lippert, Kulischer, and also by Kohler;[558] while Spencer, without asserting that either is a stage through which marriage among all peoples has passed, thinks that purchase is the usual substitute for violence as civilization progresses. "We may suspect," he says, "that abduction, spite of parents, was the primary form; that there came next the making of compensation to escape vengeance; that this grew into the making of presents beforehand; and that so resulted eventually the system of purchase."[559]
It requires little argument, of course, to show that robbery per se is a less civilized method of acquiring property than contract. That is as true among ourselves now as it has ever been among savages. For particular individuals, even for particular tribes, a transition from rape to contract, as the result of moral development, will of course take place. It by no means follows, however, that the one method has succeeded the other as a general stage for all mankind, or indeed for a single community. Even if we admit that "barter and commerce are comparatively late inventions of man"[560]—an assumption which, though probable, still requires proof—rape is not the necessary alternative in getting property, much less in getting a wife.
It is highly significant that wife-capture, real or pretended, is usually found side by side with wife-purchase. They appear together among peoples exceedingly low in the scale of progress; while marriage by purchase very frequently occurs among rude races where capture, unless as a mere symbol, is not found at all. Thus in Africa purchase is very common, and it is occasionally accompanied by actual or pretended rape.[561] So likewise real capture and wife-purchase coexist in various parts of Europe, Asia, and America; and wherever ceremonial capture occurs among races not far advanced in civilization it is almost invariably combined with marriage by purchase, or its allied forms, marriage by serving, gift, or exchange.[562]
If, now, the cases in which capture and purchase appear together be carefully examined, decisive evidence is disclosed that the purchase contract is really the normal form of marriage, while capture is usually, if not always, merely an exceptional, even illegal, means of procuring a wife. It is not surprising, for instance, that uncivilized races, with well-established marital institutions, should occasionally steal women from hostile tribes. Thus the Macas Indians of Ecuador "acquire wives by purchase, if the woman belongs to the same tribe, but otherwise by force."[563] In Australia wives are often, perhaps usually, procured by exchange or purchase; and a girl is generally betrothed when a child, sometimes as soon as she is born.[564] Actual woman-capture exists. But, as shown by Mr. Howitt's researches and those of Spencer and Gillen, marriage with a captured woman is only permitted when the captor and the captive belong to groups which may legally intermarry. Death is sometimes the penalty for violation of the class rules in this regard. The result is that in Australia woman-stealing "amounts merely to a violent extension of the marital rights over a class in one tribe to captured members of the corresponding class in another tribe." Furthermore, if the native songs prove the existence of wife-stealing, they also bear witness in the most decisive manner to love and choice in Australian marriage.[565]
Very often capture and purchase are found united in such a way that they seem almost to be contending with each other for the mastery.[566] This union occurs in two general forms: either the woman elopes or is carried off without the guardian's consent, and a reconciliation is subsequently effected through payment of the bride-price or the rendering of a composition; or else the stipulation of the price is made before the abduction. In the latter case it is plain that we are dealing merely with ceremonial capture; in the former case the significant fact is that we have to do with a breach of the law.[567] A price is paid for the stolen woman because, like other property, she has an economic value; or a penalty is rendered in order to escape the blood-feud. Frequently, however, even when abduction occurs without the consent or knowledge of the girl's friends, the subsequent procedure in arranging the price or the penalty is strictly regulated by custom; and this fact may perhaps be regarded as a further proof that the forms under consideration, in special instances, represent a transition from capture to contract. Among the Galela and Tobelorese,[568] for example, when a man wishes a woman of a hostile tribe or family, he causes her to be abducted, as she goes out for water or wood, by twenty or more of his female friends, who bind her, if she resists, and bear her away to his house. Should the relatives of the girl attempt a rescue by force, the villagers assemble and try to effect a reconciliation. Pending the stipulation of the bride-money, the girl is allowed to escape to her home, where she is carefully watched. On the third day the friends assemble to discuss the price. If the woman has not lived with the man, she may then refuse him; otherwise the payment of the price is finally arranged.[569] In case of elopement it is the custom among the same people for the lovers to fly to the forest or to take refuge in a "prahu" on the sea, where they remain a month. On their return they are received in the house of the girl's parents. If the lover pays the bride-money, the woman follows him to his house; otherwise he must remain with his wife, and the children legally belong to the mother.[570] With the Bataks of Sumatra good form requires that the bridegroom should leave behind a weapon, a piece of clothing, or some similar article as a token that he has abducted the bride. Thereupon, when the bride-money is paid the marriage is regarded as legally complete. Should no token be left, however, the rape is illegal and the culprit may receive punishment.[571]
Very naturally elopement or abduction most frequently takes place when it is difficult or impossible to bring about the marriage in the legal or customary way. Either the parties belong to groups between which jus connubii does not exist; or the lover is too poor to pay the price demanded for the bride; or else the parents refuse their consent. Here we have an example of the operation of simple motives with which society, at all times and in all places, has been familiar. Such marriages, it has been pointed out, are usually marriages of inclination at least on the side of the lover, as opposed to the conventional marriage by purchase.[572]
It appears, then, so far as present investigation enables us to determine, that there is not sufficient evidence for assuming that wife-capture, except in isolated cases, has generally grown into marriage by purchase. As a rule, even among the lowest races, foreign or warlike capture is an exceptional method of procuring wives; while bride-stealing at home, though the symbol may sometimes be sanctioned, is merely looked upon as illegal or even immoral;[573] and, therefore, with advancing civilization it yields to contract as the highest means of effecting a marriage.[574]
Having now considered its relation to capture, let us next notice the significance of wife-purchase as a social institution.
The custom of giving a compensation for a bride, though not universal, exists or has existed among a vast number of peoples in various stages of progress; and it often survives as a mere symbol in the marriage ceremony. Kulischer, indeed, declares that actual wife-purchase can now be discovered only among a few savage races.[575] But this assertion seems to be wholly inconsistent with the facts. Recent researches, notably those of Post, Kohler, Westermarck, and various American scholars, place it beyond question that taking a wife, as the prosaic result of an ordinary bargain, is a familiar institution in many parts of the world.[576] Husband-purchase also appears, but examples of it are exceedingly rare.[577] Several methods of buying a wife are in use. The simplest way, says Westermarck, is "to give a kinswoman in exchange for her." This method is found in Sumatra;[578] and the Australian male "almost invariably obtains his wife or wives, either as the survivor of a married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life for his daughters."[579] Much more general is the custom, sometimes distinguished with the name of "marriage by service," in which the bridegroom earns his bride by serving her father. "This practice, with which Hebrew tradition[580] has familiarized us, is widely diffused among the uncivilized races of America, Africa, Asia, and the Indian Archipelago."[581] In America, as elsewhere, the custom takes a variety of forms. Among the Mayas the young husband is required to build a house opposite the home of his bride and live in it five or six years while he works for her father. If the service is not faithfully performed, he is dismissed, and the father-in-law gives his daughter to another.[582] In Yucatan the term of service is three or four years; and so stringent is the requirement that it is regarded as highly unseemly to shirk the duty.[583] According to Martius, with whom Souza mainly agrees,[584] the Brazilian native usually gains his first wife by serving her father. For him he goes hunting and fishing. He helps him build his hut, clear the forest, bring wood, and make canoes, weapons, and nets. During this period the lover continues to dwell with his own relatives, but tarries the whole day at the house of his wished-for bride.[585] If his suit is successful, either he may take up his abode for a while with his wife's family, or he may at once set up a separate hut for himself. Among the Guaycurûs the son-in-law dwells permanently with the woman's parents, but from the moment of the marriage they avoid speaking with him; and this custom of "bashfulness," often regarded as a survival of wife-capture and so indirectly of mother-right, prevails very widely in America and in other lands.[586] Service, though merely as proof of manly worth, appears also among the Seri, "probably the most primitive tribe in North America." The "would-be groom is required to enter the family of the girl and demonstrate (1) his capacity as a provider and (2) his strength of character as a man, by a year's probation."[587] Among the Kenai of the far north the lover must perform a year's service for his bride. "The wooing is in this wise: early some morning he enters the abode of the fair one's father, and without speaking a word proceeds to bring water, prepare food, and to heat the bath-room." When asked why he performs these services, "he answers that he desires the daughter for a wife. At the expiration of a year, without further ceremony, he takes her home, with a gift; but if she is not well treated by her husband, she may return to her father, and take with her the dowry."[588] In some places the service must all be rendered in advance; in others, the girl is received on credit and the man serves the required term after the marriage—a familiar example of each of these methods being afforded by the case of Jacob and Laban's daughters.[589] Moreover, as already seen, sometimes it is only the first or chief wife who is earned by service, the later ones being bought in exchange for property in the more usual way.
According to Spencer, the "obtaining of wives by services rendered, instead of by property paid," is a "cause of improvement in the treatment of women," and constitutes therefore a "higher form of marriage," developing "along with the industrial type" of society. "Obviously, a wife long labored for is likely to be more valued than one stolen or bought;" and the long association of the lovers during the time of service is likely to foster more refined sentiments than the "merely instinctive;" to imitate "something approaching to the courtship and engagement of civilized peoples."[590] But, on the other hand, without denying that these results may follow, Westermarck forcibly objects that "industrial work promotes accumulation of property, and consequently makes it easier for the man to acquire his wife by real purchase." Serving for wives is prevalent among such rude races as the Bushmans and Fuegians. Hence it seems "almost probable that marriage by services is a more archaic form than marriage by purchase; but generally they occur simultaneously."[591]
By far the most common way of purchasing a wife is by giving property in exchange.[592] Usually the amount of the price is arranged, like any other bargain, by agreement between the interested parties; but sometimes it is established by custom.[593] Always where the contract is merely a commercial transaction the price is in theory an equivalent for the economic loss sustained by the family or gens of the bride.[594] But the amount varies in every possible way. Often it depends upon the rank or beauty of the woman; or it may be determined by her strength and capacity for bearing children. It varies also with the economic condition of the times, the wife-market depending largely upon the law of supply and demand. In hard times, or where there is an excess of women, wives are cheap; when times are good or women scarce, the price rises in proportion. Among peoples somewhat advanced in culture sentiment must, of course, be taken into account. Where it is regarded as a disgrace to accept a small compensation for a daughter, high prices may lead to celibacy. Such, at the beginning of the past century, was the case in Servia, where the bridegroom, in addition to the purchase price, was expected to bestow liberal presents, not only upon the bride and her mother, but also upon all her near relatives. The presents were so expensive that many a "poor fellow was unable to marry at all;" and so Black George in 1849 had a sumptuary law enacted restricting the price of a girl to one ducat, and this must be paid before the wedding.[595] But the bride-price "varies most according to the circumstances of the parties, and according to the value set on female labour."[596]
Custom differs as to the time of payment. Sometimes the full price must be given before the nuptials; often the bride is received on credit, and the price subsequently paid in instalments. In case of credit the wife with the children usually remains with her father, and the husband does not gain absolute ownership or control until the debt is paid in full.[597]
Among the aborigines of America, North and South, actual wife-purchase, both by service and by property rendered, is exceedingly common; though in some tribes, as in other parts of the world, the transaction takes the form of a simple exchange of gifts or of a bestowal of presents upon the bride's parents. The price is usually paid in horses, but many other forms of property are employed. Among the Kwakiutl, says Boaz, marriage "must be considered a purchase, which is conducted on the same principles as the purchase of a copper. But the object bought is not only the woman, but also the right of membership in her clan for the future children of the couple." For "many privileges of the clan descend only through marriage upon the son-in-law of the possessor, who, however, does not use them himself, but acquires them for the use of his successor. These privileges are, of course, not given as a present to the son-in-law, but he becomes entitled to them by paying a certain amount of property for his wife. The wife is given to him as a first instalment of the return payment. The crest of the clan, its privileges, and a considerable amount of other property besides, are given later on, when the couple have children, and the rate of interest is the higher the greater the number of children. For one child 200 per cent. of interest is paid; for two or more children 300 per cent. After this payment the marriage is annulled, because the wife's father has redeemed his daughter. If she continues to stay with her husband, she does so of her own free will.... In order to avoid this state of affairs, the husband often makes a new payment to his father-in-law" so that he "may have a claim to his wife."[598]
According to Dakota usage, either "bundles" of presents are exchanged by the interested families, or else the young man who wooes the maiden ties "a horse at her parents' door." On returning, if he finds the horse still there, he adds "another, keeping this up until" his "limit is reached." If the horses are taken away, he then enters "the lodge and takes his bride home." In case too high a price is demanded the lover tries elsewhere with his horses, unless, indeed, he entices the girl to elope with him; for "this is also recognized as a marriage."[599] In "choosing a helpmate or helpmates for his bed and board, the inland native" of the Columbian region "makes capacity for work the standard of female excellence, and having made an election buys a wife from her parents by the payment of an amount of property, generally horses, which among the southern nations must be equaled by the girl's parents.... To give away a wife without a price is in the highest degree disgraceful to her family."[600] Among the Indians of northern California likewise "marriage is sometimes essentially a matter of business. The young brave must not hope to win his bride by feats of arms or softer wooing, but must buy her of her father, like any other chattel, and pay the price at once, or resign in favor of a richer man. The inclinations of the girl are in nowise consulted; no matter where her affections are placed, she goes to the highest bidder." The social position of the bride depends upon the price she brings; and, as a natural result of the system, the "rich old men almost absorb the female youth and beauty of the tribe, while the younger and poorer men must content themselves with old and ugly wives. Hence their eagerness for that wealth which will enable them to throw away their old wives and buy new ones."[601] Among the California Karok, according to Powers, "a wife is seldom purchased for less than half a string" of dentalium shell, but "when she belongs to an aristocratic family, is pretty, and skilful in making acorn-bread and weaving baskets, she sometimes costs as high as two strings."[602] According to the same authority, among the Shastika in California a girl is bought "of her father for shell-money or horses, ten or twelve cayuse ponies being paid for a maid of great attractions;"[603] and the Navajo bridegroom of New Mexico will pay so exhorbitant a price as twelve horses only for a bride "possessing unusual qualifications, such as beauty, industry and skill" in her necessary employments.[604]
Marriage by purchase appears also among various African peoples.[605] The bride-price is usually rendered in cattle or goats, the amount varying greatly even in the same tribe. From two to thirty cows will buy a wife among the Kafirs. But, as sometimes happens, if a youth through his friends reveals to the father a liking for his daughter, he must in consequence pay more oxen for his bride.[606] By the Zulu a newly bought wife is regarded as an investment of capital from which is expected a return of interest through her labor and the children which she bears. Should he be disappointed in his bargain, the woman becoming sick, weak, or remaining childless, he sends her back to her father and demands a return of the cattle.[607] The Damara are so poor "that they are often glad to take one cow for a daughter." The rate is much higher among the Banyai. "In Uganda, the ordinary price of a wife is either three or four bullocks, six sewing needles, or a small box of percussion caps, but Mr. Wilson was often offered one in exchange for a coat or a pair of shoes."[608] Very commonly in Africa wives are pawned or even mortgaged, and they are devolved upon the husband's heirs as a part of the inheritance.[609]
Throughout the rude tribes of Asia and northern Europe, more especially among those of the Turco-Tartaric race, wife-purchase exists in its crudest form.[610] The kalym, or bride-price, is usually rendered in horses or cattle. The young Kirgese, for instance, has to pay from three hundred to one thousand head of cattle or one hundred mares for a wife, five mares being reckoned as the equivalent of a camel.[611] Ordinarily a widow depreciates in market value as compared with a maiden;[612] but the Turcoman is more practical, knowing the advantage of experienced service. Though generally a young girl may be had for five camels, he is quite willing to give fifty or even a hundred for a well-preserved widow.[613] The Tartar maiden of northern Asia is sold by her parents for such goods as pass current in exchange. She brings usually a variable number of sheep, horses, or cattle; but the price is also rendered in other commodities, such as brandy, beer, or linen. The contract is arranged with the utmost exactness between the parents. The future husband and wife are not even informed. In theory, at least, "their sentiments, their desires and antipathies, are not taken into consideration." When all is carefully specified, the contract of sale is legally completed before witnesses; but the bride is not delivered to the bridegroom until after the ceremony of marriage, which takes the form of symbolical capture.[614] In China the harsher features of this custom are somewhat softened. A "present is given by the father of the suitor, the amount of which is not left to the good will of the parties ... but is exactly stipulated for by the negotiators of the marriage," the transaction thus differing but little in form from an ordinary bargain, although it must not always be regarded as an actual contract of sale, but rather as a means of providing the wife's dower.[615]
In all branches of the Semitic race marriage, at some time, has been a matter of simple sale and purchase. The married woman, in early Arabia, was looked upon as merely a bond servant. "I charge you with your women," says the prophet, "for they are with you as captives." Accordingly, Robertson Smith informs us, in Arabic lexicons áwânî, or "captives," is "actually used in the sense of married women generally."[616] The mahr, or bride-price, was paid to the woman's kindred. But under Islam it has become identical with the sadâc, or present to the bride, the two terms being synonymous.[617] The Arabic mahr is the same as the Syriac mahrâ and the Hebrew móhar; and in each case it is paid to the damsel's father.[618] In the early days of Israel, apparently, the amount of the bride-price established was fifty shekels of silver;[619] and Boaz actually declares that he has purchased Ruth the Moabitess to be his wife.[620] At this time, however, the context shows that marriage among the Jews was something more than a mere bargain, though there can be little doubt that actual wife-purchase originally existed. "At a later date, a girl was, until puberty, at the disposal of her father, who could either sell her or marry her to whom he pleased, being a Hebrew. There were, however, certain conditions, one of which was that the purchaser could not sell the girl to another person, and if he did not espouse her, or marry her to his son, he was bound, when she reached the age of puberty, or at the end of six years, to aid her in obtaining freedom by reclaiming from her father the price paid for her services."[621] "In the betrothal by kasaph, of the later Talmudic law, purchase appears as a mere survival. The man gives to his chosen bride, in the presence of two witnesses, a piece of money or some other gift of equal value, with the words: 'Be thou consecrated to me.' Even the peruta or smallest coin used in Palestine or some unimportant friendly service was legally sufficient;[622] and this sham purchase has been perpetuated in the modern Jewish ceremony of 'marrying by the penny.'"[623]
Traces of marriage by purchase, real and pretended, are also widely diffused throughout the nations of the Aryan stock. Among the Afghans the price of a bride is paid to the father, but he returns a part of it as a dower.[624] In upper Albania the price is equivalent to 600 marks; and there the symbols of rape appear in the marriage ceremony.[625] According to Leist and Zimmer, the Hindu maiden in Vedic times was sought of her father, not by the suitor himself, but by a friend called the bride-wooer;[626] but, as a legal form, the bride must be paid for by rich presents,[627] which were, however, returned to her as a dower.[628] Here we have to do with a survival; but originally actual wife-purchase, side by side with wife-capture, must have existed. One of the eight forms of marriage mentioned in the Ordinances of Manu as having been proper for the two lower castes, but here condemned as immoral,[629] is the Âsura rite. It is described as "the gift of a maiden voluntarily after presenting to the kinsmen and the maiden wealth as much as the suitor can."[630] Disapproval of real wife-purchase thus early produced two very important results: the institution of dower, already mentioned, and the Ārsha rite, or ceremonial purchase, still the most common form of marriage in India.[631] But the victory was by no means complete. "According to Dubois, to marry and to buy a wife are in India synonymous terms, as almost every parent makes his daughter an article of traffic."[632]
The custom of rendering a compensation for a wife, Aristotle tells us, was prevalent in ancient Greece.[633] The bride-price consisted of "countless gifts;"[634] and in the Homeric age a maid was called "one who yields to her parents many oxen as presents from her suitor."[635] The Roman marriage by coemptio was a conveyance of the bride to the bridegroom through the mancipatory process in essentially the same way as a slave or an ox was sold. Gaius calls it an "imaginary sale;"[636] and it is usually regarded as a reminiscence of actual wife-purchase among the primitive Romans or their ancestors.[637] Moreover, in marriage by usus the husband gained full control of the wife by a year's prescription, exactly as in the case of any property.[638]
Herodotus mentions wife-purchase as a Thracian custom;[639] and until very recently it was also practiced by the Slavs.[640] The bazar of Babylon,[641] where, according to Herodotus, girls were publicly sold in marriage, found its counterpart not long since in the maiden-market of the Roumanian Gainaberg.[642] The ancient laws of Ireland reveal it in curious relation to wife-capture. The legitimate wife is the wife who is bought. At the first marriage the full coibche, or bride-price, is paid to the father; at the second, the bride receives one-third; and at each succeeding marriage a gradually increasing portion falls to her share.[643] Marriage by abduction is illegal. In that case children begotten during the first month belong to the wife's family, though they may be conveyed to their father for a composition; and to such conveyance he is legally entitled, when the abduction takes place with the woman's consent. After the first month the relation between husband and wife is partially legalized. The children begotten thereafter belong to their father, though they are really illegitimate and hence not entitled to full rights of inheritance. Furthermore, a gift from the wife to the husband is void. But every defect in the marriage is at once cured by payment and acceptance of the coibche. In case the price cannot be arranged the family of the wife are entitled to damage. They may demand that another woman be placed at their disposal for an equal term; or they may exact a partnership share in the earnings of the abductor.[644]
Finally, it may be noted, that traces of wife-purchase are found in every branch of the Germanic race. Nowhere, perhaps, can the evolution of the marriage contract in all its phases be studied with more satisfaction than in the history of our own ancestors. The subject will, therefore, be further considered in a later chapter.
We have now traced in broad outline the extent of wife-purchase, and studied its general character and its principal forms. It appears essentially as a real contract of sale between third parties. Technically, at least, the bride and sometimes the bridegroom have nothing to do with the transaction. We have seen incidentally that the purchase-contract tends to become a ceremonial conveyance, and the bride-price to disappear in the dower. This transition is a fact of great social and legal import, and must therefore receive further attention. But, first, another question of interest arises: What is the place of wife-purchase in the evolution of human sexual relations? If it was not preceded by wife-capture as a general phase, is it the primitive method of contracting marriage? Or, to resolve the question into a more convenient form, what is the antiquity of mutual agreement as the basis of matrimonial union between a man and a woman?
On its face, marriage by purchase appears as an institution which could arise only after considerable sociological and mental progress had been made. It implies relatively advanced ideas of property and social organization. Precisely the same is true, in a less degree, of wife-stealing, particularly of the systematic capture of women. It implies for one thing an appreciation of the economic value of woman's services which is wholly inconsistent with most primitive conditions. There are strong indications that in the beginning of distinctly human history marriage arose in the mutual consent of the parties. Nay, to discover the prototype of the primitive matrimonial contract it may be necessary to cross the boundary-line which separates man from the lower animals. This fact seems to have been too much neglected by writers on the history of marriage. Post, indeed, throws out a significant suggestion. Among very low races, he says, betrothal is a compact between the bride and the bridegroom. As soon, however, as the genealogical organization is further developed, marriage is changed from an individual relation to a relation between families, and the betrothal becomes a compact between the kindred groups. With the decay of the gentile constitution marriage and betrothal gradually become again an individual matter; so that in this regard the lowest and the highest stages of culture present the same phenomena.[645]
Here we have the general phases of evolution correctly indicated, though the author lays too much stress on the influence of the gentile system. But the view we have expressed is sustained in a remarkable way by the elaborate researches of Westermarck. In a series of chapters he has put it almost beyond question that a wide liberty of sexual choice on the part of the female is the rule among primitive men as it is among the lower animals.[646] Everywhere, with few exceptions, the male appears as the wooer. In the female passion is less eager.[647] She therefore requires courting, and thus in effect she secures the chief place in the function of sexual selection. Even in the case of the reproductive cells of plants, where any external difference has been observed, "the male cell behaves actively in the union, the female passively;" and the same law prevails among lowly organized animals.[648] In general, animals contend in some sort of rivalry for their mates. Even the most timid during the season of love "engage in desperate combats with each other for the possession of the female, and she, although comparatively passive, nevertheless often exercises a choice, selecting one of the rivals." Fighting for mates "occurs even among insects, and is of universal prevalence in the order of the vertebrata."[649] This method of courtship, not to be confused with capture, may also have prevailed among "our primeval human ancestors," and it still exists in many forms. Sometimes a fist-fight, a battle with clubs, a duel with bows and arrows, or a "pulling-match" settles the claims of rival suitors; and often, as among the North American aborigines, the contest takes the form of "wrestling for wives."[650]
But animals have other means of wooing their mates. To this end the male in a much higher degree than the female is provided with certain notes or calls, strong odors, beautiful top-knots, fine plumes, brilliant colors, or similar ornaments. Even with the most pugnacious species of birds, says Darwin, "it is probable that the pairing does not depend exclusively on the mere strength and courage of the male; for such males are generally decorated with various ornaments, which often become more brilliant during the breeding season, and which are sedulously displayed before the females. The males also endeavor to charm their mates by love-notes, songs, and antics; and the courtship is, in many instances, a prolonged affair. Hence it is not probable that the females are indifferent to the charms of the opposite sex, or that they are invariably compelled to yield to the victorious males. It is more probable that the females are excited, either before or after the conflict, by certain males, and thus unconsciously prefer them."[651] Such colors, love-songs, and ornaments belong to what Darwin calls the "secondary sexual characters." For, in the sexual selection, the "struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners."[652] These characters, he thinks, depend upon the æsthetic sense of the females. "Just as a man can give beauty, according to his standard of taste, to his male poultry, or more strictly can modify the beauty originally acquired by the parent species, ... so it appears that female birds in a state of nature, have by a long selection of the more attractive males, added to their beauty or other attractive qualities."[653] Brilliant colors, for instance, have thus been acquired by birds and insects because they are "beautiful or otherwise agreeable, whereas the characters resulting from natural selection have been acquired because they are useful." Hence "far from co-operating with the process of natural selection, sexual selection, as described by Mr. Darwin, produces effects disadvantageous to the species;"[654] for many of the secondary characters are a source of danger.[655] But Wallace, in his well-known criticism of Darwin,[656] has established a probability that their primary purpose is not æsthetic, but utilitarian. "The fundamental or ground colors of animals," he says, "are very largely protective;" and these are extended in the line of the greatest structural and nervous development.[657] They are therefore an evidence of a surplus of nervous energy, which is especially active at the excitable period of courtship. So far as the female exercises a choice, it is not because the males are beautiful, but because they are "the most vigorous, defiant, and mettlesome." The view of Wallace is supported in the main by that of Westermarck, who especially emphasizes the fact that colors and the other secondary characters are "upon the whole advantageous, inasmuch as they make it easier for the sexes to find each other." They exist to be seen. By association of ideas it is natural that the females should find them pleasing, for to them they are the "symbols of the most exciting period of their lives."[658] Furthermore, "the greatest advantage is won with the least possible peril;" for "usually they occur in males only, because of the females' greater need of protection. They are not developed till the age of reproduction, and they appear, in a great many species, only during the pairing season."[659] It follows, therefore, that sexual selection is but another aspect of natural selection, and the secondary sexual characters are perpetuated in harmony with the law of survival of the fittest. Whichever view is accepted, the fact with which we are especially concerned remains: the female exercises the function of choice.
Turning now to the human race, we find that the same law prevails. Savage and barbarous men are passionately fond of self-decoration and display. "There are peoples," says Westermarck, "destitute of almost everything which we regard as necessaries of life, but there is no people so rude as not to take pleasure in ornaments;" and he quotes Spencer's remark that, great as is the vanity of the civilized, it is exceeded by the vanity of the uncivilized.[660] Every sort of decoration is in use. Attention is paid especially to the arrangement of the hair. The body is disfigured or transformed in a variety of ways. The ears, nose, or cheeks are pierced or bored, and rings or other ornaments inserted. The teeth are colored or otherwise mutilated; and the body is scarred, painted, or tattooed.[661] Now it is demonstrated by wide observation that the primary purpose of self-decoration is the stimulation of sexual passion. In all parts of the world the desire for it "is strongest at the beginning of the age of puberty," all such customs "being practiced most zealously at that period of life."[662] The "common notion that women are by nature vainer and more addicted to dressing and decorating themselves than men" does not hold good, at any rate for savage and barbarous peoples. The females are, of course, often fond of adornment, in this way trying to please or attract their lovers. In some cases tattooing is practiced "exclusively or predominately" by the women, and "the men sometimes wear fewer ornaments;" but as a general rule it is the man who shows the greater desire to beautify himself as a means of gaining the favor of the opposite sex.[663] The woman requires to be wooed, for she is more fastidious than man in the choice of a mate. "A Maori proverb says, 'Let a man be ever so good-looking, he will not be much sought after; but let a woman be ever so plain, men will still eagerly seek after her.'"[664] Besides, it is remarked that "very generally among the lower races, the females are even more unattractive in aspect than the males."[665] But both sexes co-operate in the process of selection; and as social institutions are developed man shares in it more and more. In this way are transmitted the distinctive mental and physical characteristics of each race which are necessary to its survival, and upon which its standard of beauty depends.[666]
If the law of sexual selection has been rightly stated, it would, indeed, be strange if women among low races should not preserve some liberty of choice in marriage. In the savage state, says Darwin, man keeps woman in a far more abject position "than does the male of any other animal;" and hence it is not surprising that "he should have gained the power of selection."[667] But it must not be forgotten that even the lowest races of which we have any knowledge have advanced far beyond the primordial state of man. Darwin himself comes to the conclusion, after examining the evidence, that savage "women are not in quite so abject" a condition as is commonly supposed;[668] and the facts show that in a vast number of cases they have a decisive, though not always a legal, voice in the choice of a husband.
According to Post, the right of assent is subject to the following principal variations:[669] (1) Among a large number of peoples the contract or betrothal is made by the parents or relatives, no regard at all being had to the will either of the bride or bridegroom.[670] Infant-marriage or betrothal, in particular, is of frequent occurrence; and sometimes children are promised even before they are born. Naturally such engagements are often merely contracts of sale; but usually they have a deeper social significance as a means of extending and more firmly knitting the bonds of family or gentile union. This custom implies something more than mere brutal indifference to the wishes of the children; and, besides, it serves the ethical purpose of restricting the sexual liberty of the bride.[671] Such a contract is not always legally binding upon the children, especially the bridegroom; and when it is binding, the betrothed often disregard it, or the bride runs away with another man.[672] (2) In some cases the consent of the bride alone is ignored;[673] (3) in others her approval is asked pro forma, but refusal never occurs and would not be tolerated;[674] (4) or the choice may, in fact, be left to the young man and woman, while the right of betrothal belongs to the guardian. With the Bataks of Sumatra, for instance, vows and pledges are exchanged by the lovers; and in case the girl is betrothed by her parents against her will, she may run away to the giver of the love-pledge, who is then compelled to receive her. A similar rule prevails in Timor and among the Tscherkese of Asia Minor.[675] Sometimes (5) the young people are legally bound to submit to the choice of the guardian only in case of the first marriage, which, accordingly, is often dissolved after a few years or even a few months; while the second marriage, being usually a marriage of inclination, may long endure.[676] Again (6), even among such rude peoples as the Timorlaut islanders, the consent of the betrothed is sometimes essential to a valid marriage;[677] and still more striking are those cases (7) in which the bride and bridegroom themselves appear as the contracting parties, the right of assent now belonging to the parent or guardian. The legal conditions are thus reversed.