MARRIAGE BY CAPTURE AND MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE
The practice of capturing wives prevails in various parts of the world,
and traces of it are met with in the marriage ceremonies of several
peoples, indicating that it occurred much more frequently in past ages.
Speaking of the inhabitants of Unimak, Coxe says that they invaded the
other Aleutian islands, and carried off women—the chief object of their
incursions.[2253] Among the Ahts, a man occasionally steals a wife
from the women of his own tribe;[2254] whilst the Bonaks of California
usually take women in battle from other tribes, and the Macas Indians
of Ecuador acquire wives by purchase, if the woman belongs to the
same tribe, but otherwise by force.[2255] All the Carib tribes used
to capture women from different peoples and tribes, so that the men
and women nowhere spoke the same tongue;[2256] and v. Martius states
that, in Brazil, “some tribes habitually steal their neighbours’
daughters.”[2257]
Among the Mosquito Indians, after the wedding is all arranged and
the presents paid, the bridegroom seizes his bride and carries her
off, followed by her female relatives, who pretend to try to rescue
her.[2258] The Araucanians considered the carrying off of the bride by
pretended violence an essential prerequisite to the nuptials, and,
according to Mr. E. R. Smith, it is even “a point of honour with the
bride to resist and struggle, however willing she may be.”[2259] The
Uaupés “have no particular ceremony at their marriages, except that of
always carrying away the girl by force, or making a show of doing so,
even when she and her parents are quite willing.”[2260] Almost the same
is said of the Fuegians, though among them the capture is sometimes
more than a ceremony.[2261]
Andersson remarks that, among the Bushmans, woman is only too often
_belli teterrima causa_.[2262] Speaking of the Bechuanas, Mr. Conder
says, “As regards wedding ceremonies, there is one of casting an
arrow into the hut by the bridegroom, which is worthy of notice
as symbolic.”[2263] Among the Wakamba, marriage is an affair of
purchase, but the bridegroom “must then carry off the bride by force
or stratagem.”[2264] The Wa-taïta and Wa-chaga of Eastern Equatorial
Africa have also a marriage ceremony of capture;[2265] and the like is
the case with the Inland Negroes mentioned by Lord Kames,[2266] and the
Abyssinians.[2267] Among the tribes of Eastern Central Africa described
by Mr. Macdonald, marriage by capture occurs not as a symbol only.[2268]
According to a common belief, the Australian method of obtaining
wives is capture in its most brutal form.[2269] But contrary to Mr.
Howitt,[2270] Mr. Curr informs us that only on rare occasions is a wife
captured from another tribe, and carried off.[2271] The possession of
a stolen woman would lead to constant attacks, hence the tribes set
themselves very generally against the practice.[2272] Even elopements,
according to Mr. Mathew, are now usually more fictitious than
real;[2273] but there are strong reasons for believing that formerly,
when the continent was only partially occupied, elopements from within
the tribe frequently occurred.[2274]
In Tasmania the capture of women for wives from hostile and alien
tribes was generally prevalent.[2275] Among the Maoris, the ancient and
most general way of obtaining a wife was for the man to get together
a party of his friends and carry off the woman by force, apparent or
actual.[2276] A similar practice occurs on the larger islands of the
Fiji Group,[2277] in Samoa,[2278] Tukopia,[2279] New Guinea,[2280]
and extremely frequently in the Indian Archipelago,[2281] and among
the wild tribes of India.[2282] Among the Arabs,[2283] Tartars,[2284]
and other peoples of Central Asia, as also in European Russia,[2285]
traces of capture occur in the marriage ceremony, whilst the
Tangutans,[2286] Samoyedes,[2287] Votyaks,[2288] &c.,[2289] are still
in the habit of stealing wives, or elope with their sweethearts, if
the bridegroom cannot afford to pay the fixed purchase-sum. Among
the Laplanders,[2290] Esthonians,[2291] and Finns,[2292] marriage
by capture occurred in former days, and in some parts of Finland
symbolical traces of it in the marriage ceremony have been found in
modern times.[2293]
The same practice prevailed among the peoples of the Aryan race.
According to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ one of the eight legal forms of
the marriage ceremony was the Râkshasa rite, _i.e._, “the forcible
abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps,
after her kinsmen have been slain or wounded, and their houses broken
open.” This rite was permitted for the Kshatriyas by the sacred
tradition.[2294] According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, marriage by
capture was at one time customary throughout ancient Greece;[2295]
and, as Plutarch informs us, it was retained by the Spartans as an
important symbol in the marriage ceremony.[2296] Even now, according
to Sakellarios, capture of wives occasionally occurs in Greece.[2297]
Among the Romans, the bride fled to the lap of her mother, and was
carried off by force by the bridegroom and his friends.[2298] In the
historical age this was a ceremony only, but at an earlier time the
capture seems to have been a reality. “Les premiers Romains,” says
M. Ortolan, “d’après leurs traditions héroïques, ont été obligés
de recourir à la surprise et à la force pour enlever leurs premières
femmes.”[2299] The ancient Teutons frequently captured women for
wives.[2300] Speaking of the Scandinavian nations, Olaus Magnus says
that they were continually at war with one another, “propter raptas
virgines aut arripiendas.”[2301] Among the Welsh, on the morning of the
wedding-day, the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends on horseback,
carried off the bride.[2302] The Slavs in early times, according to
Nestor, practised marriage by capture;[2303] and in the marriage
ceremonies of the Russians and other Slavonian nations, reminiscences
of this custom still survive.[2304] Indeed, among the South Slavonians,
capture _de facto_ was in full force no longer ago than the beginning
of the present century.[2305] According to Olaus Magnus, it prevailed
in Muscovy, Lithuania, and Livonia;[2306] and, according to Seignior
de Gaya, the symbol of it occurred in his time in Poland, Prussia, and
Samogithia.[2307]
The list of peoples among whom marriage by capture occurs, either as
a reality or as a symbol, might easily be enlarged.[2308] There are
peoples, however, who seem to have nothing of the kind. As regards the
Chinese, Mr. Jamieson says, “Of the capture of wives there is, as far
as I am aware, historically no trace, nor is the form to be found among
any of the ceremonies of marriage with which I am acquainted.”[2309]
Moreover, it is doubtful whether the ceremonies given as instances of
symbolical capture are, in every case, survivals of capture _de facto_,
in the real sense of the term, that is, taking the woman against not
only her own will, but that of her parents. Mr. Spencer suggests
that one origin of the form of capture may be the resistance of the
pursued woman, due to coyness, partly real and partly assumed;[2310]
and, though this suggestion has been much attacked, it can scarcely be
disproved. On the East Coast of Greenland, according to Dr. Nansen,
the only method of contracting a marriage is still for the man to
go to the girl’s tent, catch her by the hair or anything else which
offers a hold, and drag her off to his dwelling without further ado.
Violent scenes are often the result, as single women always affect the
utmost bashfulness and aversion to any proposal of marriage, lest they
should lose their reputation for modesty. But “the woman’s relations
meanwhile stand quietly looking on, as the struggle is considered a
purely private affair, and the natural desire of the Greenlander to
stand on a good footing with his neighbour prevents him from attempting
any interference with another’s business.”[2311] Again, according to
Mr. Abercromby, marriage _with_ capture—by which he understands capture
of a bride, associated with some other form of marriage, such as that
by purchase—may be regarded rather as a result of the innate universal
desire to display courage, than as a survival of a still older practice
of taking women captive in time of war.[2312]
Mr. McLennan thinks that marriage by capture arose from the rule of
exogamy. But there are peoples—the Maoris, Ahts, &c.—among whom this
practice occurs or has remained as a symbol, who are, nevertheless,
what Mr. McLennan would call endogamous. We are not entitled to say
that, “wherever exogamy can be found, we may confidently expect
to find, after due investigation, at least traces of a system of
capture.”[2313] On reckoning up the peoples among whom the combination
of capture and exogamy is met with, Dr. Tylor observes that the number,
“though enough to show that they coexist freely, falls short of what
would justify the inference that they are cause and effect.”[2314]
It seems to me extremely probable that the practice of capturing
women for wives is due chiefly to the aversion to close
intermarriage—existing, as we have seen, among endogamous tribes
also,—together with the difficulty a savage man has in procuring a
wife in a friendly manner, without giving compensation for the loss
he inflicts on her father. Being something quite different from the
wrestling for wives, already mentioned as the most primitive method
of courtship, marriage by capture flourished at that stage of social
growth when family ties had become stronger, and man lived in small
groups of nearly related persons, but when the idea of barter had
scarcely occurred to his mind.[2315] From the universality of the
horror of incest, and from the fact that primitive hordes were in a
chronic state of warfare with one another, the general prevalence of
this custom may be easily explained. But as it is impossible to believe
that there ever was a time when friendly negotiations between families
who could intermarry were altogether unknown, we cannot suppose that
capture was at any period the exclusive form of contracting marriage,
although it may have been the normal form. In Australia, where
marriage by capture takes place between members of hostile communities
only,[2316] we are aware of no tribe—exogamous or endogamous—living in
a state of absolute isolation. On the contrary, every tribe entertains
constant relations, for the most part amicable, with one, two, or
more tribes; and marriages between their members are the rule.[2317]
Moreover, the custom, prevalent among many savage tribes, of a husband
taking up his abode in his wife’s family seems to have arisen very
early in man’s history. And Dr. Tylor’s schedules show that there are
in different parts of the world even twelve or thirteen well-marked
exogamous peoples among whom this habit occurs.[2318]
* * * * *
As appears from the instances quoted, the practice of capturing wives
is, in the main, a thing of the past. Among most existing uncivilized
peoples a man has, in some way or other, to give compensation for his
bride.[2319] Marriage by capture has been succeeded by marriage by
purchase.
The simplest way of purchasing a wife is no doubt to give a kinswoman
in exchange for her. “The Australian male,” says Mr. Curr, “almost
invariably obtains his wife or wives, either as a survivor of a
married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life
for his daughters.”[2320] A similar exchange is sometimes effected in
Sumatra.[2321]
Much more common is the custom of obtaining a wife by services rendered
to her father. The man goes to live with the family of the girl for a
certain time, during which he works as a servant. This practice, with
which Hebrew tradition has familiarized us, is widely diffused among
the uncivilized races of America,[2322] Africa,[2323] Asia,[2324] and
the Indian Archipelago.[2325] Often it is only those men who are too
poor to pay cash that serve in the father-in-law’s house till they have
given an equivalent in labour; but sometimes not even money can save
the bridegroom from this sort of servitude.[2326] In some cases he has
to serve his time before he is allowed to marry the girl; in others he
gets her in advance. Again, among several peoples, already mentioned,
the man goes over to the woman’s family or tribe to live there for
ever; but Dr. Starcke suggests that this custom has a different origin
from the other, being an expression of the strong clan sentiment, and
not a question of gain.[2327]
According to Mr. Spencer, the obtaining of wives by services
rendered, instead of by property paid, constitutes a higher form
of marriage, and is developed along with the industrial type of
society. “This modification,” he says, “practicable with difficulty
among rude predatory tribes becomes more practicable as there arise
established industries affording spheres in which services may be
rendered.”[2328] But it should be noticed that, even at a very low
stage of civilization, a man may help his father-in-law in fishing and
hunting, whilst industrial work promotes accumulation of property, and
consequently makes it easier for the man to acquire his wife by real
purchase. We find also the practice of serving for wives prevalent
among such rude races as the Fuegians and the Bushmans; and, in the
‘Eyrbyggja Saga,’ Vîgstyr says to the berserk Halli, who asked for the
hand of his daughter Âsdî, “As you are a poor man, I shall do as the
ancients did and let you deserve your marriage by hard work.”[2329] It
seems then, almost probable that marriage by services is a more archaic
form than marriage by purchase; but generally they occur simultaneously.
The most common compensation for a bride is property paid to her owner.
Her price varies indefinitely. A pretty, healthy, and able-bodied girl
commands of course a better price than one who is ugly and weak;[2330]
a girl of rank, a better price than one who is mean and poor;[2331] a
virgin, generally a better than a widow or a repudiated wife.[2332]
Among the Californian Karok, for instance, 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 skillful in making
acorn-bread and weaving baskets, she sometimes costs as high as two
strings.”[2333] The bride-price however, varies most according to the
circumstances of the parties, and according to the value set on female
labour. In British Columbia and Vancouver Island, the value of the
articles given for the bride ranges from £20 to £40 sterling.[2334]
The Indians of Oregon buy their wives for horses, blankets, or buffalo
robes.[2335] Among the Shastika in California, “a wife is purchased
of her father for shell-money or horses, ten or twelve cayuse ponies
being paid for a maid of great attractions.”[2336] Again, the Navajos
of New Mexico consider twelve horses so exorbitant a price for a wife,
that it is paid only for “one possessing unusual qualifications, such
as beauty, industry, and skill in their necessary employments”;[2337]
and the Patagonians give mares, horses, or silver ornaments for the
bride.[2338]
In Africa, not horses but cattle are considered the most proper
equivalent for a good wife. Among the Kaffirs, three, five, or ten
cows are a low price, twenty or thirty a rather high; but, according
to Barrow, a man frequently obtained a wife for an ox or a couple of
cows.[2339] The Damaras are so poor a people that they are often glad
to take one cow for a daughter.[2340] Among the Banyai, many heads of
cattle or goats are given to induce the parents of the girl “to give
her up,” as it is termed, _i.e._, to forgo all claim on her offspring,
for if nothing is given, the family from which she comes can claim
the children as part of itself.[2341] 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.[2342] In the Mangoni country,
two skins of a buck are considered a fair price,[2343] and among the
Negroes of Bondo, a goat;[2344] whereas, among the Mandingoes, as
we are told by Caillié, no wife is to be had otherwise than by the
presentation of slaves to the parents of the mistress.[2345]
The Chulims paid from five to fifty roubles for a wife, the Turalinzes
usually from five to ten.[2346] Rich Bashkirs pay sometimes even
3,000 roubles, but the poorest may buy a wife for a cart-load of wood
or hay.[2347] In Tartary, parents sell a daughter for some horses,
oxen, sheep, or pounds of butter; among the Samoyedes and Ostyaks,
for a certain number of reindeer.[2348] Among the Indian Kisáns,
“two baskets of rice and a rupee in cash constitute the compensatory
offering given to the parents of the girl.”[2349] Among the Mishmis, a
rich man gives for a wife twenty mithuns (a kind of oxen), but a poor
man can get a wife for a pig.[2350] In Timor-laut, according to Mr.
Forbes, “no wife can be purchased without elephants’ tusks.”[2351]
In the Caroline Islands, “the man makes a present to the father of
the girl whom he marries, consisting of fruits, fish, and similar
things!”[2352] In Samoa, the bride-price included canoes, pigs, and
foreign property of any kind which might fall into their hands;[2353]
and, among the Fijians, “the usual price is a whale’s tooth, or a
musket.”[2354]
Among some peoples marriage may take place on credit, though,
generally, the wife and her children cannot leave the parental home
until the price is paid in full.[2355] In Unyoro, according to Emin
Pasha, when a poor man is unable to procure the cattle required for
his marriage at once, he may, by agreement with the bride’s father,
pay them by instalments; the children, however, born in the meantime
belong to the wife’s father, and each of them must be redeemed with a
cow.[2356]
Marriage by exchange or purchase is not only generally prevalent among
existing lower races; it occurs, or formerly occurred, among civilized
nations as well. In Central America and Peru, a man had to serve for
his bride.[2357] In China, a present is given by the father of the
suitor, the amount of which is not left to the goodwill of the parties,
as the term “present” would suggest, but is exactly stipulated for
by the negotiators of the marriage; hence, as Mr. Jamieson remarks,
it is no doubt a survival of the time when the transaction was one of
ordinary bargain.[2358] In Japan, the proposed husband sends certain
prescribed presents to his future bride, and this sending of presents
forms one of the most important parts of the marriage ceremony. In
fact, when once the presents have been sent and accepted, the contract
is completed, and neither party can retract. Mr. Küchler says he has
been unable to find out the exact meaning of these presents: the
native books on marriage are silent on the subject, and the Japanese
themselves have no other explanation to give than that the custom has
been handed down from ancient times.[2359] But from the facts recorded
in the next chapter it is evident that the sending of presents is a
relic of a previous custom of marrying by purchase.
In all branches of the Semitic race men had to buy or serve for
their wives, the “mohar” or “mahr” being originally the same as a
purchase-sum.[2360] In the Books of Ruth and Hosea, the bridegroom
actually says that he has bought the bride;[2361] and the modern
Jews, according to Michaelis, have a sham purchase among their
marriage ceremonies, which is called “marrying by the penny.”[2362]
In Mohammedan countries marriage differs but little from a real
purchase.[2363] The same custom prevailed among the Chaldeans,
Babylonians,[2364] and Assyrians.[2365]
Speaking of the ancient Finns, the Finnish philologist and traveller,
Castrén, remarks, “There are many reasons for believing that a cap
full of silver and gold was one of the best proxies in wooing among our
ancestors.”[2366] Evident traces of marriage by purchase are, indeed,
found in the ‘Kalevala’ and the ‘Kanteletar’;[2367] and, in parts of
Finland, symbols of it are still left in the marriage ceremony.[2368]
Among the East Finnish peoples, marriage by purchase exists even now,
or did so till quite lately.[2369]
Wife purchase, as Dr. Winternitz remarks, was the basis of
Indo-European marriage before the separation of peoples took
place.[2370] The Hindu bride, in Vedic times, had to be won by rich
presents to the future father-in-law;[2371] and one of the eight
forms of marriage mentioned, though disapproved of, by Manu—the Âsura
form—was marriage by purchase. According to Dubois, to marry and to
buy a wife are in India synonymous terms.[2372] Aristotle tells us
that the ancient Greeks were in the habit of purchasing wives,[2373]
and in the Homeric age a maid was called “ἀλφεσίβοια,” _i.e._, one
“who yields her parents many oxen as presents from her suitor.”
Among the Thracians, according to Herodotus, marriage was contracted
by purchase.[2374] So also throughout Teutonic antiquity.[2375] The
ancient Scandinavians believed that even the gods had bought their
wives.[2376] In Germany, the expression “to purchase a wife” was in
use till the end of the Middle Ages, and we find the same term in
Christian IV.'s Norwegian Law of 1604.[2377] As late as the middle of
the sixteenth century the English preserved in their marriage ritual
traces of this ancient legal procedure;[2378] whilst in Thuringia,
according to Franz Schmidt, the betrothal ceremony even to this day
indicates its former occurrence.[2379]
Purchase, as Dr. Schrader remarks, cannot with equal certainty be
established as the oldest form of marriage on Roman soil.[2380] But
the symbolical process of _coemptio_—the form of marriage among the
plebeians—preserved a reminiscence of the original custom in force
if not at Rome, at least among the ancestors of the Romans.[2381] In
Ireland and Wales, in ancient times, the bride-price consisted usually
of articles of gold, silver, and bronze, sometimes even of land.[2382]
The Slavs, also, used to buy their wives;[2383] and, among the South
Slavonians, the custom of purchasing the bride still partially
prevails, or recently did so. In Servia, at the beginning of the
present century, the price of girls reached such a height that Black
George limited it to one ducat.[2384]
In spite of this general prevalence of marriage by purchase, we have
no evidence that it is a stage through which every race has passed. It
must be observed, first, that in sundry tribes the presents given by
the bridegroom are intended not exactly to compensate the parents for
the bride, but rather to dispose them favourably to the match. Colonel
Dalton says, for example, that, among the Pádams, one of the lowest
peoples of India, it is customary for a lover to show his inclinations
whilst courting by presenting his sweetheart and her parents with small
delicacies, such as field mice and squirrels, though the parents seldom
interfere with the young couple’s designs, and it would be regarded as
an indelible disgrace to barter a child’s happiness for money.[2385]
The Ainos of Yesso, says Mr. Bickmore, “do not buy their wives, but
make presents to the parents of saki, tobacco, and fish;”[2386] and the
amount of these gifts is never settled beforehand.[2387] The game and
fruits given by the bridegroom immediately before marriage, among the
Puris, Coroados, and Coropos, seem to v. Martius to be rather a proof
of his ability to keep a wife than a means of exchange; whereas the
more civilized tribes of the Brazilian aborigines carry on an actual
trade in women.[2388]
Speaking of the Yukonikhotana, a tribe of Alaska, Petroff states
that the custom of purchasing wives does not exist among them.[2389]
The Californian Wintun, who rank among the lower types of the race,
generally pay nothing for their brides.[2390] The Niam-Niam and some
other African peoples,[2391] most of the Chittagong Hill tribes,[2392]
the aboriginal inhabitants of Kola and Kobroor, of the Aru Archipelago,
who live in trees or caves,[2393] and apparently also the Andamanese
are in the habit of marrying without making any payment for the bride.
Among the Veddahs, according to M. Le Mesurier, no marriage presents
are given on either side,[2394] but Mr. Hartshorne states that “a
marriage is attended with no ceremony beyond the presentation of some
food to the parents of the bride.”[2395]
In Ponapé, says Dr. Finsch, marriage is not based on purchase;[2396]
but this is contrary to the general custom in the Carolines,[2397]
as also in the adjacent Pelew Islands,[2398] where women are bought
as wives by means of presents to the father. In the Kingsmill Group,
according to Wilkes, “a wife is never bought, but it is generally
supposed that each party will contribute something towards the
household stock.”[2399] With regard to the Hawaiians, Ellis remarks,
“We are not aware that the parents of the woman received anything from
the husband, or gave any dowry with the wife.”[2400] And Mr. Angas even
asserts that the practice of purchasing wives is not generally adopted
in Polynesia.[2401] But the statement is doubtful, as, at least in
Samoa,[2402] Tahiti,[2403] and Nukahiva,[2404] the bridegroom gains the
bride by presents to her father. And in Melanesia marriage by purchase
is certainly universal.[2405] Among the South Australian Kurnai,
according to Mr. Howitt, marriages were brought about “most frequently
by elopement, less frequently by capture, and least frequently by
exchange or by gift.”[2406]
Purchase of wives may, with even more reason than marriage by capture,
be said to form a general stage in the social history of man. Although
the two practices often occur simultaneously, the former has, as a
rule, succeeded the latter, as barter in general has followed upon
robbery. The more recent character of marriage by purchase appears
clearly from the fact that marriage by capture very frequently occurs
as a symbol where marriage by purchase occurs as a reality. Moreover,
there can be little doubt that barter and commerce are comparatively
late inventions of man.
Dr. Peschel, indeed, contends that barter existed in those ages in
which we find the earliest signs of our race. But we have no evidence
that it was in this way that the cave-dwellers of Périgord, of the
reindeer period, obtained the rock crystals, the Atlantic shells, and
the horns of the Polish Saiga antelope, which have been found in their
settlements; and we may not in any case, conclude that “commerce has
existed in all ages, and among all inhabitants of the world.”[2407]
There are even in modern times instances of savage peoples who seem to
have a very vague idea of barter, or perhaps none at all. Concerning
certain Solomon Islanders, Labillardière states, “We could not learn
whether these people are in the habit of making exchanges; but it is
very certain that it was impossible for us to obtain anything from
them in this way; ... yet they were very eager to receive everything
that we gave them.”[2408] For some time after Captain Weddell began
to associate with the Fuegians, they gave him any small article he
expressed a wish for, without asking any return; but afterwards they
“acquired an idea of barter.”[2409] Nor did the Australians whom Cook
saw, and the Patagonians visited by Captain Wallis in 1766, understand
traffic, though they now understand it.[2410] Again, with regard to the
Andamanese Mr. Man remarks, “They set no fixed value on their various
properties, and rarely make or procure anything with the express
object of disposing of it in barter. Apparently they prefer to regard
their transactions as presentations, for their mode of negotiating
is to _give_ such objects as are desired by another in the hope of
receiving in return something for which they have expressed a wish, it
being tacitly understood that unless otherwise mentioned beforehand,
no ‘present’ is to be accepted without an equivalent being rendered.
The natural consequence of this system is that most of the quarrels
which so frequently occur among them originate in failure on the part
of the recipient in making such a return as had been confidently
expected.”[2411] It must also be noted that those uncivilized peoples
among whom marriage by purchase does not occur are, for the most part,
exceedingly rude races.
As M. Koenigswarter[2412] and Mr. Spencer[2413] have suggested, the
transition from marriage by capture to marriage by purchase was
probably brought about in the following way: abduction, in spite
of parents, was the primary form; then there came the offering of
compensation to escape vengeance; and this grew eventually into the
making of presents beforehand. Thus, among the Ahts, according to Mr.
Sproat, when a man steals a wife, a purchase follows, “as the friends
of the woman must be pacified with presents.”[2414] In New Guinea[2415]
and Bali,[2416] as also among the Chukmas[2417] and Araucanians,[2418]
it often happens that the bridegroom carries off, or elopes with, his
bride, and afterwards pays a compensation-price to her parents. Among
the Bodo and Mech, who still preserve the form of forcible abduction in
their marriage ceremony, the successful lover, after having captured
the girl, gives a feast to the bride’s friends and with a present
conciliates the father, who is supposed to be incensed.[2419] The same
is reported of the Maoris,[2420] whilst among the Tangutans, according
to Prejevalsky, the ravisher who has stolen his neighbour’s wife pays
the husband a good sum as compensation, but keeps the wife.[2421]
It is a matter of no importance in this connection that among certain
peoples, the price of the bride is paid not to the father, but to
some other nearly related person, especially an uncle,[2422] or to
some other relatives as well as to the father.[2423] In any case
the price is to be regarded as a compensation for the loss sustained
in the giving up of the girl, and as a remuneration for the expenses
incurred in her maintenance till the time of her marriage.[2424]
Sometimes, as among several negro peoples, daughters are trained for
the purpose of being disposed of at a profit; but this is a modern
invention, irreconcilable with savage ideas. Thus, among the Kafirs,
the practice of making an express bargain about women hardly prevailed
in the first quarter of this century, and the verb applied to the act
of giving cattle for a girl, according to Mr. Shooter, involves not the
idea of an actual trade, but rather that of reward for her birth and
nurture.[2425]
To most savages there seems nothing objectionable in marriage by
purchase. On the contrary, Mr. Bancroft states that the Indians in
Columbia consider it in the highest degree disgraceful to the girl’s
family, if she is given away without a price;[2426] and, in certain
tribes of California, “the children of a woman for whom no money was
paid are accounted no better than bastards, and the whole family are
contemned.”[2427] It was left for a higher civilization to raise women
from this state of debasement. In the next chapter we shall consider
the process by which marriage ceased to be a purchase contract, and
woman an object of trade.