MARRIAGE RITES.
{334}
Marriage, or sexual union of a more or less permanent character,
from the intimate connection which it creates, has obvious analogies
to the admission of a new member into a clan. In early stages of
culture it was not, however, deemed to constitute admission into the
clan; and to the present day, in English law, husband and wife, though
united by the closest of all ties, are not reckoned among the next of
kin to one another. Still it inaugurates a new relationship, not only
as between the immediate parties, but also as between their respective
kindred. As doing so, it is an occasion on which the consent and
concurrence of the kindred are required, and it is appropriately
solemnised by rites bearing a close resemblance to the blood-covenant.
An examination of some of these rites will be useful in strengthening
our apprehension of the sacramental ideas of savages, and will help to
complete our view of the savage conception of life.
Among several of the aboriginal tribes of Bengal a curious ceremony is
practised. It is known as _sindúr_ (or _sindra_) _dán_, and consists
in the bridegroom’s marking his bride with red lead. This ceremony is
the essential part {335} of the entire performance, which renders the
union indissoluble, in the same way as the putting on of the ring in
the marriage service of this country. The _sindúr_, or red lead, is
generally smeared on the bride’s forehead and the parting of her hair,
but sometimes on her neck. It is usually done either with the little
finger or with a knife.[335.1] In either case this detail is
significant, because it points to the origin of the custom. There can
be no doubt that vermilion is a well-recognised symbol of blood. I
have already mentioned the primitive usage of daubing the stone which
was both god and altar with the blood of the sacrificed victim.
Everywhere in India the idol, whether a finished simulacrum or a rude
unchiselled stone, is dashed with vermilion. Sometimes the object of
worship is a tree; and its stem in the same way is streaked with red
lead. Sir William Hunter lays it down that the worship of the Great
Mountain, the national god of the Santals, “is essentially a worship
of blood.” Human sacrifices were common, until put down by the
British. At the present day, “if the sacrificer cannot afford an
animal, it is with a red flower or a red fruit that he approaches the
divinity.”[335.2] Nor is red as a symbol of blood confined to India.
We do not need to go further afield than the Roman Catholic Church, or
even certain sections of the English Church, to find red worn in
ecclesiastical ceremonies on the day of a martyr’s commemoration,
expressly as an allusion to the outpouring of that martyr’s blood. The
use of the colour in the wedding ceremony has reference also to blood.
{336} Among the Dom, the Muchi, the Sánkhári and other Bengali
tribes red is the bridal colour;[336.1] as it is likewise in China, at
least where the bride is a maiden.[336.2] In Ukrainia at a certain
stage of the proceedings a red flag is hoisted and red ribbons adorn
the dresses of the bride and other members of the party. The meaning
attached to them in this case does not admit of doubt;[336.3] and it
may be legitimately inferred in the others.
But the proof of the significance of the _sindra dán_ rests not on
the antecedent probability afforded by the use of red in rites of
worship and marriage. Among the Bírhors the wedding ceremony is very
simple. It consists entirely in drawing blood from the little fingers
of the bride and bridegroom, and smearing it on one another.[336.4]
The ritual, on the other hand, of the Káyasth, or writer caste of
Behar, is as complex as that of the Bírhors is simple; and it bears
at every stage the marks of antiquity. After the bridegroom arrives
with his procession at the bride’s house, but before he is allowed to
see her, her nails are solemnly cut. The opportunity is taken to draw
from her little finger a drop of blood, which is received upon a piece
of cotton soaked in red dye. Later on, after the bridegroom has
formally rubbed her forehead with the _sindúr_, his neck is touched
with this piece of cotton; and the bride’s neck is also touched with a
similar piece brought by the bridegroom, but not containing any of his
blood.[336.5] Here we seem to {337} have the ceremony in a double, if
not a triple form. The dye on the cotton would represent blood. Nor is
it unimportant that the bridegroom having previously plastered the
_sindúr_, which stands for his blood, on the bride, does not need to
bring his blood into contact with her. Among the Kewat, another caste
of Behar, the ceremony is also duplicated. After the _sindúr dán_ a
tiny scratch is made on the little finger of the bridegroom’s right
hand and of the bride’s left. Blood is drawn from each and mingled
with a dish of boiled rice and milk; and either party then eats the
food containing the other’s blood.[337.1] Similarly in the Rájput
ritual the family priest of the bride’s household fills the
bridegroom’s hand with _sindúr_ and marks the bride’s forehead with
it. This is done on the first day. The next morning they are brought
together, and each of them is made to chew betel with which a drop of
blood from the other’s little finger has been mixed. The bride is then
conducted to the bridegroom’s house, and the marriage is
consummated.[337.2] Among the Kharwár blood mixed with _sindúr_ is
exchanged, although what is now the final and binding act of smearing
the _sindúr_ is performed by the bridegroom alone.[337.3] The Kurmi
bridegroom also touches the bride between the breasts with a drop of
his own blood, drawn from his little finger and mixed with lac-dye,
prior to the performance of the _sindra dán_.[337.4] Among the
Rautiá, as among the Birhors, the _sindra dán_ is effected with one
another’s blood taken from the little fingers.[337.5]
The meaning of the ceremony therefore cannot be mistaken. It is
precisely parallel to the blood-covenant: it {338} constitutes a
permanent bodily union between the parties. Oriental scholars regard
it as in origin Dravidian. It is, however, now practised also by the
Aryan Hindus, and its survival among many aboriginal tribes in a
double form is ingeniously attributed by Mr. Risley to its readoption
by them from the Hindus in the later form of smearing with vermilion,
after the connection between the red lead and the blood had been lost
sight of.[338.1] It is certain that many customs have been taken in
recent times by the Dravidian populations from the Hindus; and the
theory of readoption is confirmed by the fact that the red lead is
usually smeared only by the bridegroom on the bride, as if it were an
act of ownership, whereas the blood-smearing is done by both parties.
Beyond the limits of Bengal, blood is not often a prominent feature in
marriage rites. Yet some significant instances may be cited. We cannot
reckon that of the ancient Aztecs among these. When, after the
marriage feast, the Aztec bridal pair retired to their chamber, it was
only to fast and pray during four days, and to draw blood from various
parts of their bodies. The object of this bleeding, however, is said
to have been the propitiation of their cruel gods. In fact, the idea
of propitiation seems to have entered into the rite, and to have
ousted what probably was the original intention--that, namely, of
sacramental communion with the divinities. Such communion with the
divinities may, of course, have been indirect communion with one
another; though there is not sufficient evidence to warrant our
asserting that this was meant, and still less that direct communion of
the same kind was effected. But we are not left without {339} examples
elsewhere. The ceremonies of the Wukas, a tribe inhabiting the
mountains of New Guinea, are exactly in point. Their weddings begin
with an elopement, followed by pursuit and capture of both fugitives.
The next step is to bargain for the price of the bride. When this is
settled the marriage is performed by mutual cuts made by husband and
wife in one another’s foreheads, so that the blood flows. The other
members of both families then do likewise--a proceeding, we are told,
“which binds together all the relations on both sides in the closest
fraternal alliance.”[339.1] The writer I am quoting does not, indeed,
mention any daubing or exchange of blood; but it is clear that this
must be understood. On the island of Banguey, off the northernmost
point of Borneo, is a tribe of Dusuns. Mr. Creagh, the governor of
British North Borneo, visiting them a year or two ago, found that
their marriage-rite consisted in transferring a drop of blood from a
small incision made with a wooden knife in the calf of the man’s leg
to a similar cut in the woman’s leg.[339.2] An Annamite story points
to a ceremony in which the blood was drunk. A husband and wife swore
that when one of them died the other would preserve the body until it
came to life again, and would not marry a second time. The wife died,
and the husband kept her corpse for seven months. At length the
village elders remonstrated, fearing that the dead woman would become
a demon and haunt {340} the village. Rather than bury his wife, the
husband arranged that they should help him to make a raft, and he
would put the body upon it and float with it whithersoever the winds
and the waves would take him. The raft was borne to the eastern
paradise; and there Buddha, touched by the man’s story, raised his
wife from the dead, and asked her if she loved her husband truly and
constantly. She vowed she did. Whereupon Buddha directed him to draw
a cupful of blood from his finger, and give it to her to drink: which
was done. It is sad to relate that after all this she proved
unfaithful, and, when she died, was changed by Buddha into a mosquito,
which is always sucking blood, but never can get enough to restore to
her husband, in accordance with Buddha’s command, the entire cupful of
blood she had taken from him.[340.1] A tale from Mota, one of the
Banks’ Islands, relates that certain women, who desire to become the
hero’s wives, make him give them some of his liver to eat.[340.2]
On these two stories it would be easy to lay a stress greater than
they will bear. But if they have any meaning it is in the direction we
are seeking. Coming to Europe, however, we find a tale where we are on
firmer ground. A Norwegian youth was curious to see if it were really
true that the Huldren, or wood-women (a kind of supernatural beings),
occupied the mountain-dwelling in the autumn, after it was deserted by
the family for the lowlands. The story runs that he crept under a
large upturned tub, and there waited until it began to grow dark. Then
he heard a noise of coming and going; and it was not long before the
house was filled with Huldre-folk. They immediately {341} smelt
Christian flesh, but could not find the lad, until at length a maiden
discovered him beneath the tub, and pointed at him with her finger. He
drew his knife and scratched her finger, so that the blood flowed.
Scarcely had he done it, when the whole party surrounded him; and the
girl’s mother, supported by the rest, demanded that he must now marry
her daughter, _because he had marked her with blood_. There were
several objections to marrying a Huldre-woman: among others, that she
had a tail. But there was nothing else for it; and happily, when she
had been instructed in the Word of God and baptized, she lost the
undesirable appendage, and made the youth a faithful and loving
spouse.[341.1] Now it may very well be that the reason for compelling
this marriage is incomprehensible to the modern teller of the story,
at least as a serious one. Yet the story can hardly have arisen and
been propagated, with the incident in question as its catastrophe,
unless a custom of marking with blood in connection with a wedding
ceremony had been known to the original tellers. The barbarous nature
of the custom is indicative of a much lower grade of civilisation than
the Norwegian people have now, and long since, attained. And its
ascription to the Huldre-folk suggests that it was practised by a
non-Aryan race rather than by the Norsemen. It was certainly practised
by the Finns; for a Finnish poem, entitled _The Sun’s Son_, describes
its hero’s wedding ceremony in the following terms:--The bride’s
father “leads and places them on the whale’s, the sea-king’s, hide. He
scratches them both on their little fingers, mixes the blood together,
lays hand in hand, unites breast to breast, knits the kisses together,
bans the knots that jealousy has conjured, {342} separates the hands,
and looses the knots of the espousal.”[342.1] The correspondence of
this rite with that of the aborigines of Bengal extends to the fingers
whence the blood is drawn; and it cannot be doubted that we have here
in full the ceremony referred to in the Norwegian tale. It will be
remembered that the Icelandic saga of the farmer who appropriated a
fairy cow stops short in its description of the act with the drawing
of blood. The story now before us has suffered a similar
curtailment.[342.2]
In other parts of the world we find red paint of some kind used
apparently as a substitute for blood. An Australian bridegroom in the
neighbourhood where Sydney now stands used to spit on his bride, and
then with his right thumb and forefinger he took red powder and
streaked her all over the face and body down to the navel.[342.3] The
Caribs are reported to have had no specific rites of marriage. But a
full-grown man would sometimes betroth himself to an unborn child,
conditionally on its proving a girl. When this was done the custom was
for him to mark the mother’s body with a {343} red cross.[343.1] This
is an act hardly susceptible of more than one interpretation. The red
mark over the mother’s womb was no doubt originally made with the
man’s blood, and, since the child itself could not be reached, was the
expedient for effecting the union between him and the unborn infant.
The blood of a fowl often takes the place of that of the parties, in
the East Indies. Among the aborigines of Southern India a fowl is
sacrificed at the threshold of the bride’s room, and the foreheads of
bride and bridegroom are marked with its blood; while among the
Káháyáns of Borneo a cock and a hen are slaughtered, their blood
received in a cup, and the happy pair are marked from head to foot
with it.[343.2]
Out of many other ceremonies expressive of union I select for
illustration that familiar to us in the Roman law under the name of
_Confarreatio_. This solemn form of marriage took its name from the
central rite, in which the man and woman seem to have eaten together
of the round sacrificial cake, called the _panis farreus_. At all
events, in the corresponding Greek ceremony they partook together of a
sesamum-cake. In one shape or other this rite is found in many lands,
perhaps over the greater portion of the globe. It has been too often
described to need an extended notice here; but a few of its various
forms may be mentioned, before we pass on to consider some of the
analogies between the effects of marriage and of the blood-covenant.
We may as well begin with the Santals, one of the tribes of Bengal of
which I have already spoken. Among them the {344} couple to be married
fast on the wedding-day until after the _sindra dán_, when they sit
down together and eat. Colonel Dalton, in describing the custom,
reminds us that it is the more remarkable because the Hindu husband
and wife never eat together, and tells us that this meal is the first
time the maiden is supposed to have sat with a man at his food, and
that it “is the most important part of the ceremony, as by the act the
girl ceases to belong to her father’s tribe, and becomes a member of
her husband’s family.”[344.1] Among the Santals, in fact, marriage is
admission into the kin. None but members of a kin have, we know,
commensal rights; and admission frequently takes the form of a
ceremonial common meal, which probably is a modification of the
blood-covenant. Among the Khyoungtha, one of the Chittagong
Hill-tribes, the bride and bridegroom are tied together with a
new-spun cotton thread, and the _poongyee_, or priest, muttering
prayers, takes a handful of cooked rice in each hand, and crossing and
re-crossing his arms he gives seven alternate mouthfuls to each. Then
he hooks the little finger of the bridegroom’s left hand into the
little finger of the bride’s right, and with some further mutterings
the ceremony is concluded. The Chukma, a neighbouring tribe, bind the
couple together with a muslin scarf; and in that position they have to
feed one another. Their hands are guided by the bridesmaid and best
man to one another’s mouths amid general hilarity.[344.2] Father
Bourien was present at several marriages of Mantras or wild tribes of
the Malay peninsula. According to his report, “a plate containing
small packages of rice wrapped up in banana-leaves having been
presented, the husband offered one to his future wife, who showed
herself eager to {345} accept it, and ate it; she then in her turn
gave some to her husband, and they afterwards both assisted in
distributing them to the other members of the assemblage.” In the
feast which followed the remaining ceremonies husband and wife ate
from one dish.[345.1] Eating from one dish, or one leaf--a more
archaic form of dish--is in fact the usual rite all over south-eastern
Asia and the East Indian islands; and although the Hindu husband and
wife now never eat together, the ancient ritual prescribed that they
should do so at the marriage ceremony.[345.2] Boiled rice appears to
have been the food, as it is in Dardistan at the present day, where a
dish of rice boiled in milk is brought in, and the boy and girl take a
spoonful each.[345.3] Married couples of Kafa, in the north-eastern
corner of Africa, are only allowed to eat out of the same dish and
drink out of the same horn or glass. And the etiquette is more
rigorous than that of Sairey Gamp and Betsy Prig; for they are
expected to eat as well as to “drink fair.”[345.4] The custom of
eating together as a marriage rite is recorded as in use by the
aborigines of the greater part of America. The simple ceremony is thus
related in a Pawnee legend: “He entered his tent. She made a very good
bed for him. She was sitting with him. She married him. She had food
with him. And the young men said as follows: ‘Why friends, the chief’s
daughter has married the Orphan.’”[345.5] It is the same among the
Polynesians. On the island of Mangaia, in the Hervey Group, the pair
sit to eat together in the presence of their friends on a single piece
of the finest native cloth, just as in the {346} Finnish lay they sat
on the whale’s hide, and at Rome they sat, during one portion of the
proceedings, on the fell of a sheep which had been slain in
sacrifice.[346.1] Among the tribes of New Guinea, when the bride is
brought to her husband’s dwelling a dish of food is presented to them,
out of which they both eat. In some cases a roasted banana is eaten
half by the bride, the other half by the bridegroom.[346.2] So, after
getting into bed the South Slavonic bride from her bosom takes an
apple which has been given to her by the bridegroom in the course of
the day, eats one half of it and hands the other to him.[346.3] One of
the Epirote ceremonies is the eating of a cake made of flour, butter
and cheese. It is cut into slices; and the husband taking one dips it
in honey and eats, afterwards giving to his wife. This is repeated
thrice. Then, after eating some fruit, a round loaf with a hole in the
middle is brought to them. Putting their fingers into the hole, they
pull against one another until the loaf is torn in two; after which
they and their nearest relatives eat it.[346.4] Bread and honey are
eaten together in alternate bites by a Greek, or an Albanian,
pair.[346.5] In the Obererzgebirge before setting out for church the
bride and bridegroom eat from the same dish; and in some districts of
Thuringia they partake of soup from one plate.[346.6] In Provence, as
also in Esthonia, this is done after the return; and in Esthonia a
piece of bread and butter, or a little bread with salt, is also
eaten.[346.7] At the same point {347} in the province of Berry,
France, and in the Jura, a piece of bread and wine are offered to the
young couple. The husband takes the first bite out of the bread; and
his example is followed by his wife.[347.1] The Wallon practice is for
the bride to eat half a tart and give her husband the rest: this
ensures his affection.[347.2] In the old Parisian marriage rite the
betrothal took place at the church-door. The priest then led the newly
wedded into the church, and said mass. After mass he blessed a loaf
and wine. The loaf was bitten and a little of the wine drunk by each
of the spouses, one after the other; and the officiating priest then
taking them by the hands led them home.[347.3] In the celebration of a
Yezidi wedding a loaf of consecrated bread is handed to the husband;
and he and his wife eat it between them. The Nestorians, their near
neighbours, require the pair to take the communion.[347.4] Nor is this
requirement by any means confined to the Nestorians among Christian
sects; and even until the last revision of the Book of Common Prayer
the Church of England herself commanded, in the final rubric of the
solemnisation of matrimony, that “the new married persons _the same
day of their marriage_ must receive the holy communion”:--a practice
which continues to be recommended and is occasionally followed.
Many of the foregoing ceremonies include a drink out of the same
vessel. Either alone or accompanied by eating, it is usual from Italy
to Norway, from Brittany to {348} Russia; and traces of it have been
found even in Scotland.[348.1] According to the old Lombardic laws no
further ceremony was necessary to constitute a valid marriage than a
kiss and a drink together. The Church long struggled against this
rule, but was in the end obliged to sanction it, subject to the
condition that a priest should be present to impart the benediction
and a “spousal sermon.” It has been adopted into the rites of the
Greek Church in Russia, where the priest in the course of the ceremony
solemnly blesses a small silver ladle, called the Common Cup, filled
with wine and water, and holds it to the lips of the pair, who sip it
alternately each three times. In the West of England there is evidence
which a careful examination of ecclesiastical records would probably
extend to other parts of the country that at the time of the
Reformation formal betrothals were usually performed by any
respectable friend of both parties. He joined their hands; they gave
their faith and troth in his presence; and after the betrothal gift,
or token, had been handed over, or else promised, or acknowledged as
already received, they kissed and drank together. This seems to have
been considered as a binding union, though the banns and religious
ceremony generally followed shortly after. To this day in Hesse the
custom is preserved in the _Weinkauf_ (literally, wine-purchase), or
assembly of relatives on both sides. At this assembly the conditions
are fixed on which the bride is to be discharged from her native kin
to enter the kindred and protection of the bridegroom. When these are
arranged {349} she drinks to her bridegroom in token of her consent,
and both then drink out of the same glass. From that moment they are
regarded as practically husband and wife; and it only remains to
obtain ecclesiastical sanction for the union. This usually follows
shortly after; and between the _Weinkauf_ and the wedding it was
formerly not thought proper for a virtuous maiden to go out of
doors.[349.1]
Going eastward we may note a few out of many other instances. The
loving cup is part of the Jewish and Armenian ceremonies.[349.2] Among
the Mohammedan Yusufzais of Afghanistan it is the bride’s father and
the bridegroom that drink out of the same vessel;[349.3] obviously a
change of the earlier practice to suit the faith of Islam. In
Singbhúm, among the Hos and other tribes, the young couple are given
beer, which they proceed to mix, the bridegroom pouring some of his
into the bride’s cup, and she in turn pouring from her cup into his.
They then drink, “and thus become of the same _kili_, or clan.”[349.4]
Rice is sprinkled over the heads of a Lepcha pair; they eat {350}
together and drink _maruá_ beer out of the same cup.[350.1] Among the
Tipperahs of the Chittagong Hill districts, “the girl’s mother pours
out a glass of liquor and gives it to her daughter, who goes and sits
on her lover’s knee, drinks half and gives him the other half; they
afterwards crook together their little fingers.”[350.2] The Annamite
youth and maiden being placed on either side of the ancestors’ altar,
they help one another to drink, exchanging cups and then putting them
back one on the other. This is said to be the relic of a very ancient
rite which consisted in fitting together the two halves of a calabash,
used no doubt for the drink.[350.3] It was the ancient custom in China
for bride and bridegroom to eat together of the same sacrificed
animal, and to drink out of cups made of the two halves of the same
melon, the bride drinking from the bridegroom’s half and he from hers:
thus showing, as we are expressly told in the _Lî_ K_î_, “that they
now formed one body, were of equal rank and pledged to mutual
affection.”[350.4] At present, about Foochow, and possibly in other
parts of the empire, the ceremonial drink is sometimes taken by bride
and bridegroom out of the same goblet; where two are used they are
often tied together with red cord.[350.5] In Korea the lady hands a
gourd-bottle of rice-wine, adorned with red and blue thread to her
spouse, and they drink together out of one little cup several times
filled by the bridesmaids who stand beside them.[350.6] And in general
we {351} may say that, as the eating from one vessel, so the drinking
together, is found all over the East Indies, on the islands as well as
on the continent, and as far to the south as Fiji, save where in the
East Indian islands it is replaced by the parallel custom of chewing a
quid of betel together.[351.1] Whatever shapes the practice takes,
they all resolve themselves into the thought presented on another side
to us by the tale, said to be of Oriental origin, that on the first
day Allah took an apple and cut it in two, giving one half to Adam and
the other to Eve, and directing each at the same time to seek for the
missing half. That is why one half of humanity has ever since been
seeking its corresponding half.[351.2]
But here we must go a step further. The remains of the cake, which, in
the Roman ceremony of _Confarreatio_, seems to have been broken and
eaten by the bride and bridegroom, were distributed among the guests;
just as our own bride-cake, after being cut by the bride and
bridegroom, is shared with the entire wedding party. The ritual
distribution of cakes or drink is common in Europe from one end to the
other. The Esthonian bride gives to each guest of the bread and salt
whereof she and her husband have just partaken.[351.3] At a marriage
in the Ukrainian provinces a cake called the _korovaï_ is made with
a number of formalities. Immediately before the bride is conducted to
her husband’s house this cake is solemnly cut. The moon which crowns
it is divided between the happy pair; and the rest is distributed
among the relatives in order of age, great care being manifested that
every one {352} shall have his due portion. The cutting and
distribution are performed with ceremonies showing the importance
attached to the act; and we learn from an ancient song that it was
formerly the custom to light a candle and search diligently every
corner to make sure that no one had been overlooked.[352.1] A bridal
pair of La Creuse, in the south of France, on arriving at their home
from the church, find at the door a soup-tureen filled with a certain
broth or porridge, of which they are required to taste with the same
spoon. The soup-tureen is then passed round to all the guests; after
which a glass of wine is taken in the same manner, and the soup-tureen
and wine-glass are broken to ward off witchcraft.[352.2] In
Caltanisetta, Italy, the ritual food consists of toasted almonds and
honey. An eye-witness at a wedding some five-and-thirty years ago
describes a boy, with a towel hung round his neck like a sacerdotal
stole, who mounted the table, took a silver spoon, and after blessing
the basin in dumb show, tasted the sweet compound within it. The table
was then removed; and the boy carried round the basin, while the
bride’s mother put a spoonful of the almonds and honey in the mouth of
every one present, beginning with the happy couple, and wiped their
lips with the towel.[352.3] As with other rites already referred to,
this is one regarded not only among comparatively civilised peoples.
Backward races, as convivial in their instincts as the most
enlightened, join indeed in feasting on these occasions; but they also
join in ceremonially partaking with the newly-made spouses of a
special article of food or drink. Such is the Mantra rite already
mentioned; {353} such also is the striking ceremony of the Saráogi
Baniyás, referred to in a previous chapter, at which a Brahman is
slain in effigy and the contents of the figure shared among the
kinsmen present. It will be enough to recall two others. Among the
Garos of North-eastern India the married couple complete their wedding
festivities by each drinking a bowl of rice-beer and presenting a cup
to every guest.[353.1] On the Kingsmill Islands bride and bridegroom
are led to their hut by an old woman who spreads for them a new mat of
cocoa-palm leaves, and makes around them a circle of cooked
pandanus-fruits. Of these she takes two and hands them to the pair,
having first called on the goddess Eibong to take them under her
protection, and bless their union richly with children. When these two
fruits have been eaten the others are divided among the relatives and
friends, who are waiting outside to receive them.[353.2]
The meaning of this extension of the rite must be interpreted by its
meaning when limited to husband and wife, and both by reference to the
rites of kinship. It is not merely assent to the marriage on the part
of the guests. It is indeed that; but assent, though, as we shall see,
very necessary, may be obtained and given in other ways. To understand
its full force we must turn back to some of the examples I have cited.
By sitting and eating with her husband, the Santal maiden “ceases to
belong to her father’s tribe, and becomes a member of her husband’s
family.” The Ho and the Múnda bride and bridegroom, drinking the
blended liquor from their two cups, become of one _kili_. But the
woman who enters her husband’s _kili_, or clan, {354} becomes related
to all its members. Becoming of one flesh with him, she becomes of one
flesh with all of his kindred. This is implicitly recognised among the
Amils of Sindh, where the bridegroom and all his female friends are
marked with vermilion by the officiating Brahman.[354.1] Among the
Bodos and the Kochh of Bengal it would seem to be the rule for two
women to accompany the bridegroom and his friends in their procession
to the bride’s house. These women it is who, penetrating to her
apartment, anoint her head with oil mixed with red lead, prior to her
being presented to her husband.[354.2] Conversely, the Santal
bridegroom in some districts, after reaching the bride’s village, is
stripped by her clanswomen, and by them bathed and dressed in new
garments properly stained with vermilion.[354.3] When, among the Mál
Paháriás, the bridegroom has daubed the bride with _sindur_, the
compliment is returned not by her but by her maidens, who adorn his
forehead with seven red spots.[354.4] The analogy to the
blood-covenant is in these cases carried to the point of identity. The
same may be conjectured with some probability to be the effect of
marriage on the island of Bonabe in Micronesia, where the wife is
tattooed with the marks representing her husband’s ancestors.[354.5]
Ellis describes the female relatives of a bride and bridegroom in the
Society Islands as cutting their faces, receiving the flowing blood on
a piece of native cloth, {355} and depositing the cloth, “sprinkled
with the mingled blood of the mothers of the married pair, at the feet
of the bride.” And he tells us in so many words that the rite removed
any inequality of rank that might have existed between them, and that
“the two families to which they respectively belonged were ever
afterwards regarded as one.”[355.1]
But even when marriage does not amount to reception into the kin, it
constitutes a quasi-relationship with the entire kindred; and the
ceremony initiates, or at least expresses, this. A crude instance is
afforded by the Wukas of New Guinea, already cited. A hideous rite
susceptible of no other interpretation is performed by the Kingsmill
Islanders immediately upon the consummation of a marriage; and a
similar one is mentioned by a Chinese traveller at the end of the
thirteenth century as taking place in Cambodia.[355.2] On Teressa, one
of the Nicobar Islands, a pig is killed and the faces of the guests
are smeared with its blood.[355.3] Here the pig’s blood is doubtless a
substitute for that of the bridal pair. In the south of India the
Wadders use for the wedding feast the rice which has been poured over
the new husband and wife: a practice to which a similar intention must
probably be ascribed.[355.4]
For the effect of marriage is to give the kindred of the husband or
the wife new rights over the person of the spouse. There are in Europe
some very general usages pointing to the rights which must once have
been exercised by the husband’s kin over the wife. Among the
Esthonians, {356} when the bride has at length been brought into the
bridegroom’s house a repast is served, and the day is concluded with a
dance, wherein all the guests in turn dance with her, for which she is
entitled to a piece of money from each of them.[356.1] The custom of
the Polish inhabitants of the Prussian province of Posen is the
same.[356.2] Du Chaillu witnessed a similar wedding dance in
Dalecarlia, Sweden. It appears to have taken place in the bridegroom’s
father’s house.[356.3] In the Tirol, and among the Masurs, the bride
has to dance the Bride-dance with every one of the guests. In
Transylvania she begins with the _beistand_, or best man; and after
every dance she must drink a glass of wine with her partner, who
throws a piece of money into a plate ready for the purpose.[356.4]
Among the Wends, every male guest is expected to dance with the bride,
formal permission being first obtained from the _brautführer_. The
bridegroom, and this is an important point, is sent away the while;
and the dances are continued until midnight, when he is brought back.
They take place, unlike the Dalecarlian ceremony, in the bride’s
house.[356.5] In the Lowlands of Scotland, after the wedding ceremony,
which was usually performed at the bride’s residence, she was expected
to go round the room with her bridesmaids and kiss every male in the
company. “A dish was then handed round, in which every one placed a
sum of money, to help the young couple to commence
housekeeping.”[356.6] Dr. Gregor describes a similar dance as {357}
performed in the north-east of Scotland. It was opened by the bride
and her best maid dancing with the two _sens_, officials sent by the
bridegroom on the wedding morning formally to demand the bride. The
dance began and ended with a kiss, and when it was over the bride
fixed a favour on her partner’s right arm, and the bridesmaid one on
her partner’s left arm. “The two _sens_ then paid the fiddler.
Frequently the bride and her maid asked if there were other young men
who wished to win favours. Two jumped to the floor, danced with the
bride and her maid, and earned the honour on the left arm. Dancing was
carried on far into the morning with the utmost vigour, each dance
being begun and ended by the partners saluting each other.”[357.1] At
Bourges it was the custom for brides on coming out of church to
embrace indifferently all whom they met in the street; and still in
country places of the province of the Marche the practice is said to
be followed, with the variation that it is done before the marriage
service. Generally in the province of Berri the guests after the feast
approach in turn and deposit an offering (formerly gifts in kind
proper for setting up housekeeping), receiving in return a kiss from
the bride.[357.2] In the valley of Pragelato, near Pinerolo, the
festivities are held in a large outhouse, the rooms in the house being
usually too small. The bride is the first to enter. She stands on the
threshold, holding a platter covered with a small cloth. Every one
entering, without distinction of age, embraces {358} and kisses her,
and drops a piece of money clinking under the cloth.[358.1] Similar
customs obtain in other parts of Italy, sometimes repeated more than
once during the festivities.[358.2] The bride-dance is also practised
in Provence. And at the village of Fours, near Barcelonnette, on
leaving the church the bride is conducted to a rock (possibly, an
erratic boulder) called the Bride-stone, whereon she is made to sit
with one foot in a certain hollow of the rock. While in this position
each of the relatives and guests comes in turn, kisses her and gives
her a ring.[358.3]
We must look back to savage customs to discover the origin and meaning
of the European rites I have here set forth; and I think we must
connect them with those of the Nasamonians mentioned by Herodotus, the
Auziles, an Ethiopian tribe mentioned by Pomponius Mela, and the
Balearic Islanders, among all of whom in ancient times the bride was,
on the wedding-night, considered as common property.[358.4] The
information we have about these peoples is meagre and fragmentary.
About the Kurnai of Australia, however, we have full and precise
statements, extending, far beyond the act of marriage, to all their
connubial relations. Their only recognised form of marriage was by a
species of elopement or capture, performed with the aid of the other
unmarried youths of the tribe. With all these youths the unfortunate
bride had to observe the Nasamonian rite. She then went off with her
new husband. This process {359} had to be repeated once, if not twice
again, before her relatives could be got to sanction the match; and
meantime both bride and bridegroom incurred their wrath, which was
much more than a mere form. But when once the elopement had been
condoned, if the bride had an unmarried sister, it is said that she
also would be handed over to the husband; and in any case on his
wife’s death he had a right to her. Moreover, on his death, his widow,
if he left but one, went by right to his brother; if more than one,
they went to his brothers in order of seniority. If the wife ran away
from her husband with another man, “all the neighbouring men might
turn out and seek for her, and in the event of her being discovered,
she became common property to them until released by her husband or
her male relatives.” Further, the husband was obliged to supply his
wife’s parents with the best of the food he killed; but on the other
hand he was free to hunt over their country as well as the country of
his own ancestors.[359.1]
In considering these particulars we must remember that the
constitution of society among the Australian aborigines is in process
of transformation. They had a system of group-marriage, whereby every
tribe consisted of certain classes, all exogamous. Their table of
prohibited affinities is highly complex, and need not be here
discussed. It is enough to say that the members of each class were
looked upon among themselves as brothers and sisters; but {360}
towards the class into which they could marry they were husbands and
wives; and they were entitled to act accordingly whenever they met any
members of the latter class. No sexual relations were permitted with
any other class. The system has been in a state of decadence--greater
in some tribes, like the Kurnai, less in others--from a time probably
anterior to the English settlement. A custom had arisen, it matters
not from what causes, of appropriating one woman, or more, to one man.
This custom, if not interfered with, would have issued in the
evolution of a different idea of kinship, and ultimately of the true
family. In group-marriage the wives were not regarded as akin to the
husbands. Marriage was the status into which husbands and wives alike
were born. The union required no ceremonies to its consummation,
because no relationships were changed by it. But with the rise of
monopoly by individuals of one another, the unappropriated women would
be kept at a greater distance from the men, and the act of
appropriation would gradually assume a ceremonial form. The kindred
would be called upon to take part in it, both as assistants and as
witnesses. From Mr. Howitt’s account it seems likely that the
evolution would be in the direction of patriarchal clans. If so, the
woman would be introduced by marriage into a special relation with her
husband’s kin. The exogamous classes would ultimately be effaced; a
new idea of the clan would supersede them; and the act of marriage
would at length operate as admission into the clan.
Now it is clear from Mr. Howitt’s statement that, by the marriage,
rights were acquired on the part of the husband’s kin in the wife and
on the part of the wife’s kin in the husband. The decaying system
would doubtless at that {361} stage operate to permit only members of
the husband’s class to take part in the capture of a bride, or of a
runaway wife; and they would as yet be all reckoned of his kin. The
rights they then exercised would afterwards be held in abeyance; but,
subject to the husband’s monopoly, those rights would survive, to
reappear upon his death, if not upon any other occasion in his
lifetime. The gradual circumscription of the kindred, by the
recognition of closer ties than those of the exogamous class, is
indicated by the duty laid upon the husband to supply his wife’s
parents with food, as well as by the limitation to his brothers of the
right to his widows. The peoples referred to by the classical writers
I have cited were probably in the stage in which group-marriage had
died, or was dying, out in favour of individual unions. The bride was
hardly yet conceived of as taken into the kindred. The Nasamonian
habits in particular, as recorded by Herodotus, appear little, if at
all, advanced beyond those of the Kurnai. Both among the Nasamonians,
however, and the Auziles it was the practice for each of the guests
who had taken part in the rite to reward the bride with a gift, just
as among European peoples the bride is rewarded for her dance or her
kiss: an indication that her compliance was becoming something more
than the guests could demand,--something they had, therefore, to
purchase. This does not appear to have been the case with the Balearic
Islanders: at least Diodorus Siculus, who mentions the custom, says
nothing about any gift. A similar usage is reported by Garcilasso of
some of the aborigines of Peru at the time of the Spanish conquest.
Here we are expressly told what we may probably assume to have been
the case among the Nasamonians, namely, that it was only the relatives
and friends of the bridegroom {362} who shared in the rite; and from
the historian’s expressions we may infer that no payment was
made.[362.1] Nor is it found in an account of the marriages of the
Wa-taveta given by a lady who has recently travelled in Eastern
Africa. In other respects the Wa-taveta would appear to be somewhat
higher in the scale of civilisation than the Kurnai or the Baleares.
The bridegroom’s friends are limited to four in number. The capture of
the bride, in which they aid him, is a mere ceremony followed by a
five days’ feast, during which they participate in the Nasamonian
rite.[362.2] More remarkable than any of these, however, as attesting
the rights of the bridegroom’s kindred, is a custom of the Eesa and
Gadabursi, two of the western Somali tribes. When the bride enters the
hut which is to be her new home, she is followed by the bridegroom and
some of his nearest male relatives. He takes a leathern horsewhip and
with it inflicts three severe blows upon his wife; and his example is
followed by his {363} companions, “who by this act obtain ever
afterwards peculiar rights and power over the bride, which her husband
dare not dispute.”[363.1]
I might rest on these examples the case for the real meaning of the
bride-dance and the kiss which the European bride bestows upon the
guests (or rather, of course, on the masculine guests) at the wedding.
But it is not necessary to do so; for we find even in Europe a
practice of which the significance is unmistakable. The most important
official at a marriage among the Southern Slavs is the _djever_ (in
German, _brautführer_) bride-leader, or bride-carrier. One only
appears to be necessary, but commonly the bridegroom appoints two.
They are chosen from his own brothers, or adoptive brothers, or his
most intimate and trusty friends; or the chief _brautführer_ may be
his godfather. Adoptive brotherhood and godfatherhood are very sacred
ties, at least as close as natural relationships; and the duties they
impose are rarely violated. It is for this reason that such persons
are selected for the office of _djever_. For the _djever_ is allowed
to relieve the tedious festivities of the wedding (and Slav weddings
are tedious indeed) as often as he likes by kissing the bride and
taking other liberties with her. And in the Bocca and Herzegovina,
when the night at length arrives, he sleeps beside her “as a brother
with a sister”; or if there be two, they both occupy the room with
her. The latter custom is now falling into disuse; and the _djever’s_
place is taken by the bridegroom’s mother and sister, the happy man
himself not being permitted to obtain possession of his bride for two,
or sometimes three, nights.[363.2] It needs {364} no words of mine to
drive home the conclusion that here we have a survival of a rite
identical with that of the Kurnai. The _djeveri_ are the
representatives of the entire band of the bridegroom’s brethren and
assistants, whose rights are concentrated in their hands. The
connection between this usage and those in other parts of Europe comes
to the surface in the Wendish requirement that permission for the
bride-dance be obtained from the _brautführer_.
If this conclusion be correct, the ancestors of the European nations
must have passed through a stage of society wherein group-marriage was
the rule, the groups on either side probably consisting of husbands
reckoned, according to the standard of savage kinship, as brothers,
and wives reckoned as sisters, among themselves. The limited
promiscuity thus established would be entirely in harmony with--nay,
it would be a consequence of--the conception of gentile solidarity
which I have endeavoured to summarise in a previous chapter. This is
what the late Mr. Lewis Morgan called the Punaluan Family. Starting
from the kindred-names and customs of Hawaii, he traced it over a
large part of the Old and New Worlds, and successfully vindicated its
existence against the criticisms of Mr. MacLennan. The most striking
piece of evidence in favour of Mr. Morgan’s theory that has come to
light since he wrote is perhaps to be found among the inhabitants of
the island of Tanna in the New Hebrides. Their rules of marriage and
terms of relationship may be studied in detail in a paper by the Rev.
William Gray, read at a meeting of the Australasian Association, held
at Hobart in January 1892, and published in the report of the meeting.
It will suffice here to say that in the laws and language of the {365}
Tannese no distinctions are drawn between a wife and a wife’s sister,
between a husband and a husband’s brother; all a man’s brother’s
children are his own; all his wife’s children and his wife’s sisters’
children are alike his; the relation of uncle or aunt and nephew or
niece does not exist, for the person whom we should call uncle or aunt
is recognised by a Tannese as his father or mother, or else the term
is indistinguishable from those for wife’s or husband’s father or
mother; in like manner the terms for nephew and niece are the same as
those for son-in-law and daughter-in-law; and the children of a man’s
father’s brothers, or of his mother’s sisters, are regarded as his
brothers and sisters equally with the children of his own
parents.[365.1] For such a condition of society any explanation is
impossible, unless it be that an entire band of brethren is--or was
down to a recent period, yesterday if not to-day--actually or
potentially married to an entire band of sisters. The Punaluan Family
is thus Australian group-marriage surviving into a somewhat higher
stage of culture, but surviving, of course, in a more restricted form.
The sense of solidarity has become stronger, but more circumscribed.
When in the progress of culture group-marriage began to give way to
individual appropriation, and inroads were made upon the totemistic
clan, the clan-brethren would not immediately cease to be specially
interested in the marriage of one of their number. Their rights would
not be extinguished all at once; they would only become dormant. They
might never be exercised during the continuance of the marriage.
Probably they never would be, at all events without the individual
husband’s assent. {366} But, whether exercised or not, there the
rights would be, ready to arise upon a favourable opportunity. Rights
thus in abeyance would be likely to be exercised at the entrance upon
marriage, prior to the husband’s sole ownership, if the assistance of
the clan-brethren were required to obtain the bride. They might be
exercised also during the marriage, if the wife ran away and the
clan-brethren helped to recover her. The opportunity for asserting the
rights would come with the call for assistance.
In the most archaic period, such as may be represented for us by the
Kurnai, the assistance would take the form of physical force. But
after a while purchase began to supersede violence as the method of
bride-winning, and capture dwindled to a form. The help of the
clansmen would be equally required in purchase as in capture. I select
a few examples from different parts of the world. Among the
Nestorians, relatives and friends are called on to contribute to the
dowry and wedding-dress given by the bridegroom to the bride, and the
presents he has to make to her parents, as well as the expenses of the
feast.[366.1] The tribes of the Caucasus are divided into exogamous
clans; and when a member of a clan marries, all the brethren
contribute to the ransom paid for the bride. Every member of a Kurdish
commune pays a share of the purchase-money. A similar collection is
made among the comrades of the Lithuanian bridegroom. In Ukrainia,
before the bridegroom and his suite set out for the bride’s dwelling,
each of the suite is called upon by the best man to make a
contribution towards the sum which is afterwards paid to the brothers
of the bride.[366.2] Among the Khonds of Orissa a {367} large price in
cattle and money is paid for a wife; and this is chiefly subscribed,
as among others of the aboriginal tribes, by the bridegroom’s “near
relatives and his branch of the tribe.”[367.1] The inhabitants of
Sumatra buy their wives; but the debt is often allowed to remain for
many years undischarged. “Sometimes it remains unadjusted,” says
Marsden, “to the second and third generation, and it is not uncommon
to see a man suing for the _jujur_ (or price) of the sister of his
grandfather.” And he adds that “in Passummah, if the race of a man is
extinct, the _dusun_ or village to which the family belonged must make
it good to the creditor.”[367.2] This implies that the _dusun_ was
originally collectively liable for the payment. The Melanesian custom
seems to be for the youth’s kindred and friends to contribute to the
sum he is called on to pay.[367.3] Among the Basutos a marriage is an
affair of much concern to the relatives of the young people on both
sides. The bridegroom’s relatives furnish the cattle he gives for her,
and go in a body to make the bargain and present the beasts.[367.4] On
the western continent the Araucanian aspirant for matrimony takes
counsel with his friends and relatives, who inform him what
contributions they are prepared to make towards the amount of the
purchase-money. Among the Peguenches the relatives negotiate the
marriage and collect the articles of value to be paid for the
damsel.[367.5] In Guatemala the price was furnished by the
bridegroom’s clansmen.[367.6] In what is now Los Angeles County,
California, {368} the male relatives “proceeded in a body to the
girl’s dwelling, and distributed small sums in shell-money among her
female kinsfolk, who were collected there for the occasion,” and who
afterwards returned the visit and gave baskets of meal to the
bridegroom’s kindred.[368.1]
From these examples, and many more might be cited, it is obvious that
the purchase was made by the clan, just as the capture was probably
made by the clan. And we might well expect to find that the clan, and
not merely the individual, acquired by the act rights over the bride,
such as would be expressed in the rude Nasamonian custom, and in the
Bride-dance and other survivals of modern Europe. I have only space
for a few examples indicating community of wives or of husbands. But
the subject has been so exhaustively treated by anthropologists of
distinction that little more than a passing notice is needful. An
observation or two must, however, be made first of all, in reference
alike to the examples that follow, and to those I have cited in
previous pages. When we read, whether in classical writers or in the
works of modern travellers, of community of women, we must always
beware of giving the words the meaning of absolute promiscuity. Very
strong evidence, and not merely that of writers imperfectly acquainted
with the language and customs of a savage people, is called for to
establish absolute promiscuity. But limited promiscuity among the
members of a clan is a different matter. As a savage practice it is
beyond doubt; and I have already pointed out that it owes its origin
to the solidarity of the kindred in the lower culture. We must fully
grasp the meaning of this solidarity if we would avoid the twofold
chance of error in descriptions of savage life {369} and the
inferences to be drawn from them. The chance of error too, it may be
parenthetically observed, is not confined to marriage ceremonies, nor
to the abiding customs of the conjugal relation; but we must guard
against it on many other occasions, as for instance those described in
the last chapter. Travellers having but a superficial knowledge of the
peoples they describe--especially in the days before savage kinship
had become the subject of scientific investigation--are not careful to
define, because they do not understand, the relationship of members of
a tribe to one another. Their vague expressions “relatives” and
“friends” are therefore subject to interpretation by what has been
ascertained of clan-organisation, if we would avoid one source of
error. But there is a further consideration which ought not to be
overlooked. The clan system has rarely been found complete and
unimpaired. The evolution of civilisation is always modifying it,
sometimes in one direction, sometimes in another. Consequently
ceremonies limited in theory to the clan-brethren display a constant
tendency on the one side to limitation to the smaller circle of the
family, as the family is evolved from the clan; and on the other side
to extension among the intimate friends and relatives of the person
chiefly concerned, as blood-relationship begins to be recognised
outside the clan, and as the ties of friendship are knit between man
and man regardless of kinship. Herein lies our other difficulty. The
criticism that the privileges we are discussing are not recorded as
belonging to the members of one group only, though it applies with
greater force to the instances mentioned by classical writers, who
understood the gentile system, than to modern writers who do not
understand it, is by no means enough to dispose of the evidence where
{370} such record is wanting. Unfortunately we cannot cross-examine
the writers. We can, however, and we must, read their accounts by the
light of more accurate investigations. We shall then be inclined to
admit that most of the cases alleged are not referable to phallic
worship, nor to an outbreak of indiscriminate licence occurring in the
midst of long-established monogamy, to which they are sometimes
ascribed.[370.1]
Turning now to the privileges themselves, it must be remembered that
we have not to deal with cases in which polyandry is still open and
avowed, but to customs which indicate its former existence.
Group-marriage, like that of the Australians, the more limited
polyandry of the Tibetan peoples, and the ruder polyandry like that of
the Nairs, whether it be the remains of a more savage and unorganised
society before the rise of the clan, or a sporadic degradation of
clan-marriage, may be studied in the writings of MacLennan, Morgan,
and Robertson Smith. Group-marriage and Tibetan polyandry, indeed, we
must assume as the precursors of the state of barbarous culture where
the marriage is primarily between individuals, but in which the kin
still have certain rights over the spouse. And in dealing with the
rights of the husband’s kin we are not required to take into account
whether his marriage be polygynous or no.
Bearing these things in mind then, let us consider a few examples.
Among the Santals, it is said, “a man’s younger brother may share his
wife with impunity; only they must {371} not go about it very
openly.”[371.1] In dealing with women taken in adultery the main point
considered by the Dhobás of Orissa is whether the paramour be a
member of the caste.[371.2] For, while a slight penance is deemed
sufficient penalty for such a lapse of virtue, and the husband by no
means invariably insists on divorce, the offence committed with an
outsider is incapable of atonement, and the offending woman is turned
out of the caste. Here, although the limits of the _gotra_ are not
coextensive with those of the more venial sin, it is to be observed
that the Dhobás all claim descent from a common ancestor, and they
eat and drink together indiscriminately. It is not considered any
offence among the Bhuiyars of South Mirzapur for a married woman to
grant her favours to her husband’s brothers. More distant relatives
must give a tribal feast; or, if the kindred be very remote, the
paramour must repay to the husband the cost of her marriage.[371.3]
Similarly, in Southern India a Cunian woman who has been guilty of an
intrigue with a lover of her own tribe is not disgraced thereby; and
if her husband desire to get rid of her she will have no difficulty in
finding another.[371.4] Among the Thlinkits of North America a wife
has the privilege of selecting as her lover a brother or near kinsman
of her husband; and such a man is required to contribute towards her
maintenance. On the other hand, a seducer who is no relation may be
slain by the outraged husband, or compelled {372} to submit to a heavy
fine.[372.1] The right loosely described by Herodotus as exercised by
the Massagetai over other men’s wives must probably be understood as
limited to kinsmen.[372.2] In the island of Timor a brother made by
the blood-covenant coming to the house of one of the brothers of the
same covenant or clan “is in every respect regarded as free and as
much at home as its owner. Nothing is withheld from him”: not even the
wife. “And a child born of such a union would be regarded by the
husband as _his_.” For, as Dr. Trumbull appositely comments, “are
not--as they reason--these brother-friends of one blood--of one and
the same life?”[372.3]
The common meal, as we have seen, implies brotherhood. The rites of
hospitality among many nations constitute a temporary brotherhood, and
confer on the guest many of the privileges of a kinsman. This, it
seems reasonable to think, may have been the ground of that widely
extended custom of offering the host’s wife to his guest. The custom
is too well known to require more than a passing reference. Nor do I
propose to give more to another custom, that, namely of the exchange,
temporary or permanent, of wives. Where it is not dictated by mere
occasional wantonness, but is a regular institution, it is usually
limited to brethren of the blood. These cases may not go very far: to
understand the true value of their evidence they must be placed side
by side with cases where the husband’s prior right is determined
either by his death or divorce. Among the Arabs, if a man divorced his
wife, his heirs had a right to take her. “That implies,” as Professor
Robertson Smith points out with unanswerable force, “that the kin had
an interest in {373} the woman’s marriage even while her husband
lived, and that their interest became active as soon as he divested
himself of his special claims on his wife. In short, the right of the
heir is a modification of the older right of kinsmen to share each
other’s marriages; and as soon as the exclusive right conferred on the
husband by more modern law ceases and determines, whether by marriage
[? death] or divorce, the older right of the kin revives.”[373.1]
Although it does not appear that a similar privilege is exercised by
the kindred among the Bengali tribes, their rights over a woman are
usually guarded by the requirement that divorce can only take place
with the consent of a council of relatives or a _panchayat_ of the
village or caste.[373.2] It is generally admitted now that the
institution of the Levirate is traceable to polyandry wherein the
husbands were united among themselves by the ties of blood. The
Levirate was an institution deeply rooted in Hebrew polity,
consecrated, if we may believe the traditions preserved in the most
ancient Hebrew book now extant, by divine sanction under the
tremendous penalty of death, and even in historic times enforceable by
the public disgrace of a man who refused compliance.[373.3] It has
only become obsolete among the Jews in Europe during the last three
centuries, while those of Palestine still hold to it.[373.4] When a
man died married but childless, leaving brothers, it was the duty of
the eldest of the survivors to take the widow {374} and beget issue
for the deceased; nor was any form of marriage necessary between him
and her. The same rule was prescribed in the _Laws of Manu_ to the
Hindu Aryans. There a brother or some other kinsman, not merely of a
dead man, but also of a man who, in consequence of disease or
mutilation, was incapable of himself begetting issue, might be
appointed for the purpose; and the reason is expressly declared in the
_Apastamba_ to be that the bride is given to the husband’s family, and
not to the husband alone. Moreover, logically following out the idea
of solidarity, Manu declares that if only one among brothers have a
son, all have male offspring through that son; and conversely, if only
one of all the wives of one husband bear a son, all are mothers of
male children through that son.[374.1] If a Malagasy die childless,
his next younger brother “must marry the widow to keep his brother in
remembrance; the children of such marriages being considered as the
elder brother’s heirs and descendants.”[374.2] The Basuto custom is
the same.[374.3] But the Levirate is only a specialised form of a more
general rule. It was developed when society had passed into the
patriarchal phase, in order to preserve due succession. It shows how
strong the feeling of solidarity of the kindred was. And that the wife
was not regarded as no more than heritable property is brought into
clear relief in the Hebrew and Hindu laws, where cohabitation ceased
on the birth of a boy. Though this limitation be not observed by the
Malagasy and Basutos, at least we cannot forget that the children
begotten by the levir (that is, the man who took the widow) rank as
his brother’s, and are entitled to his brother’s property. If the wife
were {375} simply inherited, both she and the children she afterwards
bore would become the property of the man to whom she passed.
Omitting as equivocal the numberless and widespread instances where
the heir takes possession of his predecessor’s wives with the rest of
his property, we may take note of some whose interpretation is less
open to question. Usually among the aboriginal people of Bengal the
younger brother, or cousin, of the deceased husband has the first
claim on the widow, a claim which must be released before she is at
liberty to wed any other person. The cases are few where, as among the
Santals, the consent of the younger brother’s first wife must be
procured; and they only exist where such consent would be necessary in
any case to his second marriage.[375.1] Several tribes of the
North-west Provinces practise the custom. Indeed, it seems usual among
the aborigines over the greater part of India; and frequently no
ceremony of any kind is necessary. Where, as among the Játs of the
Panjáb, a ceremony is performed, it is of the simplest kind. The
husband’s brother simply throws his scarf or cloak over the widow’s
head.[375.2] If a Ját youth die betrothed, but before consummating
the marriage, his father can claim the girl for another son, or, in
default of a son, for any male relation in that degree.[375.3] A
virgin widow among the Baiswars of South Mirzapur can be married, but
it is usual to give some remuneration to the family of the deceased
husband.[375.4] When a Habura is sentenced to a long term of
imprisonment, or is transported for life, his {376} wives are taken by
his brothers.[376.1] In the Hindu Koosh, while a man’s property passes
to his children, his brother takes the widows. It is disgraceful to
refuse them; and they can marry nobody else without the consent of
their husband’s brothers.[376.2] An Afghan ought to marry his
brother’s childless widow. If any other man offer first it is a grave
insult to him.[376.3] Among the Ostiaks and other Turanian tribes, a
younger brother is bound to marry his elder brother’s widow.[376.4] On
the island of Sumatra, while the inheritance descends to the sons, the
brothers in order of age have a right to the widow married by _jujur_,
or purchase. In the event of their declining her successively they may
give her in marriage to any relation on the father’s side, the person
who takes her replacing the deceased. If she marry a stranger, the new
husband may be adopted into the family to replace the deceased, or she
may be married by purchase, as the relatives please.[376.5] On the
adjacent island of Nias one of the sons may marry all the widows save
his own mother; and if no son exercise this right, they pass to a
brother. If they do not marry they must be maintained by the family of
their dead consort.[376.6] On Engano a man in marrying pays the value
of two hundred cocoa-nuts to the bride’s family. Yet he does not
thereby acquire her for himself. On the contrary, he becomes part of
her family; and if she die and he marry again, an indemnity must be
paid to her relatives. If he die, however, {377} the widow must offer
herself to his brothers; nor can she wed any one else until they have
refused her.[377.1] The widow of a Gilbert Islander is taken by his
surviving brother into his own hut, and she can then marry no one
else.[377.2] A bachelor or widower among the Andaman Islanders is
expected to marry his brother’s widow; and the term _brother_, as in
most savage lands, includes what we call a cousin. Of the property of
the deceased the widow retains as much as she requires for her
personal use, dividing the rest between his male relatives.[377.3]
Among the Sihanaka, one of the aboriginal tribes of Madagascar, a
widow is stripped and in various ways ill-treated for several months,
and only allowed to return home to her own kindred after having
obtained a formal divorce from her husband’s family.[377.4] In Africa,
individual property is hardly recognised by the Krumen of the Grain
Coast: almost everything is possessed by the family community. When a
Kruman dies his wife passes over to his brother or some other near
relation. An Oromó widow can only marry with the consent of her
husband’s brother. A Zulu is obliged to cohabit with all the widows of
an elder brother. Among the Tedas in Sahara, if an affianced
bridegroom die before completion of the marriage, his place is taken
by his brother or nearest kinsman.[377.5] On the Slave Coast a younger
brother was formerly compelled to marry the headwife of his elder
brother deceased, while the subordinate wives devolved with the rest
of the inheritance on the sons. {378} Compulsion has now become
obsolete; but the headwife still resides with her husband’s relatives;
and if she marry any other man than her first husband’s brother, the
second husband repays to the relatives (apparently not to the heirs as
such) of the first the amount originally paid for her.[378.1] In
Natal, when a Kafir dies, “those wives who have not left the kraal
remain with the eldest son. If they wish to marry again, they must go
to one of their late husband’s brothers.” Children born of such a
marriage, however, belong to the son.[378.2] On the western continent
the Thlinkit, among whom we have already found traces of
clan-marriage, require the eldest brother or nephew to marry the
widow.[378.3] In Guatemala, where, as we know, the kindred of the
husband bought the wife, she passed over into her husband’s clan, and
was taken on his death by his brother or her stepson.[378.4] Among the
Hidatsas it is a common practice for a man to marry his brother’s
widow; but apparently this is subject to her consent.[378.5] When one
of the Blackfeet, or one of the Omahas, died, his wives became the
potential wives of his eldest brother, while his property passed to
his sons, though a few horses were generally given to his
brothers.[378.6] An Ojibway widow may be taken by her husband’s
brother, or apparently by any one of the clan; and this is sometimes
done at the grave by the ceremony of walking her over it, in which
event she {379} is not required to undergo the terrible ordeal of
mourning. Or she has a right to go to him, and he is bound to support
her.[379.1] The Miwok of California destroy the property of the dead;
but the eldest brother is entitled to the widow.[379.2] The Aztecs
regarded it as a duty to marry a brother’s widow; and the reason given
is that her children, if she had any, might not remain fatherless--a
reason, however, which would not apply where she had none.[379.3] In
Samoa, where property belonged to the kin, one of the brothers, or
some other relative, took the wife; and her children were taught to
regard him as their father. The reason here alleged was the desire to
preserve the woman and her children to the family, whose number and
influence were thus maintained.[379.4] In New Caledonia, where the
property seems to descend to the eldest son, the husband’s brother is
bound to marry the widow.[379.5] In the Loyalty Islands she could not
marry again without the consent of her first husband’s family.[379.6]
A Tasmanian woman became common property; but she might be given in
marriage again.[379.7] In some at least of the islands of New Britain
also, a widow became common property;[379.8] and a similar custom
seems to have been followed by the Eskimo.[379.9] The natives of the
west of Victoria divided the property of a departed tribesman equally
among his widow and his children; but it was his brother’s duty to
marry the widow if she had offspring, because he was bound to protect
her {380} and rear the children. He seems to have been at liberty to
marry her also if she were childless.[380.1] The duty or the right of
a deceased husband’s brother to take the widow seems, in fact, to be
general among the aborigines of Australia, and to be wholly
disconnected with the right of succession to property. And the
evidence that it is a survival of group-marriage is confirmed by the
custom of the Gippsland tribes, which, there is reason to believe,
sanctioned the occasional cohabitation of a single man with his living
brother’s wife, and of a married man with his wife’s sister. “A man
spoke of his sister-in-law as _puppar-worcat_, which means _another
wife_; and when a wife died her sister not infrequently took her
place.” In Europe, among the Moslem Albanians the sons succeed to the
property, but the brother has a right to the widow with or without her
consent. Nor can she marry any one else in the same village save with
his consent. If, however, she marry into another family, her husband’s
heirs are entitled to half the dowry. The brother of an affianced
husband who dies is entitled to the bride on paying additional
dowry.[380.2] A trace of the right of a surviving brother to the widow
is perhaps found among the Scandinavians; and the conjecture derives
some support from the conduct imputed to Frigg, the wife of Odin, who
is accused by Loki of laying her husband’s two brothers in her
bosom.[380.3]
{381}
I have mentioned some cases in which payment for the widow who marries
out of her husband’s kin, is made to the kin. A few others may be
added. This is the custom of the Toaripi, Dori, and Koiari tribes of
New Guinea. If she belong to the first-named tribe she remains with
her husband’s relatives until her second marriage, only when she has
children; if she belong to either of the latter she remains, whether
with or without children.[381.1] In Kulu, Ladák, the widow could be
sold by her husband’s relatives into a second marriage; but so long as
she did not quit her husband’s house she was at liberty to keep a
paramour.[381.2] Among the Smoos of Central America we are told that
widows are the property of the husband’s relatives, to whom
“widow-money” must be paid before they are allowed to marry.[381.3] In
the western provinces of China, Mr. Cooper tells us, when a widow
signifies her intention of marrying again, her deceased husband’s
relations generally dispose of her to the highest bidder; but she
cannot be forced to marry against her will: by which I understand that
it rests with her to say whether she will marry or not; but if she
decide to marry, her deceased husband’s relations have the right to
determine whom she shall marry, and to receive the bride-price.[381.4]
The foregoing examples all show the wife as bound to the husband’s
kin. The right of a man to his wife’s sister, either in his wife’s
lifetime, or after her death, or, as it is found among some races, the
right of a woman to share her sister’s husband even in her lifetime,
is equally widespread. I have incidentally alluded to it as practised
by the {382} Gippsland tribes of Australia. Among the North American
Indians, who preserve many traces of mother-right, the usage was
common. The Blackfeet regarded all the younger sisters of a man’s wife
as his potential wives. If he did not care to marry them they could
not be married to any other man without his consent.[382.1] Among the
Root-Diggers of California to a whole family of sisters the happy
husband often added their mother; and the Seminole and Carib customs
were the same. The Pawnee who had married an elder sister might demand
all the younger ones as they arrived at maturity. An Osage was obliged
to wait two years after his first marriage before demanding another of
the same family; and after complying with this demand the parents
might refuse him any more. Among the Hidatsas, as probably among other
tribes, the wife’s sisters included her cousins according to our
reckoning. A Mutsun wife would often press her husband to wed her
sister or even her mother.[382.2] An Omaha can marry three wives, who
are generally related. Sometimes a wife invites her husband to wed her
sister, her aunt or her niece, because “she and I are one
flesh.”[382.3] Among the Sioux and some other tribes the lover would
attach to another man’s tent as many horses as corresponded in value
to the daughters he desired to marry; and if the proposition were
accepted they were all married at once.[382.4] In other cases it seems
that marriage with one daughter only gave a right of preemption over
the others.[382.5] Among some of {383} the tribes of Guiana the
husband has to wait until his first wife is dead before marrying her
sisters.[383.1] Similar regulations are found among the aborigines of
Bengal. In many of their tribes a man may marry two sisters; but, in
accordance with the rule as to marriage of a widow with a deceased
husband’s brother, the second wife must be a younger sister of the
first, not an elder. A second sister, however, cannot always be
married during the lifetime of the first.[383.2] Among the Todas a
woman became wife to several brothers, and her younger sisters, on
attaining maturity, became successively her fellow-wives.[383.3] An
Ostiak is allowed to take several sisters.[383.4] In the _Laws of
Manu_ it is provided that, “if, after one damsel has been shown,
another be given to the bridegroom, he may marry them both for the
same price.”[383.5] This refers, of course, to two damsels in the same
family. Among the Somali of Eastern Africa a widower commonly marries
his deceased wife’s sister.[383.6] On the other side of the continent
a folktale from Angola represents the eldest of four sisters as
replying to an offer of marriage: “Very well. Thou shalt marry me, if
thou marriest us all, the four of us. If thou thinkest that thou wilt
have me alone, the eldest, thou canst not marry me. It must be that we
marry our one man, the four of us in the fourhood of one mother.” And
the gallant had no choice but to fall in with her terms.[383.7] In
historical times the Israelites were forbidden to take a {384} woman
to her sister to be a rival to her in her lifetime;[384.1] but the
more ancient practice, if we may judge by the legend of their
eponymous hero as well as by analogies in other parts of the world,
permitted it. Under supernatural guidance the Church has bettered the
prohibition, so as to prevent the posthumous vexation of a wife by the
succession of her sister to her husband’s affections, and has been at
pains to give it the logical extension to marriage with a deceased
husband’s brother, in the very teeth of the divine institution of the
Levirate. It would be profane to call a bargain the provision whereby
the English bishops once compounded for the sin of assenting to a
nobleman’s union with his deceased wife’s sister, by condemning all
such unions for the future. Among the heathen Hovas of Madagascar the
first wife might at any time be divorced, unless she allowed her
husband to marry her younger sisters and younger cousins. A Gilbert
Islander had a right to dispose of his wife’s younger sisters.[384.2]
In Samoa a younger sister often accompanied the bride and became an
inferior wife to the bridegroom.[384.3] On the island of Mangaia, “if
a man of position married the eldest girl of a slave family, the
younger sisters became his as a matter of course, being only too glad
to have a protector. Even amongst those of equal rank a man often had
two or three sisters to wife at the same time. Even now, in Christian
times, a woman feels herself to be deeply injured if her
brother-in-law does not, on the death of his wife, ask her to become a
mother to his children.”[384.4] How greatly it is to be regretted that
they who have professed to christianise these poor, {385} benighted
Polynesians have disregarded the Church’s canon against such
marriages, and permitted so-called Christian homes to be contaminated
by the presence of a deceased wife’s sister in the capacity of wife!
Until group-marriage had practically passed away, and society had
organised itself into true clans, there could be no actual reception
of the wife into the kin. We must therefore not look to so archaic a
condition as group-marriage for rites of reception, or for the
resulting status of the wife. Where the clan has been most completely
organised, we may expect to find its results most logically carried
out; and some of the most logical results will often remain even when
society has passed into a still higher development. So it was in Rome,
where the wife entered into the _familia_ of her husband, or, if her
husband had a father living and were still in his power, into that of
her husband’s father. Her offering, on the day following her marriage,
to her husband’s Penates seems to have been a solemn initiation, in so
far at least as that had not been effected by the ceremonies of the
_confarreatio_. This is also the meaning of somewhat similar rites
performed by a bride in Ukrainia on entering her new home, where she
is first welcomed by all the female neighbours of her bridegroom’s
family,[385.1]--and of many ceremonies of the same kind elsewhere,
notably the Brahman rites in India. A Chinese married woman is taught
to regard her husband’s parents and his remoter ancestors in every
respect as if they were her own; while she ceases, on the other hand,
to have any but a secondary interest in her own relatives. According
to Confucius the very object of marriage was to furnish those who
should preside at the sacrifices, among {386} which a prominent place
is given to the ancestral offerings. This was indeed expressed in the
formula of demand for the hand of a maiden in ancient times. And just
as at Rome the bride offered sacrifices to her husband’s Penates, so
in China, on the day after the wedding, she prepared and presented a
sucking-pig to her husband’s parents, and when they had done eating
she finished what was left.[386.1] In this way among the polite
Chinese the union of the bride with her husband’s parents is signified
and completed. I have already mentioned the Santali and other customs
of Bengal, as well as that of the more barbarous islanders of Bonabe,
who tattoo the wife with marks representing her husband’s ancestors.
Sometimes a man on marrying was received into the clan of the wife. It
is now generally recognised that the words “Therefore shall a man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one flesh” could have originated only at a period when
it was customary for a husband to go and dwell with his wife’s kin:
that is to say, before the development of the patriarchal system on
which the Hebrews in later times were organised. Professor Robertson
Smith suggests, ingeniously and with probability, that the expression
implies “that the husband is conceived as adopted into his wife’s
kin”; for, as he has previously pointed out, both in Arabic and in
Hebrew (notably in the priestly legislation of the latter) the word
for flesh is equivalent to _kindred_ or _clan_.[386.2] Residence is
indeed one of the tests of kindred. But it is only one, and by no
means a conclusive one. For this reason the stories of Isaac’s
marriage and those of Jacob cannot safely be cited in support of {387}
this suggestion. The curious incident of the bargain with Shechem is
more to the point; for in that case a rite was to be undergone which
would have the effect of making Shechemites and Israelites “one
people.” If, however, we find cases of marriage where not only does
the husband dwell with his wife and her family, but his property and
earnings also go to them, or are shared in common with them, this will
be further evidence of reception into the kin. Among the Kochh a man
is taken on marriage to live with his wife and her mother, and all his
property is made over to her.[387.1] The Bayaga, a tribe of dwarfs in
Equatorial Africa, require the husband to live with his wife’s family,
and all the produce of his hunting belongs to them. He may, however,
return to his own community and take his wife, but only when he has a
son, and that son has killed an elephant. And then he leaves the son
behind to fill the place of the daughter taken away.[387.2] This
appears to be an instance of the archaic system of mother-right in
process of decay. Neither the case of the Bayaga nor that of the Kochh
goes quite far enough to be decisive. The North American Indians had
customs in their various tribes, which exhibited almost all gradations
between the complete absorption of the husband in his wife’s clan, and
the last stages of dissolution of the system of mother-right. Without
discussing them we may turn to two examples in the East Indies where
the matter is put beyond doubt. According to Brahman law the wife now
enters the _gotra_ {388} of her husband. The ceremonies are very
elaborate, and include of course a solemn procession on the
bridegroom’s part to fetch the bride. He is formally welcomed first by
the bride’s father, and then by her mother. Follows a rite which, if
it mean anything, is a survival of reception into the wife’s kin once
practised either by the Aryan invaders of India, or the aboriginal
tribes with whom they intermarried. It is called “_Satusi_ or the
seven lights of Hymen. Seven married ladies (including the bride’s
mother or, if she be a widow, one of the bride’s aunts) in their best
attire, each with a small torch made of _chita_-twig and cotton
steeped in oil, go round the bridegroom in succession, led by the
bride’s mother, who carries on her head a _kulá_ or flat
bamboo-basket, on which are placed twenty-one small lights made of
_dhatura_-fruits. As they go round, they sprinkle libations of water,
one of them blows a shell-trumpet, and all vociferate the hymeneal cry
of _ulu-ulu_. After going seven times round the bridegroom, the lights
are thrown one by one over his head, so that they fall behind him. The
_kulá_ is then picked up and placed in front of the bridegroom, and
the bride’s mother takes her stand upon it, and touches the forehead
of the bridegroom with water, paddy and _durba_-grass, betel and areca
nut, white mustard-seed, curds, white sandal-paste, vermilion, a
looking-glass, a comb, a bit of clay from the bed of the Ganges, a
yak’s tail, shells, a cluster of plantains, and certain other odds and
ends, while the rest of the women keep up the cry of _ulu-ulu_. The
bridegroom’s height is measured with a thin thread, which the bride’s
mother eats in a bit of plantain. She then places a weaver’s shuttle
between his folded hands and ties them together with thread, and calls
upon him, now that he has {389} been bound hand and foot, to bleat
once like a sheep to signify his humility and subjection. Last of all,
she touches his breast with a padlock and turns the key, whereby the
door of speech is closed to the passage of hard words against the
bride.”[389.1] Later accretions are obvious here, but the substance of
the ceremony is ancient and can only be explained in one way. In
Sumatra there was an old form of marriage, which has been prohibited
for a century past, called _ambel anak_. A man thus married paid no
money to the wife’s father, but entered his family on the footing of a
son. He became entirely separated from his own kin, who renounced all
interest in him, and he lost his right of inheritance. All his
earnings belonged to his wife’s family, who became liable to any debts
he might contract after marriage and responsible for his crimes, just
as his own family were before. His wife’s family might divorce him, in
which case he went forth naked as he came. The custom was evidently in
decay long before its abolition, for the husband’s status was in some
respects hardly so good as that of a natural-born son, while on the
other hand there were provisions for enabling him to redeem himself,
his wife and children, by paying her _jujur_ or bride-price, and an
additional sum for any daughters who had been born. But this could
only be accomplished with the goodwill of his wife’s family, because
he was incapable of accumulating any property apart from the common
stock of the family.[389.2]
The severance of the married person from the clan of which he or she
has been previously a member is, as might be expected, sometimes the
subject of a special symbol in {390} marriage ceremonies. Thus, among
the Santals, when the clothes of a married pair have been tied
together (the symbol among many peoples of their union), burning
charcoal is pounded with the household pestle, and the glowing embers
are extinguished with water. In this way the old household fire of the
bride is, so far as she is concerned, put out for ever.[390.1] In
Nepal the Sinuwár bride’s parents wash her feet when they give her to
the bridegroom, and splash the water over their own heads. By doing
this they believe that they wash from her, and as it were take back,
the quality of membership of her original sept, and transfer her to
the sept of the bridegroom. On the next morning the bride washes the
bridegroom’s feet, and drinks the water, saying at the time that she
does this as a sign that she has entered his sept, and is truly his
wife.[390.2] Among the Wends there are traces of mother-right, though
it is no longer the system on which their society is organised. The
first night of marriage is always spent at the bride’s house; and
sometimes, it would seem, the bridegroom takes up his permanent
residence with his wife’s family. On such occasions he bids a solemn
farewell, and says to his parents: “Henceforth you will see me no
more, nor speak to me; for I am leaving you. Amen.”[390.3] The
separation of a Chinese woman from her family on marriage is so
complete, that when she returns home on a visit, no brother, nor even
her father, may sit with her on the same mat, nor eat with her from
the same dish.[390.4] The Marri of Manbhum do not even allow their
{391} married daughters to enter the house.[391.1] Among the Rájputs
a married daughter may never return to her father’s house without his
special leave. He is not likely to send for her, because he must then
give her a fresh dower. Conversely, neither he nor any of her near
elder relations may go to the village whereinto she is married, nor
even drink water from the village well; and though more distant
relations taboo not the whole village, they may not eat or drink from
her husband’s house.[391.2] Among the Hebrews a priest was forbidden
to defile himself for the dead, except for his own kin. His married
sister was not one of these, only a sister “a virgin which hath had no
husband.” A stranger outside the priest’s kindred, though his guest or
hired servant, was not permitted to eat of the heave-offering of the
holy things. If a priest’s daughter were married to a stranger, she
could not eat of it. But in this respect her separation seems not to
have been absolute; for if she were divorced or became a widow, being
childless, and so returned “unto her father’s house as in her youth,”
she might “eat of her father’s bread.”[391.3] The change of kin was so
marked among the Romans that one of their lawyers explained the word
_soror_, a sister, as “_quasi scorsum nata_, because she is separated
from the family wherein she was born, and passes to another.”[391.4]
When the consequences of marriage are the severance from the family or
clan of one of its members, and the union of that member to another
family or clan, so as to become one flesh with it, and hardly less
where, though the member in question be not lost to the clan, a
special relationship is about to be entered upon with the other {392}
clan for the purpose of producing new members for it to the exclusion
of the former clan, it is obvious that each of the two families, or
clans, has a very important interest in the transaction. The marriage
would affect not only the two principals; it would extend to every
member of the family, or clan, diminished, and every member of the
family, or clan, thus enlarged and strengthened. Such an interest as
this would entitle every member of both to be consulted; and their
assent would be required to its validity. Such assent would be shown,
as we have already noted, by the presence and assistance of the
kindred at the act of marriage; or it might be signified by gifts.
But, however shown, it would in many cases have to be purchased by
gifts. I have already mentioned a number of instances where the price,
or dowry, of the bride is contributed by the bridegroom’s kinsmen. We
are about to deal with the converse case, wherein the price, however
made up, is divided between the bride’s relatives.
Bride-purchase has been, at some time or other, practised almost all
over the world; and where we do not find it still in all its ancient
force we frequently find the relics of it. As, in the progress of
civilisation, the bonds of the family are drawn tighter, the power of
the father over his children increases, and that of the more distant
kinsfolk decreases. The substantial price in such cases is paid to the
parent; and the other kinsmen are recognised only by a smaller,
frequently a nominal, present. Lastly, the gifts on both sides are
transformed into a dowry for the bride, and into wedding presents
intended for the behoof of the happy couple. In various nations the
application of the marriage gifts is found in all stages of
transition, from the rudest bargain and sale up to the settlements so
dear to {393} English lawyers, and the useless toys which the
resources of the newest culture enable us to bestow upon our friends
on these interesting occasions, to assist their early efforts in
housekeeping. The examples following are drawn, of course, from
conditions of barbarism when purchase prevails, or when survivals of
its former practice have not yet been all swept away. Into the general
question of the extent of the kindred whose assent is necessary in
early stages of civilisation I have no space to go. But incidentally
we shall find evidence that the entire clan must have had a voice in
the matter. Inasmuch, however, as this chapter has already trespassed
on the reader’s patience to so great a length, I shall confine myself
to a few of the more indisputable and pertinent instances. To attempt
more would be to travel over ground which it would be impossible to
survey in a satisfactory manner, without a discussion interesting
indeed to the student of institutions, but altogether disproportionate
to the present work.
Among races whose customs point unimpeachably to the need of obtaining
the consent of the general body of the bride’s kinsmen we may begin
with the Turanians. A bridegroom of the Hill tribes of Rajmahál is
required to present not only a turban and a rupee to his
father-in-law, and a piece of cloth and a rupee to his mother-in-law,
but also to several of the nearest relations.[393.1] Striking are the
ceremonies performed by two of the northern branches of this
widespread race. After the purchase-money has been agreed upon, but
before it is paid, among the Kirghiz the bridegroom is allowed to
visit the bride. This is done by some tribes with great formality. The
young man presents himself first to the oldest member of the bride’s
family, and {394} asks permission to pitch his tent at the encampment.
“This request being granted, he distributes presents among the members
of the family, and begs them to use their efforts in persuading the
bride to pay him a visit in his tent. As success always crowns their
efforts, the bride makes her appearance in the tent, where the young
couple are left alone. During this interview the marriage is
consummated, though the union is not yet formally consecrated. They
are now bound to each other, and neither can withdraw from the mutual
obligation they have contracted without being exposed to the vengeance
of the injured party.” Further presents are given to the relatives on
the formal celebration of the marriage after the purchase-money has
been paid.[394.1] Among the tribes of Turkestan the wedding takes
place after the payment of the purchase-money to the father. Each
party is represented by two witnesses at the wedding ceremony, and a
_mollah_ is employed to legalise the contract. All goes on smoothly
until “the bride’s witnesses suddenly raise some objection, pretending
that they are unwilling to deliver up the bride who is intrusted to
their keeping, unless some suitable present is offered for renouncing,
on their part, the great treasure placed in their custody.” Nor can
the marriage proceed until they are satisfied.[394.2]
The same part is played in Central Europe by the Wendish bridesmaids.
The bride awaits her bridegroom sitting at a table by herself. When
his procession arrives, the _brautführer_ advances to the table and
begs her politely to follow him to the wedding. The bridesmaids
interfere, and refuse to give her up without being paid for it: they
must have the whole table full of gold! After an {395} amount of
haggling, which depends on the persuasive powers of the damsels and
the wealth of the bridegroom, they are at length satisfied; and
sometimes the business is not concluded until a considerable sum has
been paid.[395.1] At an Ukrainian marriage, presents are made with
ritual formalities to every one of the bride’s relations by name; and
a formal agreement is entered into by which the number, and even the
value, of these presents is declared. Among the persons present are
women who are strangers to the immediate family. When the presents to
the relatives have been settled, these women climb on a bench beside
the family hearth, taking a sieve which they beat like a tambourine,
clamouring also for their share of the ransom. And the bridegroom is
compelled to throw some small pieces of money into the sieve for them.
As M. Volkov, in detailing the proceedings, says, it is clear that all
this represents a payment in respect of the bride for the benefit of
her whole clan. Among the Bulgarians a like payment, distinguished
from that to the father, is made in money for all the members of the
family, or rather for the family-community. The father usually gives
what he receives to his daughter by way of dowry.[395.2] The usage
probably differs to some extent in various parts of Bulgaria. In
Bessarabia the money paid to the father is used to defray the cost of
the bride’s wardrobe, but clothing is also purchased for the bride’s
relations. If I read the account correctly, the bridegroom also pays
the bride’s mother a few ducats and presents articles of clothing to
her sisters. Among other members of the South Slavonic stock the
custom likewise varies, but all agree in requiring {396} presents to
be made to all the near kindred of the bride. The minimum payment is
set down by one reporter, writing of the practice in his own district,
as twelve florins to the bride, ten to her father, two to her mother,
six to each of her brothers, and to the other relations seven florins
each.[396.1]
The final difficulties on the part of the Wendish bridesmaids may be
compared with the conduct of the women of the bride’s party at a
marriage of the Banks’ Islanders. When the last instalments of the
purchase-money have been paid, and the bridegroom’s father and his
party, after the interposition of all sorts of difficulties, are on
the point of succeeding in obtaining delivery of the bride, the women
step in and refuse to give her up until an extra sum has been made
over to them to induce them to let her go.[396.2] In Sindh also, as
the bridegroom is about to enter the nuptial chamber, his bride’s
sister, or a female cousin, opposes him and demands a gift of a few
rupees, which he must pay ere he is allowed to pass.[396.3]
A traveller in the earlier half of the last century relates that to a
native of Cape Coast the cost of his wedding was seldom more than an
ounce of gold among the bride’s relations, two suits of new clothes
for the bride, and a fat goat and some palm-wine and brandy for the
entertainment.[396.4] In the Zambesi basin to-day the matter is
arranged by “the so-called brothers or next of kin,” who alone have
the right to consent, the father having no voice in the matter. But
what, if anything, is paid to them as the price of their goodwill,
beyond a plentiful supply of pombe, {397} which is drunk together by
the brethren on both sides after the wedding, I am not able to
say.[397.1] It seems clear at all events that in many places the price
may be commuted for a feast, or a feast may be added to it, and after
the custom of purchase has died out the feast only may remain. So
among the Arabs, for example, the stipulated sum which forms the dowry
and belongs to the bride is paid to her father; but before the husband
can claim his rights he has to feast the maiden and her relations and
friends.[397.2]
Further illustrations are hardly needed. The custom may be summed up
in the words of Professor Hickson, describing what he observed in
Minahassa, Celebes, where women enjoy an exceptionally high position:
“It might seem also that the _harta_ which is paid by the bridegroom
for his bride is of a similar nature to the price paid for a slave, a
beast of burden, or any other piece of property. The _harta_, however,
should not be considered as a ‘price,’ it has rather the nature of a
‘compensation’ paid to the bride’s family for the loss of one of its
working and child-producing members.”[397.3]
The subject of the ceremonies and institutions of marriage is one of
profound interest. It has engrossed the attention of many
anthropologists and filled many volumes. The sketch, therefore, that I
have here attempted of only one aspect of the subject is obviously
meagre and imperfect. Yet I venture to hope that I have succeeded in
throwing some further light upon the savage conception of a kindred as
an undivided entity--a conception which has survived in a more or less
complete form into high planes of civilisation. Rites analogous to
that of the blood-covenant are found not merely to bind together {398}
the individual husband and wife, but to unite the incoming member to
the whole kindred. And although in the most archaic period whose
remains are accessible to us it does not appear that these rites meant
actual admission into the kin, their analogy easily lent itself to
that construction as the organisation of society into clans drew
closer and closer together, and especially as the patriarchal clan
developed; and marriage at length came in many cases to operate as an
actual severance from one kin and an entrance into another. The reason
for the rights and privileges acquired by the whole kindred, alike
whether marriage operated as a blood-covenant or not, is founded on,
and springs directly from, the conception of the kin as one body
whereof all the brethren were as literally members as the hand and the
foot are members of the physical body of each man. To graft a new
member upon such a body, or even to introduce a stranger into a
special relation with a member of such a body, is to introduce him or
her to a corresponding relation with all. Their rights may for the
time be overridden by the paramount claim of the member for whose
special behoof the stranger is introduced--a claim enforced often by
strength, more often, perhaps, by custom; yet the moment the claim
paramount is withdrawn, or suspended, the rights of the remaining
members of the kindred arise and are capable of enforcement. They are
sometimes also asserted on special occasions even against the claim
paramount.
Society has developed, among almost all the higher races, into and
through the patriarchal clan. Among many of the lower races who have
not, when brought into contact with European culture, already thrown
off their original social constitution, a marked tendency to develop
in the {399} same direction has been found. Consequently most of our
illustrations have been drawn from a condition of things where the
bride has been transferred to the bridegroom’s home and has entered
into special relations with the bridegroom’s kin. Of the converse case
many examples which might have been adduced are complicated by the
developing patriarchalism. Inquiry into these complications would have
necessitated a volume rather than a chapter. Hence I have been
compelled to pass over many a problem not only interesting but
important to solve. But wherever I have found it possible to deal
within the limits at my command with the case of a bridegroom entering
into special relations with the bride’s kin, the same general
principles have been observed to govern it.