MARRIAGE BY CAPTURE.
I. _Rape._--Rape and marriage--Rape in Tasmania, Australia, New
Guinea, Africa, America, among the Tartars, the Hindoos, the Hebrews,
and the Celts--The rape of concubines in ancient Greece.
II. _Marriage by Capture._--The ceremonial of capture in
marriage--Symbolic capture among the Esquimaux, the Indians of Canada,
in Guatemala, among the Mongols, the aborigines of Bengal, in New
Zealand, among the Arabs, the ancient Greeks, in ancient Rome, in
Circassia, among the modern Celts, and in Livonia.
III. _Signification of the Ceremonial of Capture._--Violent exogamy
has not been universal--Rape and marriage by purchase--What the
ceremonial of capture means.
I. _Rape._
The marriage by capture, which we have now to consider, is not actually
a form of marriage; it is only a manner of procuring one or more
wives, whatever at the same time may be the prevailing matrimonial
_régime_. If, however, we cannot dispense with the special study of
marriage by capture, it is because it has been made to play a chief
_rôle_ in sociology. According to some authors, it has been a universal
necessity, and must have preceded exogamy in all times and places.
Surely this too general theory may be contested; but it is beyond doubt
that the rape of women has been widely practised all over the world,
that very often it has been considered glorious, and that in many
countries it has been attenuated into pacific marriage.
Nothing is more natural and simple than rape among savage or barbarous
tribes, who hold violence in esteem and use it largely, and who, as we
have previously seen, are almost always addicted to female infanticide.
But has the widely-spread custom of rape the great importance in
sociological theory that has been attributed to it? This is a question
to which we can only reply after having consulted the facts.
Throughout Melanesia capture has been the primitive means of procuring
wives, or rather slaves-of-all-work, absolutely at the discretion
of the ravisher. Bonwick, indeed, tells us that in Tasmania, and
consequently in Australia, capture was more often simulated only, and
resulted from a previous agreement between the man and woman;[213] but
the savage manner in which the rape was effected abundantly proves that
amiable agreement was exceptional. The Australian who desires to carry
off a woman belonging to another tribe prowls traitorously around the
camp. If he happens to discover a woman without a protector he rushes
on her, stuns her with a blow of his club (_douak_), seizes her by
her thick hair, drags her thus into the neighbouring wood; then, when
she has recovered her senses, he obliges her to follow him into the
midst of his own people, and there he violates her in their presence,
for she has become his property--his domestic animal.[2] The captured
woman generally resigns herself without difficulty;[214] in truth, she
has, generally, changed her master, but not in the least changed her
condition.
Sometimes two men unite to commit one of these rapes. They glide
noiselessly into a neighbouring camp in the night; one of them winds
round his barbed spear the hair of a sleeping _lubra_, the other
points his spear at her bosom. She awakes, and dares not cry out; they
take her off, bind her to a tree, and then return in the same manner
to make a second capture; after that they return in triumph to their
own people.[215] The captives rarely revolt, for they are, in a way,
accustomed to the capture. From infancy they have been familiarised
with the fate that awaits them, for the simulation of the rape is one
of the games of the Australian children.[216] Later the life of a
pretty Australian girl is marked by a series of plots to carry her off,
and of successive rapes, which force her to pass from hand to hand,
and expose her to wounds received in conflicts, and to bad treatment
inflicted by the other women amongst whom she is introduced. Sometimes
she is dragged very far, even hundreds of miles from the place of her
birth.[217]
It is the duty of the tribe to which the ravished woman belongs to
avenge her, and the Australian has, after his own manner, a strong
sentiment of certain obligations, which for him are moral; but more
frequently, to escape too great damages, the tribes hold a meeting, and
the ravisher submits to a symbolic retaliation agreed on beforehand.
Armed with his little shield of bark, he takes his place at about forty
yards from a group of ten warriors belonging to the aggrieved tribe,
and each one of these throws two or three darts at him, which are
nearly always avoided or parried. Thenceforth the offence is effaced,
and peace re-established.[218]
The same customs prevail among the Papuans of New Guinea. At Bali the
men carry off and violate brutally the solitary women they may meet;
and afterwards they agree with the tribe as to compensation.[219] In
like manner, in the Fiji Isles, rape, real or simulated, was general
and even glorious. A particular divinity presided over it. The ravished
woman either fled to a protector or resigned herself, and then a feast
given to the parents terminated the affair.[220]
To be able to see in these bestial customs anything resembling
marriage, one must be a prey to a fixed idea--a positive matrimonial
monomania. There is here no marriage by capture, but rather slavery
by capture. This is not the only method of procuring wives practised
by the Australians. They often proceed pacifically by traffic, and a
man acquires a wife by giving in exchange another woman of whom he
has power to dispose--a sister or relative.[221] Certain tribes had
also instituted a sort of regulated promiscuity--a collective marriage
between all the men of one clan and all the women of another. I shall
have to return to the consideration of this singular form of sexual
association. For the moment I confine myself to noticing that rape is
not always obligatory in Australia.
Neither is it so among the negroes of Africa; it is even more rare
there than in Melanesia, but there also it does not constitute a
marriage. Women are carried off just in the same way as other things
are carried off. Thus the Damara Hottentots often steal wives from the
Namaquois Hottentots.[222] Among the Mandingos and the Timanis there is
no marriage by capture, properly speaking; already they purchase the
daughter from her parents, without, of course, consulting her; then the
intending purchaser, aided by his friends, carries off his acquisition
in a brutal manner, whether she will or not. It is a simple commercial
affair; the daughter is an exchange value representing a certain number
of jars of palm wine, of stuffs, etc.
Amongst the natives of America brutal rape was, or still is, very
common. In Terra del Fuego, the young Fuegians carry off a woman as
soon as they are able to construct or procure a canoe.[223] From tribe
to tribe the Patagonians at war exterminate the men and carry off the
women. The Oen Patagonians make incursions every year at the time of
“the red leaf” on the Fuegians to seize their women, their dogs, and
their weapons.[224] The Indians on the banks of the Amazon and Orinoco
continually capture women, and thus every tribe is sometimes nearly
without women and sometimes overflowing with them.[225] The Caribs so
frequently procured wives in this way that their women did not often
speak the language of the men.[226] In the Redskin tribe of the Mandans
the rape of young women was a perpetual cause of trouble, of disorder,
and of vengeance, proportioned to the power and to the anger of the
relations of the ravished woman.[227]
We find similar customs among savage or barbarous peoples nearly
everywhere. The Tartars, says Barnes, make their wives of the prisoners
that they capture in battles.[228]
The Code of Manu also mentions this primitive mode of union more or
less conjugal:--“When a young girl is carried off by force from the
parental house, weeping and crying for succour, and those who oppose
this violence are killed or wounded, and a breach is made in the walls,
this mode (of marriage) is called that of the giants.”[229]
The Bible relates several facts of the same kind. Thus the tribe of
Benjamin procured themselves wives by massacring the inhabitants of
Jabez-Gilead and capturing four hundred of their virgins. Another time
the Benjamites practised a Sabine rape in carrying off the women during
a feast near Bethel.
The Israelites, having vanquished the Midianites, killed all the
men, according to the Semitic custom, and took away the cattle, the
children, and the women.[230] But Moses, always directly inspired by
the Lord, ordered them to put to death the women and even the male
children, and to keep the young girls and virgins.[231] There were
sixteen thousand maidens, of whom thirty-two were reserved for the
Lord’s share, which doubtless means for the priests. Of the sheep,
oxen, asses, and maidens that remained, Moses further deducted the
fiftieth part, which he gave to the Levites of the tabernacle.[232]
This ferocity and this coarse assimilation of captured women to cattle
are not peculiar to the people of God, but prevailed amongst the
primitive Arabs,[233] or rather amongst all the Semites, who were still
savage or barbarous.
Capture in war has, besides, been largely practised by all races and
throughout the world. An old Irish poem, the “Duan Eiranash,” speaks
of three hundred women carried off by the Picts from the Gaels, who,
finding themselves thus deprived of their women by a single blow,
allied themselves then with the Irish.
I will confine myself to these examples, gleaned from all parts, and
which it would be easy to multiply. They amply suffice to establish
that in primitive societies woman, being held in very low esteem, is
absolutely reduced to the level of chattels and of domestic animals;
that she represents a booty like any other; that her master can use
and abuse her without fear. But in these bestial practices there is
nothing which approaches, even distantly, to marriage, and we are not
in the least warranted to call these brutal rapes marriages. Even in
the countries where a true marriage exists, the customs and the laws
tolerate for a long time the introduction into the house of the husband
of captured slaves, who are treated by the master as concubines by
the side of the legitimate wife or wives. The heroes of Homer profit
largely by this legal tolerance, and when the Clytemnestra of Æschylus
justifies herself for having killed her husband, she alleges, among
other extenuating circumstances, the intimacy of Agamemnon with his
slave Cassandra.
Assuredly in all this there is no marriage. We shall presently see that
in many countries the concubinate, legal and patent, has co-existed, or
co-exists, by the side of marriage without being confounded with it.
It is important to reserve the name of _marriage by capture_ to legal
and pacific marriage, in the ceremonial of which we find practices
recalling or simulating by survival the primitive rape of woman.
II. _Marriage by Capture._
It is to be observed that this symbolic rape does not always signify
that the capture of the woman has preceded pacific conjugal union. It
represents especially a mental survival, the tradition of an epoch,
more or less distant, when violence was held in high esteem, and when
it was glorious to procure slaves for all sorts of labour by force of
arms. In the countries where the ceremonial of capture exists, the
fine times of rape are generally somewhat gone by, but the mind is
still haunted by it, and even in peaceful marriages, after the contract
or bargain is concluded, men like to symbolise in the ceremonial the
rapes of former days, which they cannot and dare not any longer commit.
These practices have also another bearing: they signify that the bride,
then nearly always purchased from her parents, must be in complete
subjection to the master that has been given her, and occupy the
humblest place in the conjugal house.
For all these reasons the symbolic ceremonial of capture has been, or
is still, in use with many races at the celebration of their marriages.
In some degree it is found all over the world. Among the Esquimaux of
Cape York the marriages are arranged in a friendly way by the parents
of the future couple, and nevertheless, from the infancy of the latter,
the conjugal ceremony must simulate a capture. The future bride must
fly, must defend herself with her feet and hands, scream at the height
of her voice, until her new master has succeeded in taking her to his
hut, where she at once settles happily.[234]
In the same way, in Greenland the bridegroom captures his bride, or has
her captured for him; and in the latter case he has recourse to the
help of two or three old women.[235]
With the Indians of Canada, where sometimes a true marriage is
concluded in presence of the chief of the tribe, when he has pronounced
the matrimonial formula, “the husband turns round, stoops down,
takes his wife on his back, and carries her to his tent, amid the
acclamations of the spectators.”[236]
Some Redskin tribes, observed by Lafitau, symbolised rape even in the
intimate relations between young couples. The husband was obliged
to enter the wigwam of his wife in the night; it would be a grave
impropriety for him to approach it in the day-time.[237]
In ancient Guatemala, where marriages were celebrated with a certain
pomp, the father of the bridegroom sent a deputation of friends to seek
the bride, and one of these messengers had to take the girl on his
shoulders and carry her to an appointed spot, near the house of the
bridegroom.[238]
In Asia, over the vast Mongol region extending from Kamtschatka to the
country of the Turcomans, the ceremonial of capture is always held in
honour.
This symbolism of capture is especially curious with the
Kamtschatdales. There it is not as a conqueror that the husband enters
the family of the wife, since he must first do an act of servitude,
find the parents of the girl he desires, put himself at their service,
and take his part in the domestic labour. This period of probation
may last a long time, even years,[239] and surely it is a singular
prelude to a marriage by violent capture. However, when the time of the
novitiate is over, the future husband is allowed to triumph violently
and publicly over the resistance of his bride. She is armed with thick
garments, one over the other, and with straps and cords. Besides this
she is guarded and defended by the women of the _iourte_. However, the
marriage is not definitely concluded until the bridegroom, surmounting
all these obstacles, succeeds in effecting on his well-defended bride a
sort of outrage on modesty, that she herself must acknowledge by crying
_ni ni_ in a plaintive tone. But the girls and women of the guard fall
on the assailant with great cries and blows, tear his hair, scratch
his face, and sometimes throw him. Victory often necessitates repeated
assaults and many days of combat. When at last it is gained, and the
bride has herself acknowledged it, the marriage is settled, and is
consummated the same evening in the _iourte_ of the bride, who is not
taken to her husband’s house till the next day.[240]
The ceremonial of capture still continues in the marriages of the
Kalmucks, the Tungouses, and the Turcomans, but has become less coarse.
With the Kalmucks the girl is first bought from her father, and
then, after a pretended resistance, is carried away on a horse ready
saddled.[241] The custom varies: sometimes it is enough to place the
bride, by force, on a horse; sometimes she flees, always on horseback,
but is pursued and caught by the bridegroom, who consummates the
marriage on the spot, and then conducts his prize to his tent.[242]
The Tungouses, coarser still, proceed by an attempt on modesty, as with
the Kamtschatdales; the bridegroom must attack his bride and tear her
clothes.[243]
With the Turcomans, marriage can be concluded with or without the
consent of the parents. In the latter case, the young people fly and
seek refuge in a neighbouring _obah_. They are always well received
there, and remain a month or six weeks. During this time the elders
of the two _obahs_ negotiate an arrangement with the parents; they
agree on the price of the girl, who afterwards returns to the paternal
domicile; she must remain six months or a year, or even longer, before
living with her husband, and during all this time he may only see her
secretly. Sometimes the flight is executed with the previous consent
of the parents, and then it is no more than a symbolic capture,[244] a
comedy.
In reality rape, more or less real, is often replaced by a simple
ceremonial with the greater part of the nomads of Central Asia, and
notably the Turcomans. Then the young girl, clothed in her bridal
costume, bestrides a fiery horse, which she puts to a gallop, having
at the saddle a kid or a lamb freshly killed. The bridegroom and all
the wedding guests, also on horseback, pursue the future wife, who,
by clever turns and evolutions, hides herself, and hinders them from
seizing the animal she has carried off.[245] All this is plainly the
mere mimic of rape, and there is in these divers customs a designed
gradation: at first the actual stealing of the girl, with the
understanding that the affair will not end tragically; then a stealing
that may be called legal, as it is authorised by the parents; at length
the simple ceremony symbolic of rape by violence.
Customs very similar to these are found with a certain number of the
aborigines of Bengal.
The Kurmis and other _sudras_ celebrate marriage by a pretended
combat. Sometimes the bridegrooms mark their foreheads with blood,
which seems, indeed, to be the origin of the singular and nearly
universal custom in India of the _sindradan_,[246] consisting of
marking the forehead of the bride with vermilion. The vermilion has
apparently replaced the blood, and the blood may, and doubtless does,
symbolise a violent rape.
With the Mecks and the Kacharis, the bridegroom, accompanied by his
friends, goes to the house of his future bride; he there meets the
friends of the latter, and the two troupes simulate a combat, in which
the future husband is always victor; the bride finishes by being
carried off, and her husband has only to feast the friends of both
parties, and pay the father the price of the girl.[247]
With the Soligas, the man carries away the young girl with her consent,
and goes, like the Mongols, to a neighbouring village to pass the
time of the honeymoon, after which the couple return home and give a
feast.[248]
The custom of simulated capture still exists among other aboriginal
tribes of India, the Khonds, Badagas, etc.
It is evident that in primitive humanity, to carry off a woman with
armed violence was considered a glorious exploit, since in the most
diverse races pacific marriage assumes, with such good will, the
pretence of violent conquest.
In New Zealand, in order to marry a girl, a man applied either to her
father or nearest relation; then, consent being obtained, he ravished
his future bride, who was bound to resist energetically. As the New
Zealand women were robust, the contest, however courteous it might be,
was severe; the clothes of the girl were generally torn to shreds, and
it sometimes took hours to drag her a hundred yards.[249]
Sometimes the mother of the bride interfered. Mr. Yate mentions a case
of this kind. It relates to a mother quite content with the marriage
of her daughter, but obliged by custom to make a show of violent
opposition. The newly-married couple, on coming out of the church, for
they were converted, met the old woman, vociferating and tearing her
hair, and abusing the missionary, but telling him at the same time in a
low voice not to mind, for she was not serious.[250]
In certain districts of New Zealand the future husband was obliged
literally to carry off the girl. When the marriage was negotiated and,
in principle, concluded, all the relatives watched the _fiancée_ with
the greatest care, and held themselves in readiness to defend her. The
young man had to seize his bride at all costs by force of arms; his
honour depended on it, and often he suffered severely in conducting his
glorious enterprise to a successful end.[251]
The ceremonial of capture evidently springs from customs of rape,
whether ancient or not; it is, therefore, quite natural to meet with
razzias among the Bedouins, as among all of their race. With the
Bedouins of Sinai, the comedy is played to the life. The bridegroom,
accompanied by a couple of friends, attacks the girl when she is
leading the flocks home. She defends herself vigorously by throwing
stones, and is esteemed according to the amount of energy she shows.
At length they finish by taking her to the tent of her father, where
the name of her future husband is proclaimed. After this the girl
is dressed as a bride, placed on a camel, all the time feigning
resistance, and conducted to the encampment. A feast and presents
terminate the ceremony.[252]
With the Mezeyn Arabs things are pushed further. The girl, in the
so-called capture, evades pursuit and takes refuge in the mountains,
where her friends have prepared provisions for her beforehand. The
bridegroom rejoins his future wife in her retreat, and it is there
that the marriage is consummated. After this the couple return to the
paternal domicile, which the woman, unless she is with child, does not
quit for a year.
The matrimonial comedy is not always so complicated. With the Amezas
the bride only runs from tent to tent, and is at last conducted by
several women to a tent prepared at some distance; her bridegroom
awaits her there, but he has to force her to enter it; that done, the
women retire.[253]
With the Moors of Java, relates Schouten, the father of the bride
carries her, all swathed up, to the bridegroom. The latter, aided by
two of his paranymphs, lifts her on a horse and rides away with her.
Once arrived at his house he hides his wife there and goes off, without
thanking his assistants and friends.
Many European races have also practised the ceremonial of marriage
by capture. The Bœotians, says Pausanias, conducted the wives to the
house of the husband in a chariot, of which they afterwards solemnly
burnt the pole, to indicate that the woman was henceforth the property
of her master, and was never to think of quitting his abode. But in
ancient Greece it was at Sparta especially that the nuptial ceremony of
capture was practised.[254] A frequently quoted passage from Plutarch’s
_Life of Lycurgus_ gives us details on this point. “In their marriages
the bridegroom carried off the bride by violence; and she was never
chosen in a tender age, but when she had arrived at full maturity. Then
the woman that had the direction of the wedding cut the bride’s hair
close to the skin, dressed her in a man’s clothes, laid her upon a
mattress, and left her in the dark. The bridegroom, neither oppressed
with wine nor enervated with luxury, but perfectly sober, as having
always supped at the common table, went in privately, untied her
girdle, and carried her to another bed. Having stayed there a short
time, he modestly retired to his usual apartment to sleep with the
other young men, and observed the same conduct afterwards, spending the
day with his companions and reposing himself with them in the night,
nor even visiting his bride but with great caution and apprehensions
of being discovered by the rest of the family; the bride at the same
time exerted all her art to contrive convenient opportunities for their
private meetings,” etc.[255]
At Rome the ceremonial of capture was kept up for a long time in the
plebeian marriages, without confarreation or coemption. As in so
many other countries, they played the comedy of the carrying off
of the bride by the bridegroom with the pretended resistance of the
mother and the relations.[256] In the more respectable marriages the
ceremonial of capture was simplified, but still very significant. The
hair of the bride was separated with the point of a javelin (_hasta
celibaris_),[257] and for this symbolic ceremony a javelin that
had pierced the body of a gladiator was preferred. Then the bride,
conducted to the house of her husband, was to enter it without touching
the threshold; she was lifted over it.[258] It is curious to find
this same custom in China now in our own day, and we can hardly help
recognising in it the symbolic embodiment of capture.
A similar ceremonial is always practised in Circassia. In the midst of
a feast the bridegroom enters, escorted by his friends, and carries off
his bride, who henceforth becomes his wife.[259]
Moreover, as at Sparta, the newly-married Circassian must not visit the
wife, except in secret, for a whole year--a term evidently fixed, as at
Sparta, for the period of probable pregnancy.[260]
It is not very long ago that a ceremonial of the same kind was observed
quite near us, in Wales. On the day fixed, the bridegroom and his
friends, all on horseback, came to take the bride; but they found
themselves in the presence of the friends of the young girl, also on
horseback, and a mock fight ensued, during which the future wife fled
on the crupper of the horse of her nearest relative. But instantly the
squadron of the bridegroom, counting sometimes two or three hundred
horse, galloped in pursuit. Finally they rejoined the fugitive, and all
was terminated by a feast and common rejoicings.[261]
In Livonia every marriage was also the occasion of a simulated
combat of cavalry, as with the Welsh, but it took place before the
marriage.[262] In Poland also, and in Lithuania and Russia, the seizure
of the girl often preceded marriage.
I shall here end the enumeration of these customs, which are all
manifestly symbolical of capture. We still find the trace of it even
in the Brittany of to-day, where the representative of the husband,
the _bazvalan_, and the parents of the _fiancée_ sing, alternately,
strophes of a marriage song, in which the one asks and the others
refuse the bride, offering in her stead either a younger sister, or the
mother or grandmother.[263] Our inquiry is terminated; it remains now
to ask what is the meaning of this ceremonial so widely spread in all
ages and in all countries.
III. _Signification of the Ceremonial of Capture._
The author of an interesting book on primitive marriage, Mr. McLennan,
and after him a great number of sociologists, have concluded that in
savage societies sexual unions or associations have been generally
effected by the violent capture of the woman, that by degrees these
captures have become friendly ones, and have at length ended in a
peaceful exogamy, retaining the ancient custom only in the ceremonial
form.
It is quite possible to have been thus in a certain number of
countries; but we must beware of seeing in this a necessary and general
evolution. Surely savage hordes and tribes naturally carry off the
women and girls of their neighbours and enemies, the little groups
with whom they are incessantly struggling for existence. They seize
their women as they do everything else, and impose on the captives
the unenviable _rôle_ of slaves-of-all-work. Given the brutality of
primitive man, the fate of the captured woman is necessarily of the
hardest, and it is natural that the woman of the tribe should not
solicit it. Thus, with or without reason, the Australian fells to the
ground his captured wife, pierces her limbs with his javelin, etc. A
stranger, a prisoner, violently brought into a society where she cannot
count on a single friend, will evidently be more resigned to this
bad treatment, and can nearly always be made to submit to it without
resistance. But we must not accept this as a sufficient explanation of
exogamy. We have seen that the Australian, accustomed to primitive
rape in all its brutality, only has recourse to it when he cannot
procure by simple barter the woman he covets.
There is certainly great temptation to capture a woman. A man thereby
escapes paying a price for her to her parents, which is the rule in
nearly all savage countries, but the operation is not effected without
risk and reprisals more or less dangerous, so that before undertaking
it he thinks twice.
We must be careful not to confound rape with marriage; nothing is more
distinct with savage and even with civilised men. Perhaps even the
dangers and the inconveniences of brutal capture have given rise to the
idea of primitive conjugal barter, of a peaceful agreement by which a
girl was ceded to a man for a compensation agreed upon. In principle
this commercial transaction left to the husband the greater part of
the rights he would have acquired by violent capture; but, in reality,
these rights were necessarily mitigated, for the woman, being thus
ceded in a friendly manner, was not completely abandoned by her own
people.
Thus in Polynesia, or at least in New Zealand, the husband who murdered
his wife, although he had purchased her, incurred the revenge of her
relations, unless she was guilty of adultery.[264] It was often thus,
but not always, however; for with the Fijians, in delivering a daughter
to the purchaser, the father or the brother said to the future husband,
“If you become discontented with her, sell her, kill her, eat her; you
are her absolute master.”[265] Much nearer home, in ancient Russia, the
father at the moment of marriage gave his daughter some strokes with a
whip, saying, “Henceforth, if you are not obedient, your husband will
beat you.”[266]
Such customs show us plainly why, in so many countries, symbolic
practices recalling violent capture are kept up in the ceremony of
marriage. In the first place, by reason even of the dangers to which
it exposed the ravisher, rape was considered a brilliant action, and
pleasure was felt in simulating it. But besides and beyond all, the
ceremonial of capture symbolised also the subjection of the woman
sold or ceded by her parents; it sanctioned the very excessive rights
that the husband acquired over the wife. As a rule, the ceremonial of
capture coincides with a very great subjection of the woman, even where
it is only a very distant survival. At Sparta, for example, the wife
might still be lent by the husband, and it was the same in ancient
Rome, where she was, according to the legal expression, _in manu_,
assimilated to slaves, and where the _pater familias_ had the right of
life and death over her.
We are, therefore, warranted in believing that in civilised countries
where conjugal legislation is still derived from the Roman law, the
subordinate position assigned to woman is the last vestige of primitive
marriage by capture or by rape, attenuated to a purchase, as practised
in the earliest times of the Romans.
FOOTNOTES:
[213] _Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians_, p. 65.
[214] Dumont d’Urville, _Hist. Univ. des Voy._, vol. xviii. p.
225.--Oldfield, _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, vol. iii. p. 250.
[215] _Chambers’s Journal_, p. 22 (October 1861).
[216] Collins, _English Colony in New South Wales_, p. 362.
[217] G. Grey, _Travels in North-Western Australia_, vol. ii. p. 249.
[218] _Chambers’s Journal_, 1864.
[219] _Notices on the Indian Archipelago_, p. 90.
[220] Williams, _Fiji and the Fijians_, vol. i. p. 174.
[221] McLennan, _Primitive Marriage_, p. 321.
[222] Campbell, _Hist. Univ. des Voy._, vol. xxix. p. 343.
[223] Laing, _Hist. Univ. des Voy._, vol. xxviii. p. 31.
[224] Fitzroy, _Voy. Beagle_, vol. ii. p. 182.
[225] Fitzroy, _loc. cit._, vol. ii. p. 205.
[226] McLennan, _loc. cit._, p. 48.
[227] McLennan, _Primitive Marriage_, p. 71.--Lewis and Clarke,
_Travels to the Source of the Missouri River_, vol. i. p. 231.
[228] _Hist. Univ. des Voy._, vol. xxvii. p. 130.
[229] _Code of Manu_, book iii. p. 33.
[230] Numbers, ch. xxxi. ver. 7-9.
[231] _Ibid._ ver. 15-18.
[232] _Ibid._ ver. 40-47.
[233] R. Smith, _Kinship_, etc.
[234] T. Hayes, _The Open Sea at the Pole_, pp. 448, 449.
[235] Egede, _History of Greenland_, p. 143.
[236] Carver, _Travels_, p. 374.
[237] Lafitau, _Mœurs des Sauvages Américains_, t. I^{er.} p. 576.
[238] Bancroft, _Native Races_, etc., vol. ii. p. 668.
[239] Kotzebue (_Deuxième Voyage_), _Hist. Univ. des Voy._, t. xvii. p.
392.
[240] Beniouski, _Hist Univ. des Voy._, t. xxxi. p. 408.
[241] H. de Hell, _Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea_, p. 289.
[242] Clarke, _Travels_, etc., vol. i. p. 433.
[243] Erman, _Travels in Siberia_, vol. ii. p. 372.
[244] Fraser’s _Journey_, vol. ii. pp. 372-375.
[245] A. Vambéry, _Voy. d’un faux Derviche_, p. 295.
[246] Dalton, _Ethn. Bengal_, p. 319.
[247] _Id._, _ibid._ p. 86.
[248] Buchanan, _Journey from Madras_, vol. ii. p. 178.
[249] Earle, _Residence in New Zealand_, p. 244.
[250] Yate, _New Zealand_, p. 96.
[251] Moerenhout, _Voy. aux îles du Grand Océan_, t. ii. p. 68.
[252] Burckhardt, _Notes_, vol. i. p. 263.
[253] Burckhardt, _Notes_, vol. i. p. 107.
[254] Démeunier, _Esprit des Différents Peuples_, t. I^{er.} p. 296.
[255] Plutarch, _Life of Lycurgus_.
[256] Apuleius, _Golden Ass_, iv.
[257] Plutarch, _Romulus_.--Ovid, _Fastes_, ii.
[258] Lucan, ii.--Virgil, _Æneid_, iv.
[259] Louis Moser, _The Caucasus and its People_, p. 31.
[260] Wake, _Evolution of Morality_, vol. i. p. 401.
[261] Lord Kames, _Sketches of the Hist. of Man_, book i., sec. 6.
[262] _Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus_ (1555), lib. xiv. cap. 2.
[263] La Villemarqué, _Barzas Breis_.
[264] _Voyage de l’Astrolabe._
[265] Moerenhout, _Voy. aux îles_, t. ii. p. 62.
[266] Démeunier, t. I^{er.} p. 191.