Читать книгу A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3) - George Elliott Howard - Страница 21

Table of Contents

According to McLennan, as we have already seen, capture as a means of getting wives is a universal practice among primitive men. It is due to polyandry occasioned by a scarcity of women; it leads to exogamy; and it is generally superseded by contract in the form of wife-purchase.[473] The evidence of the former universality of the custom is derived from two sources: first, the existence of actual wife-capture among many peoples in all parts of the world; second, the symbol of rape in the marriage ceremony or in the preliminary act of taking the woman. The symbol, it is held, can be accounted for only as a survival of real capture. Other writers agree with McLennan in regarding the evidence as conclusive. Such, in effect, is the view of Dargun, though he admits that it cannot with absolute certainty be assumed that capture was ever the only form of marriage recognized.[474] Post, on the other hand, declares that the universality of wife-stealing is beyond question; and he holds that it is a natural incident of the genealogical organization of society. It is connected in the closest manner with the exogamous system peculiar to that organization, appearing as one of the means by which marriage can be brought about between members of different gentile groups. It was, in short, the legal means of procuring a wife.[475]

Nevertheless, a careful study of the facts makes it almost certain that the significance of wife-stealing as a sociological element has been greatly exaggerated, and its true relation to marriage strangely misunderstood.[476] It is perfectly natural that savage or barbarous races should seize women as a part of the ordinary spoils of war. Everything portable becomes the prey of the victor. "The taking of women," to repeat the forcible words of Spencer, "is manifestly but a part of this process of spoiling the vanquished." They are "prized as wives, as concubines, as drudges."[477]

Accordingly, it is not difficult to collect examples of the actual capture of women to serve as slaves, mistresses, or wives at the pleasure of the captor. Among the aboriginal American tribes, we are told, the practice is originally found in its "greatest perfection."[478] From Cape Horn to Hudson's Bay women are regarded as legitimate booty. The Horse Indians of Patagonia fight with each other, tribe against tribe, the issues of victory in every case being the "capture of women and the slaughter of men." The Patagonian Oens, or Coin-men, make systematic excursions every year at the time of the "red-leaf" to "plunder Fuegians of their women, dogs, and arms."[479] It is even reported of the Caribs that they depend so much upon the securing of foreign wives in war that nowhere do the women speak the same language as the men,[480] and a similar statement is made concerning the Brazilian Guaycurûs[481] and some other peoples.[482] But in North America the capturing of women for wives has nearly disappeared.

The practice of capturing or forcibly abducting women, though rare, exists among the Hottentots and elsewhere in Africa.[483] It prevails throughout all Melanesia, where abduction is described as the "primitive means of procuring wives or rather slaves, absolutely at the pleasure of the ravisher."[484] It has existed in Tasmania, New Zealand, Samoa, New Guinea, among the Fiji Islanders, throughout the Indian Archipelago, and to a very limited extent in Australia.[485] For the Finnish-Ugrian and Turco-Tartaric peoples proofs of the present or former existence of the practice have been collected.[486]

There are abundant evidences of woman-capture de facto among peoples of the Aryan stock. It existed among the ancient Germans;[487] and according to Olaus Magnus, the Scandinavian nations were continuously at war with one another "propter raptas virgines aut arripiendas."[488] The same writer says that it "prevailed in Muscovy, Lithuania, and Livonia;" while among the South Slavonians actual capture "was in full force no longer ago than the beginning of the present century."[489] Such was the case in Servia, where it was the custom either to lie in wait for a girl of a neighboring village to bear her away as she went out for water or to tend the flocks; or else an armed assault was made upon her home. Murders were thus often committed; for the attacking party were resolved to suffer themselves to be killed rather than give up the girl, and all the inhabitants of the girl's village took part in the fray.[490] According to Dargun, the Slavs are as conspicuous among the Aryans for wife-capture and its survivals as are the Aryans, for the same reason, among the great divisions of mankind.[491] It is not at all unlikely that the custom of wife-stealing existed among the early Romans, even if the story of the Sabine rape be dismissed as merely an ætological myth to explain the symbol of capture in the marriage ceremony.[492] Without doubt it was also common among the primitive Greeks; and "even now, according to Sakellarios, capture of wives occasionally occurs in Greece."[493] It is found "among the aborigines of the Deccan, and in Afghanistan;"[494] while it was known to the ancient Hindus. The code of Manu mentions capture as one of the eight legal forms of marriage. "The forcible abduction from home of a maiden crying out and weeping, after slaying and wounding her relatives and breaking in, is called the Rāksasa form;" but this is only for the military class.[495]

The capture of women for wives is very prominent with savage or barbarous peoples of the Semitic race. "At the time of Mohammed," says Robertson Smith, "the practice was universal" among the Arabs. "The immunity of women in time of war which prevails in Arabia now is a modern thing; in old warfare the procuring of captives both male and female was a main object of every expedition, and the Dîwân of the Hodhail poets shews us that there was a regular slave trade in Mecca, supplied by the wars that went on among the surrounding tribes.... Very commonly these captives at once became the wives or mistresses of their captors—a practice which Mohammed expressly recognized, though he sought to modify some of its more offensive features. Such a connection does not appear to have been, properly speaking, concubinage." The sons of a captive woman suffered no legal disability. "According to Arab tradition the best and stoutest sons are born of reluctant wives. And so Hâtim, the Taite, says:

'They did not give us Taites their daughters in marriage:

but we wooed them against their will with our swords.

'And with us captivity brought no abasement to them: and

they neither toiled in making bread nor boiled the pot.

'But we commingled them with our noblest women: and they

bare us fair sons white of face [i. e., of pure descent].

'How often shalt thou see among us the son of a captive

bride: who staunchly thrusts through heroes when he

meets them in the fight!'"[496]

But nothing can exceed the brutal ferocity with which sometimes the people of Israel supplied themselves with women. The Hebrew Bible contains various striking illustrations of the practice. Contrary to law, which forbade intermarriage with the gentiles, members of the military class were allowed to marry foreign women taken in war.[497] On one occasion the tribe of Benjamin, or rather the remnant of it which had escaped the sword of Israel, stood in sore need of wives; but their brethren had sworn not to give them their daughters in marriage, nor could they legally marry gentile women. "The difficulty of procuring wives for Benjamin—which Israel made its own difficulty—was solved by the wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants of Jabez-Gilead, whose population yielded 400 virgins; and next by the men of Benjamin enacting a rape of the Sabines for themselves, each man seizing and carrying off one of the daughters of Shiloh to be his wife, on an occasion when the women met for a festival in certain vineyards near Bethel."[498] In this case the spoils of treachery and war were Jewish women. At another time the alien Midianites were conquered; and at the command of Moses the women and even the male infants which the soldiers had spared were deliberately slaughtered. The virgins alone, thirty-two thousand in number, were kept alive; and these were divided among the people precisely as was the other booty, even the priests, apparently, receiving a share.[499]

It would be a very easy matter to produce further examples of a custom which appears as a simple incident of war and rapine at certain stages of human progress. Everywhere among rude men we find lust and physical force triumphing over the weakness of woman. In the successful foray or in the sack of a town she is treated merely as a part of the prey, becoming the slave, the concubine, or even the wife of the spoiler. "But in these brutal practices," it is patent, "there is nothing which bears even a distant resemblance to marriage."[500] It is highly necessary, as Letourneau rightly insists, to distinguish sharply between rape and the marriage institution. So-called marriage by capture, he declares, is not a form of marriage at all; "it is merely a manner of procuring one or several wives, whatever the matrimonal system in use."[501] As a matter of fact, actual wife-capture usually, perhaps always, coexists with regular forms of marriage. Thus, as we shall presently see, it frequently makes its appearance side by side with wife-purchase; and sometimes the transition from capture to purchase, as a means of procuring wives, may be clearly perceived.

Accordingly Letourneau is of the opinion that the name "marriage by capture" should be reserved for legal and pacific marriages in whose ceremony the symbol of rape appears.[502] But even this is too broad a use of the term, which at most can strictly be applied only to the comparatively small number of cases in which the form of capture is an essential part of the legal ceremony. For the symbol occurs in every shape and in every grade of significance, from the brutal combat of the Australian savage to the harmless prank of casting the old shoe with which among ourselves the wedding festivities are enlivened. It exists in connection with every phase of development, from the rudest savagery to the most advanced type of Aryan culture; and it is found among the same people, sometimes in various forms, side by side with actual capture or associated with the most refined conception of the marriage relation.[503]

A very few illustrations of these curious practices, selected from the mass of material available, must here suffice.[504] Sometimes there is a pretended abduction of the bride by the bridegroom. Among the Eskimo of Cape York, for instance, the marriage is arranged amicably by the parents in the infancy of the parties. Nevertheless the wedding ceremony simulates an abduction. The bride "is obliged by the inexorable law of custom to free herself, if possible, by kicking and screaming with might and main, until she is safely landed in the hut of her future lord, when she gives up the combat very cheerfully, and takes possession of her new abode."[505] In the Ungava District the "sanction of the parents is sometimes obtained by favor or else bought by making certain presents of skins, furs, and other valuables." If no parents are living, the brothers and sisters must be favorable to the union. "When all obstacles are removed and only the girl refuses, it is not long before she disappears mysteriously, to remain out for two or three nights with her best female friend, who thoroughly sympathizes with her. They return, and before long she is abducted by her lover, and they remain away until she proves to be thoroughly subjected to his will."[506] In Greenland a similar practice is found.[507] It appears in some Siouan tribes.[508] Among the Canadian Indians, after a kind of civil marriage is solemnized before the tribal chief, "the groom turns around, makes an obeisance, takes his wife upon his back, and carries her to his tent amid the acclamations of the spectators."[509] Sometimes the affair takes on a more earnest character. Among the Bedouins of Sinai the bridegroom seizes the woman whom he has legally purchased, drags her into her father's tent, lifts her violently struggling upon his camel, holds her fast while he bears her away, and finally pulls her forcibly into his house, though her powerful resistance may be the occasion of serious wounds.[510] Especially interesting is the form which symbolical abduction assumes among the Kamtchadales. There the wooer, like Jacob of old, is expected to earn his wife by serving her parents. He takes upon himself a good part of the domestic labor, and the term of service sometimes lasts for a number of years. "This is surely a singular prelude to a forcible marriage by capture; nevertheless, when the period of novitiate has expired, the future spouse must violently and publicly triumph over the resistance of his betrothed. She is cuirassed with garments, thick and superimposed, with straps and with strings. Moreover, she is guarded and defended by the women of her yourt. The marriage is not definitely concluded until the bridegroom, surmounting all these obstacles, succeeds in perpetrating upon his intended, so well protected, a sort of outrage upon her modesty, which she ought to confess by crying out ni ni in a plaintive voice. But the women and the maidens of the guard fall upon the assailant with loud cries and heavy blows, pulling his hair, scratching his face, and sometimes throwing him over. Victory often requires repeated assaults, sometimes days of combat. Only when at last it is won and the bride yields herself is the marriage concluded. The night is then passed in the yourt of the wife, who is conducted to the husband's house only on the following day."[511] The sham contest takes a somewhat different form, according to Bancroft, among the Mosquito Indians of Central America. "At noon the villagers proceed to the home of the bridegroom," whom they accompany to the "house of the bride where the young man seats himself before the closed entrance on a bundle of presents intended for the bride. The father raps at the door which is partly opened by an old woman who asks his business, but the reply does not seem satisfactory, for the door is slammed in his face." With great difficulty, and only after entreaties, music, and presents have been tried, is the door opened, "revealing the bride arrayed in her prettiest, seated on a crickery, in the remotest corner. While all are absorbed in examining the presents, the bridegroom dashes in, shoulders the girl like a sack, and trots off for the mystic circle," within which a hut has already been erected. This hut he reaches, urged on by the frantic cries of the women, before the crowd can rescue her. "The females, who cannot pass the ring, stand outside giving vent to their despairing shrieks, while the men squat within the circle in rows, facing outward.... After dark the crowd proceeds with lighted torches to the hut, which is torn down, disclosing the married pair sitting demurely side by side. The husband shoulders his new baggage and is escorted to his home."[512] On the other hand, instead of abduction, the simulated flight of the woman is of frequent occurrence. Sometimes she seeks refuge in the house of a relative, or conceals herself in the woods, whence she can only be brought back with more or less violence.[513] Thus in southern California, according to Bancroft, "where an Oleepa lover wishes to marry, he first obtains permission from the parents. The damsel then flies and conceals herself; the lover searches for her, and should he succeed in finding her twice out of three times she belongs to him. Should he be unsuccessful he waits a few weeks, and then repeats the performance. If she again elude his search, the matter is decided against him."[514] By the Siouan peoples elopement is "considered undignified, and different terms are applied to a marriage by elopement and one by parental consent."[515] Nevertheless, as among the Omahas, the custom is sanctioned. Sometimes, according to Dawson, "a man elopes with a woman. Her kindred have no cause for anger" if he takes her as his wife. "Should a man get angry because his single daughter, sister, or niece had eloped, the other Omahas would talk about him, saying, 'that man is angry on account of the elopement of his daughter!' They would ridicule him for his behavior. La Flèche knew of but one case, and that a recent one, in which a man showed anger on such an occasion. But if the woman had been taken from her husband by another man, her kindred had a right to be angry. Whether the woman belongs to the same tribe or to another the man can elope with her if she consents. The Omahas cannot understand how marriage by capture could take place, as the woman would be sure to alarm her people by her cries."[516]

Among the Kalmucks both abduction and pretended flight are found. According to De Hell, among the noble or princely class, after the bridegroom has arranged with the father for the price of the girl, he "sets out on horseback, accompanied by the chief nobles of the horde to which he belongs, to carry her off." A "sham resistance is always made by the people of her camp, in spite of which she fails not to be borne away on a richly caparisoned horse, with loud shouts and feux de joie."[517] A different custom is described by Dr. Clarke. After stipulation of the price the "ceremony of marriage among the Kalmucks is performed on horseback. A girl is first mounted, who rides off in full speed. Her lover pursues: if he overtakes her, she becomes his wife, and the marriage is consummated on the spot." But the race sometimes has a different ending. "We were assured," continues Clarke, "that no instance occurs of a Kalmuck girl being thus caught, unless she have a partiality to the pursuer. If she dislikes him she rides, to use the language of English sportsmen, 'neck or nought,' until she has completely effected her escape, or until her pursuer's horse becomes exhausted, leaving her at liberty to return, and to be afterwards chased by some more favored admirer."[518]

Not less interesting than the forms of flight and abduction is the custom of elopement, implying the connivance or consent of the woman. In Tasmania[519] and in Australia, especially among the Kurnai, etiquette requires that the lover should run away with his betrothed. Contrary to the common opinion, capture of women seldom occurs in Australia, and then only as the result of war between hostile tribes.[520] "The young Kurnai," however, "could acquire a wife in one way only. He must run away with her. Native marriages might be brought about in various ways. If the young man was so fortunate as to have an unmarried sister, and to have a friend who also had an unmarried sister, they might arrange with the girls to run off together; or he might make his arrangements with some eligible girl whom he fancied and who fancied him; or a girl, if she fancied a young man, might send him a secret message asking, 'Will you find me some food?' And this was understood to be a proposal. But in every such case it was essential to success that the parents of the bride should be utterly ignorant of what was about to take place. It was no use his asking for a wife excepting under most exceptional circumstances, for he could only acquire one in the usual manner, and that was by running off with her."[521] According to Mr. Howitt, marriage by elopement exists among many other Australian tribes. It seems to be the favorite method when the parents of the girl are opposed to the match. In that case, the girl is sometimes severely punished; or the man is supposed to retain her only as the result of a successful combat with her friends, which may prove to be something more than a sham combat.[522]

The examples thus far presented have all been selected from the matrimonial customs of non-Aryan peoples; but the symbol of capture, in a great variety of forms and combinations, may also be found in every subdivision of the Aryan race. It appears in the marriage ceremonies of Sparta, Crete, and among other Hellenes.[523] The nuptial celebration of the Romans was characterized throughout by the show of force. For this reason they hesitated to hold weddings on religious days, lest these should be desecrated by the seeming violence done to the bride.[524] With the rising of the evening star took place the domum deductio, or carrying home, of the woman.[525] The girl fled to the lap of her mother, whence she was dragged forcibly away by the bridegroom and his friends who rushed noisily in.[526] On the way she held back, weeping and struggling, while her attendants sang hymeneal songs, not always the most refined in character. Thus in his nuptial hymn Catullus has the choir of maidens exclaim:

"Say, Hesper, say, what fire of all that shine

In Heaven's great vault more cruel is than thine?

Who from the mother's arms her child can tear—

The child that clasps her mother in despair;

And to the youth, whose blood is all aflame,

Consigns the virgin sinking in her shame!

When towns are sacked, what cruelty more drear."[527]

At the door the bride makes a last effort to resist; but she is lifted forcibly over the threshold, and even in the house she is held fast by the arms, until at last she is fully initiated into the sacred rites of the bridegroom's house.[528] It is noteworthy that the custom of dragging the bride into the husband's house, or of lifting her over the threshold, exists even now in many places. It appears in Africa; among the Ests, Kalmucks, and Bedouins; the Indians of southern California, and elsewhere in North America.[529] In "China, when the bridal procession reaches the bridegroom's house, the bride is carried into the house by a matron, and lifted over a pan of charcoal at the door."[530]

The symbol of capture is especially prominent in Celtic song and custom. As in the German epics, it was not thought unseemly for the daughter to marry the hero who had slain her father.[531] "According to tradition the Picts robbed the Gaels of their women, so that the latter were compelled to intermarry with aboriginal inhabitants of the land."[532] Near the beginning of last century the following marriage ceremony was customary in Wales: "On the morning of the wedding day the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends on horseback, demands the bride. Her friends, who are likewise on horseback, give a positive refusal, upon which a mock scuffle ensues. The bride, mounted behind her nearest kinsman, is carried off and is pursued by the bridegroom and his friends, with loud shouts. It is not uncommon on such an occasion to see two or three hundred sturdy Cambro-Britons riding at full speed, crossing and jostling, to the no small amusement of the spectators. When they have fatigued themselves and their horses, the bridegroom is supposed to overtake his bride. He leads her away in triumph, and the scene is concluded with feasting and festivity."[533] Still more real is the sham contest in Ireland. As late as the middle of last century, in mountain districts, the bridegroom "was compelled in honor, to run off with his betrothed, even when there was not the least need of it."[534] On the day of home-bringing, after the purchase-contract had been concluded, "the bridegroom and his friends rode out to meet the bride and her friends, at the place where the contract was made. Being come near each other the custom was of old to cast short darts at the company that attended the bride, but at such distance that seldom any hurt ensued. Yet it is not out of memory of man that the Lord of Hoath on such an occasion lost an eye."[535]

A custom, almost identical with that last mentioned, prevails in the Punjab;[536] and in many parts of India the sham contest and the pretended abduction appear.[537] But nowhere are the symbols of capture found in such wonderful variety and profusion as in Germany and Slavonic lands. The mass of illustration presented by Dargun is almost bewildering for its richness.[538] Every form and type of ceremonial capture is there represented. Elopement, the sham combat, abduction by an armed band, is the regular order of the wedding day in every country of the Slavonic race. In Germany, besides these practices, reminiscences of capture are found in a great variety of pranks and fantastic sports. The bride is concealed from her lover before the wedding; or, after it takes place, she is stolen and concealed by the young people of the village. The bridegroom is hindered from entering the home of his intended on the wedding day; or he finds his way barred to or from the church, and is permitted to proceed only after paying a fine or treating the crowd.[539] Sometimes, as in Sweden, the bride is stolen by her lover and hidden away.[540] In upper Bavaria, on the day of the wedding, she clothes herself in mourning, black or violet;[541] and the practice of covering or veiling her head is as familiar in Germany as it was in ancient Rome.[542] "To veil the woman," quên liugan, is the Gothic name for marriage; in Lorraine it is called Brautjagd, or "bride-hunt;" while Brautlauf, or "bride-race," for the entire nuptial celebration is a common designation in German lands.[543] The original meaning of Brautlauf is probably revealed in the existing custom of chasing the bride. Thus, in Altmark, after the wedding feast, followed by a dance, a runaway match takes place between the newly married pair. "Two lusty young fellows take the girl between them, the bridegroom gives her a 'start,' and the race begins. If the lover does not succeed in overtaking her, he must look out for the gibes of the crowd."[544]

As illustration of social custom and mental attitude the extraordinary prevalence of the so-called symbol of capture is undoubtedly a fact of unusual interest; and it constitutes an important chapter in the history of marriage. But it does not follow, as a matter of course, that the symbol must necessarily be regarded as a survival of actual capture. It is scarcely credible that its origin can be traced to a single source. On the contrary, it is far more likely that in different places, or even in the same place, it takes its rise in a variety of causes, though these may be less simple in character. Thus, in spite of the protest of McLennan,[545] who asserts that "no case can be cited of a primitive people among whom the seizing of brides is rendered necessary by maidenly coyness," it is highly probable that the real or assumed modesty of the woman has exerted a strong influence, here and there, in producing the form of capture.[546] Sometimes the simpler explanation of Starcke may suffice. Ceremonial capture, he declares, merely represents the "sorrow of the bride on leaving her former home; her close dependance on her family is expressed by her lamentation."[547] Again the symbol may appear as the sign of the subjection or subordination of the wife; for many of the so-called minor survivals seem to have this end in view. In a society where woman, on occasion, is seized in the bloody foray; where, often, she is bought like a beast of burden; and where, generally, she is exposed to the cruelty and brutality of her master, it is not surprising that the token of the wife's humility should find its way into the ceremony of marriage.[548] Furthermore the suggestion of Letourneau is worthy of special consideration. The symbol of rape, he holds, is first of all a "mental survival;" a "tradition" of an epoch more or less remote when violence was held in high esteem and when it was glorious to procure slaves by force of arms. The period of rapine may have passed away, but its spirit lingers. Men love to figure in the ceremonial of marriage the abductions of old, which they cannot or dare not any longer commit.[549]

"Connubial and formal capture," according to Crawley, "are very widely spread, but are never survivals of real capture." "In fact, formal capture, far from being itself a survival, either of connubial or of actual hostile capture, is the ceremonial mode of which connubial capture is the non-ceremonial; each is a living reality, the one being material and the other ideal."[550]

Nevertheless, after all is said, it seems hard to believe that ceremonial capture does not sometimes have a more real significance. Often it may symbolize the coyness or mark the subjection of woman. More frequently it may stand as a mere general reminiscence of the good old times of force and lawlessness. Still it would be strange, indeed, if it did not also appear as a direct survival of actual wife-capture.[551] Granting this, however, the significance of capture de facto remains the same. We perceive more clearly that it has very widely prevailed; yet it must still be regarded as a mere incident of war and pillage. It has nothing whatever to do with the institution of marriage. It could never on any wide scale have been the normal manner of procuring wives. To assume that wife-stealing has been a universal phase in the evolution of marriage is not one whit more reasonable than to hold that robbery has been a normal stage in the evolution of property.[552] In spite of Hobbes or McLennan, it remains to be proved that a state of chronic hostility was ever a general phase in the history of mankind. Such a state is inconsistent with the prevalence of the blood-feud.[553] Even the rule of exogamy among primitive peoples does not harmonize with general wife capture. For the coexistence of clan-exogamy and tribal endogamy means, under normal conditions, a tendency toward peace within the tribe.[554] There is strong reason to believe that in every period of social development consent and contract, in some form, have been the cardinal elements of marriage. Captured or stolen women have usually become slaves or concubines; and, except in rare instances, the relatively small number of them made wives must always have been insignificant as compared with the number of wives obtained in other ways. Thus the solution of the problem of so-called marriage by capture appears to be similar to that of polygyny. The practice of taking several wives is exceedingly common; but on close examination we discover that polygyny is relatively unimportant, and that it has never been able to displace monogamy as the normal type. So it is with the practice of capturing women for wives. However prevalent the custom, it does not seem ever to have greatly influenced the natural laws or modified the fundamental motives upon which marriage and the family rest. But the value of the evidence upon which this conclusion is based can be thoroughly appreciated only after we have traced the origin of contract in marriage. Let us begin with wife-purchase, especially in its relation to the custom of capturing women.