II. Widowhood in Barbarous Countries.—Widowhood in Bhootan—Polyandric widowhood—Widowhood in China—Traffic in the widow—Glorification of widowhood—Suicides of widows—Widowhood in India—Duties of widows—Suttees—Widowhood in Islamite countries—Position given to the widow in the Koran—Position given to the widow in the Bible—Widowhood in Kabylia—The sleeping fœtus—Widowhood in ancient Rome—Opinion of the Christian Church on second marriages—Widowhood in barbarous Europe and in the Middle Ages.
III. The Levirate.—The levirate in Melanesia, among the Redskins, the Ostiaks, the Kirghis, the Afghans, in the Code of Manu, among the Hebrews.
IV. Summary.
I. Widowhood in Savage Countries.
We have very little knowledge as to the condition of widows in the lowest human societies. It is one of those questions of social organisation hardly noticed by the travellers to whom we look especially for information.
To begin with, we may affirm that widowhood, regarded as a special condition recognised by customs and laws, does not exist in very anarchic societies. Voltaire has somewhere said that the origin of divorce was doubtless posterior by some days to that of marriage. With much stronger reason may we infer that the existence of some kind of marriage is necessary before there can be any widowhood. Widowhood, therefore, does not exist in societies where promiscuity or temporary marriage prevails. No widowhood is possible, for example, in the tribe of the Australian Kamilaroi, where all the women of a class are common to all the men of the same class. It became otherwise from the time that, either by capture, purchase, or any other means, woman became the particular property of one man. Thenceforth it was necessary to regulate in some way the condition of the widow or widows. Generally the solution of the problem has been very simple: the widow, who has been habitually captured or bought by the deceased, does not cease after his death to be regarded as a thing or property; she is part of the inheritance, by the same title as chattels or domestic animals. Sometimes, however, special obligations or troubles are imposed on her; Kolben tells us that in passing to a fresh husband, the Hottentot widow must cut off a joint of the little finger; but to cut off a finger-joint was a common custom with the Hottentots on the death of a relative, and the women did it, or were forced to do it, more often than the men. There is nothing in this particular to the condition of the widow.[811] At the Gaboon a man’s wives belonged to his heir, and if the deceased was of importance in the tribe, they must resign themselves to a period of mourning and of widowhood, which lasts a year or two. The end of this mourning is marked by a great festival or orgy, which Du Chaillu has thus described—“The wives of the deceased (he had seven) were radiant ... they were going to quit their widow’s clothes and join the festival like brides. The heir had the right to marry them all, but to show his generosity, he had ceded two to a younger brother and one to a cousin.” They drank bumper after bumper (palm wine), and then began to dance. “The wives danced. But what dances! The most modest step was indecent.”[812]
In equatorial Africa, the son inherits the widows of his father: it is thus in Yarriba.[813] Sometimes they are sold simply, if they have had no children by the deceased husband.[814] In Kouranko, widows have a milder fate. They are numerous; for, as young girls, they have generally been sold by their parents to old husbands; but according to Laing, the custom of the country renders them free, and makes them their own mistresses as soon as they are widows, and they profit by this immediately to choose themselves a young husband, and lavish cares and attentions on him; it is then their turn.[815] Nevertheless, the custom of classing widows with the heritage seems very general in negro Africa. It exists with the Bambarras of Kaarta, where, at the death of a prince, his successor puts the wives of the deceased monarch up to auction. Even if old and horrible, they sell easily and dear, for men like the honour of succeeding to a king.[816] We shall find the same usage again in Madagascar, at least in the noble families of the Hovas. On ascending the throne, Radama simply kept all his father’s wives. So obligatory is this on the reigning sovereign, that at the death of the same Radama, his widow Ranavalo was bound to keep, by the title of wives, all her husband’s widows. Then, in a great council held after her elevation to the throne, it was decided that the Queen Ranavalo could not marry again, but would be free to take lovers at her will, and that all the children born of these fugitive unions should be considered as the legitimate posterity of Radama.[817] By this ingenious measure all was conciliated—respect to custom, the liberty of the queen, and the regular succession to the throne.
We shall find again in very different countries this savage custom of considering widows as a simple property, transmissible by inheritance. Sometimes the heir succeeds simply to the deceased husband; sometimes he accepts and exacts an indemnity, in case the widow re-marries. Such was already the custom with the Smoos of Central America. There the widows belonged by right to the relatives of the deceased husband; and in order to contract afresh, they had to pay to these relatives what was called “widow money.”[818] Inversely, with the Kliketats, if a woman happened to die very soon after her marriage, the husband who had bought her could claim her price back from the parents;[819] he had been deceived in the quality of the merchandise.
This was not all; as long as the mourning lasted, the widow was always considered, in certain districts, as having duties to fulfil towards her dead husband, or rather towards his shade. Thus, with the Sambos of Central America, she had to furnish a sufficient quantity of food during a year to the tomb of the deceased;[820] and it was the same in Mexico.[821]
In many of the Redskin tribes second marriages are not tolerated by custom till after a very long delay, exacted for reasons that have nothing savage in them; it is simply that the children of the first marriage may be grown out of their early infancy, and the custom is obligatory for the man as well as for the woman. The Selish widow only marries after two years;[822] but the delay is sometimes from two to three years for the widower as well as for the widow.[823] With the Nez-Percés of Columbia, the widower can marry again at the end of one year.[824] With the Omahas the delay was much longer, from four to seven years for the man and the woman. This rule was very strict, and in case of its infraction, the parents of the dead husband had the right to strike and wound, but without killing, the widow who might be too hasty in marrying again. In a parallel case, they confined themselves to taking a pony from the man;[825] this was because a man could defend himself. On the contrary, if the widower waited much beyond the legal time before marrying again, the parents or relatives of the dead wife thought themselves obliged to intervene. “This man,” said they, “has no one to sew his mocassins; let us seek a wife for him.” When they did so, the widower was bound to accept their offer.[826]