Purchase, as Dr. Schrader remarks, cannot with equal certainty be established as the oldest form of marriage on Roman soil.[2380] But the symbolical process of coemptio—the form of marriage among the plebeians—preserved a reminiscence of the original custom in force if not at Rome, at least among the ancestors of the Romans.[2381] In Ireland and Wales, in ancient times, the bride-price consisted usually of articles of gold, silver, and bronze, sometimes even of land.[2382] The Slavs, also, used to buy their wives;[2383] and, among the South Slavonians, the custom of purchasing the bride still partially prevails, or recently did so. In Servia, at the beginning of the present century, the price of girls reached such a height that Black George limited it to one ducat.[2384]
In spite of this general prevalence of marriage by purchase, we have no evidence that it is a stage through which every race has passed. It must be observed, first, that in sundry tribes the presents given by the bridegroom are intended not exactly to compensate the parents for the bride, but rather to dispose them favourably to the match. Colonel Dalton says, for example, that, among the Pádams, one of the lowest peoples of India, it is customary for a lover to show his inclinations whilst courting by presenting his sweetheart and her parents with small delicacies, such as field mice and squirrels, though the parents seldom interfere with the young couple’s designs, and it would be regarded as an indelible disgrace to barter a child’s happiness for money.[2385] The Ainos of Yesso, says Mr. Bickmore, “do not buy their wives, but make presents to the parents of saki, tobacco, and fish;”[2386] and the amount of these gifts is never settled beforehand.[2387] The game and fruits given by the bridegroom immediately before marriage, among the Puris, Coroados, and Coropos, seem to v. Martius to be rather a proof of his ability to keep a wife than a means of exchange; whereas the more civilized tribes of the Brazilian aborigines carry on an actual trade in women.[2388]
Speaking of the Yukonikhotana, a tribe of Alaska, Petroff states that the custom of purchasing wives does not exist among them.[2389] The Californian Wintun, who rank among the lower types of the race, generally pay nothing for their brides.[2390] The Niam-Niam and some other African peoples,[2391] most of the Chittagong Hill tribes,[2392] the aboriginal inhabitants of Kola and Kobroor, of the Aru Archipelago, who live in trees or caves,[2393] and apparently also the Andamanese are in the habit of marrying without making any payment for the bride. Among the Veddahs, according to M. Le Mesurier, no marriage presents are given on either side,[2394] but Mr. Hartshorne states that “a marriage is attended with no ceremony beyond the presentation of some food to the parents of the bride.”[2395]
In Ponapé, says Dr. Finsch, marriage is not based on purchase;[2396] but this is contrary to the general custom in the Carolines,[2397] as also in the adjacent Pelew Islands,[2398] where women are bought as wives by means of presents to the father. In the Kingsmill Group, according to Wilkes, “a wife is never bought, but it is generally supposed that each party will contribute something towards the household stock.”[2399] With regard to the Hawaiians, Ellis remarks, “We are not aware that the parents of the woman received anything from the husband, or gave any dowry with the wife.”[2400] And Mr. Angas even asserts that the practice of purchasing wives is not generally adopted in Polynesia.[2401] But the statement is doubtful, as, at least in Samoa,[2402] Tahiti,[2403] and Nukahiva,[2404] the bridegroom gains the bride by presents to her father. And in Melanesia marriage by purchase is certainly universal.[2405] Among the South Australian Kurnai, according to Mr. Howitt, marriages were brought about “most frequently by elopement, less frequently by capture, and least frequently by exchange or by gift.”[2406]
Purchase of wives may, with even more reason than marriage by capture, be said to form a general stage in the social history of man. Although the two practices often occur simultaneously, the former has, as a rule, succeeded the latter, as barter in general has followed upon robbery. The more recent character of marriage by purchase appears clearly from the fact that marriage by capture very frequently occurs as a symbol where marriage by purchase occurs as a reality. Moreover, there can be little doubt that barter and commerce are comparatively late inventions of man.
Dr. Peschel, indeed, contends that barter existed in those ages in which we find the earliest signs of our race. But we have no evidence that it was in this way that the cave-dwellers of Périgord, of the reindeer period, obtained the rock crystals, the Atlantic shells, and the horns of the Polish Saiga antelope, which have been found in their settlements; and we may not in any case, conclude that “commerce has existed in all ages, and among all inhabitants of the world.”[2407] There are even in modern times instances of savage peoples who seem to have a very vague idea of barter, or perhaps none at all. Concerning certain Solomon Islanders, Labillardière states, “We could not learn whether these people are in the habit of making exchanges; but it is very certain that it was impossible for us to obtain anything from them in this way; ... yet they were very eager to receive everything that we gave them.”[2408] For some time after Captain Weddell began to associate with the Fuegians, they gave him any small article he expressed a wish for, without asking any return; but afterwards they “acquired an idea of barter.”[2409] Nor did the Australians whom Cook saw, and the Patagonians visited by Captain Wallis in 1766, understand traffic, though they now understand it.[2410] Again, with regard to the Andamanese Mr. Man remarks, “They set no fixed value on their various properties, and rarely make or procure anything with the express object of disposing of it in barter. Apparently they prefer to regard their transactions as presentations, for their mode of negotiating is to give such objects as are desired by another in the hope of receiving in return something for which they have expressed a wish, it being tacitly understood that unless otherwise mentioned beforehand, no ‘present’ is to be accepted without an equivalent being rendered. The natural consequence of this system is that most of the quarrels which so frequently occur among them originate in failure on the part of the recipient in making such a return as had been confidently expected.”[2411] It must also be noted that those uncivilized peoples among whom marriage by purchase does not occur are, for the most part, exceedingly rude races.
As M. Koenigswarter[2412] and Mr. Spencer[2413] have suggested, the transition from marriage by capture to marriage by purchase was probably brought about in the following way: abduction, in spite of parents, was the primary form; then there came the offering of compensation to escape vengeance; and this grew eventually into the making of presents beforehand. Thus, among the Ahts, according to Mr. Sproat, when a man steals a wife, a purchase follows, “as the friends of the woman must be pacified with presents.”[2414] In New Guinea[2415] and Bali,[2416] as also among the Chukmas[2417] and Araucanians,[2418] it often happens that the bridegroom carries off, or elopes with, his bride, and afterwards pays a compensation-price to her parents. Among the Bodo and Mech, who still preserve the form of forcible abduction in their marriage ceremony, the successful lover, after having captured the girl, gives a feast to the bride’s friends and with a present conciliates the father, who is supposed to be incensed.[2419] The same is reported of the Maoris,[2420] whilst among the Tangutans, according to Prejevalsky, the ravisher who has stolen his neighbour’s wife pays the husband a good sum as compensation, but keeps the wife.[2421]
It is a matter of no importance in this connection that among certain peoples, the price of the bride is paid not to the father, but to some other nearly related person, especially an uncle,[2422] or to some other relatives as well as to the father.[2423] In any case the price is to be regarded as a compensation for the loss sustained in the giving up of the girl, and as a remuneration for the expenses incurred in her maintenance till the time of her marriage.[2424] Sometimes, as among several negro peoples, daughters are trained for the purpose of being disposed of at a profit; but this is a modern invention, irreconcilable with savage ideas. Thus, among the Kafirs, the practice of making an express bargain about women hardly prevailed in the first quarter of this century, and the verb applied to the act of giving cattle for a girl, according to Mr. Shooter, involves not the idea of an actual trade, but rather that of reward for her birth and nurture.[2425]
To most savages there seems nothing objectionable in marriage by purchase. On the contrary, Mr. Bancroft states that the Indians in Columbia consider it in the highest degree disgraceful to the girl’s family, if she is given away without a price;[2426] and, in certain tribes of California, “the children of a woman for whom no money was paid are accounted no better than bastards, and the whole family are contemned.”[2427] It was left for a higher civilization to raise women from this state of debasement. In the next chapter we shall consider the process by which marriage ceased to be a purchase contract, and woman an object of trade.