The general mode of zeffeh among the inhabitants of the villages is different from those above described. The bride, usually covered with a shawl, is seated on a camel, and so conveyed to the bridegroom’s dwelling. Sometimes four or five women or girls sit with her on the same camel, one on either side of her, and two or three others behind: the seat being made very wide, and usually covered with carpets or other drapery. She is followed by a group of women singing. In the evening of the wedding, and often during several previous evenings, in a village, the male and female friends of the two parties meet at the bridegroom’s house, and pass several hours of the night in the open air, amusing themselves with songs and a rude kind of dance, accompanied by the sounds of a tambourine or some kind of drum: both sexes sing; but only the women dance.—I have introduced here these few words on the marriage-ceremonies of the peasantry to avoid scattering notes on subjects of the same nature. I now revert to the customs of the people of Cairo.
On the morning after the marriage, “khäwals”[[297]] or “gházeeyehs” (dancing men or girls) perform in the street before the bridegroom’s house, or in the court.[[298]] On the same morning also, if the bridegroom be a young man, the person who carried him upstairs generally takes him and several friends to an entertainment in the country, where they spend the whole day. This ceremony is called “el-huroobeh,” or the flight. Sometimes the bridegroom himself makes the arrangements for it, and pays part of the expenses, if they exceed the amount of the contributions of his friends; for they give nukoot on this occasion. Musicians and dancing girls are often hired to attend the entertainment. If the bridegroom be a person of the lower orders, he is conducted back in procession, preceded by three or four musicians with drums and hautboys; his friends and other attendants carrying each a nosegay, as in the zeffeh of the preceding night; and if their return be after sunset, they are accompanied by men bearing mesh’als, lamps, etc.; and the friends of the bridegroom carry lighted wax candles, besides the nosegays.[[299]] Subsequent festivities occasioned by marriage will be described in a later chapter.
The husband, if he can conveniently so arrange, generally prefers that his mother should reside with him and his wife; that she may protect his wife’s honour, and consequently his own also. It is said that the mother-in-law is, for this reason, called “hamah.”[[300]] The women of Egypt are said to be generally prone to criminal intrigues; and I fear that, in this respect, they are not unjustly accused. Sometimes a husband keeps his wife in the house of her mother, and pays the daily expenses of both. This ought to make the mother very careful with regard to expenditure, and strict as to her daughter’s conduct, lest the latter should be divorced; but it is said that, in this case, she often acts as her daughter’s procuress, and teaches her innumerable tricks, by which to gain the upper hand over her husband, and to drain his purse. The influence of the wife’s mother is also scarcely less feared when she only enjoys occasional opportunities of seeing her daughter: hence it is held more prudent for a man to marry a female who has neither mother nor any near relations of her own sex; and some wives are even prohibited receiving any female friends but those who are relations of the husband: they are very few, however, upon whom such severe restrictions are imposed.
For a person who has become familiar with male Muslim society in Cairo, without marrying, it is not so difficult as might be imagined by a stranger to obtain, directly and indirectly, correct and ample information respecting the condition and habits of the women. Many husbands of the middle classes, and some of the higher orders, freely talk of the affairs of the hareem with one who professes to agree with them in their general moral sentiments, if they have not to converse through the medium of an interpreter.
Though the women have a particular portion of the house allotted to them, the wives, in general, are not to be regarded as prisoners; for they are usually at liberty to go out and pay visits, as well as to receive female visitors, almost as often as they please. The slaves, indeed, being subservient to the wives, as well as to their master, or, if subject to the master only, being under an authority almost unlimited, have not that liberty. One of the chief objects of the master in appropriating a distinct suite of apartments to his women, is to prevent their being seen by the male domestics and other men without being covered in the manner prescribed by their religion. The following words of the Kur-án show the necessity under which a Muslim’eh is placed of concealing whatever is attractive in her person or attire from all men, excepting certain relations and some other persons. “And speak unto the believing women, that they restrain their eyes, and preserve their modesty, and discover not their ornaments, except what [necessarily] appeareth thereof: and let them throw their veils over their bosoms, and not show their ornaments, unless to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those [captives] which their right hands shall possess, or unto such men as attend [them] and have no need [of women], or unto children:” “and let them not make a noise with their feet, that their ornaments which they hide may [thereby] be discovered.”[[301]] The last passage alludes to the practice of knocking together the anklets which the Arab women in the time of the Prophet used to wear, and which are still worn by many women in Egypt.
I must here transcribe two notes of eminent commentators on the Kur-án, in illustration of the above extract, and inserted in Sale’s translation. This I do, because they would convey an erroneous idea of modern customs with regard to the admission, or non-admission, of certain persons into the hareem. The first is on the above words, “or their women,” which it thus explains:—“That is, such as are of the Mohammadan religion: it being reckoned by some unlawful, or, at least, indecent, for a woman who is a true believer to uncover herself before one who is an infidel; because the latter will hardly refrain from describing her to the men: but others suppose all women in general are here accepted; for, in this particular, doctors differ.” In Egypt, and, I believe, in every other Muslim country, it is not now considered improper for any woman, whether independent, or a servant, or a slave, a Christian, a Jewess, a Muslim’eh, or a pagan, to enter a Muslim’s hareem.—The second of the notes above alluded to is on the words “or those captives,” and is as follows:—“Slaves of either sex are included in this exception, and, as some think, domestic servants who are not slaves, as those of a different nation. It is related that Mohammad once made a present of a man-slave to his daughter Fátimeh; and when he brought him to her, she had on a garment which was so scanty, that she was obliged to leave either her head or her feet uncovered: and that the Prophet, seeing her in great confusion on that account, told her she need be under no concern, for that there was none present but her father and her slave.” Among the Arabs of the Desert, this may still be the case; but in Egypt I have never heard of an instance of an adult male slave being allowed to see the hareem of a respectable man, whether he belonged to that hareem or not, and am assured that it is never permitted. Perhaps the reason why the man-slave of a woman is allowed this privilege by the Kur-án is, because she cannot become his lawful wife as long as he continues her slave: but this is a poor reason for granting him access to the hareem, in such a state of society. It is remarkable that, in the verse of the Kur-án above quoted, uncles are not mentioned as privileged to see their nieces unveiled: some think that they are not admissible, and for this reason, lest they should describe the persons of their nieces to their sons; for it is regarded as highly improper for a man to describe the features or person of a female (as to say, that she has large eyes, a straight nose, small mouth, etc.) to one of his own sex, by whom it is unlawful for her to be seen, though it is not considered indecorous to describe her in general terms, as, for instance, to say, “She is a sweet girl, and set off with kohl and henna.”
It may be mentioned here, as a general rule, that a man is allowed to see unveiled only his own wives and female slaves, and those females whom he is prohibited by law from marrying, on account of their being within certain degrees of consanguinity or family connexion, or having given him suck, or being nearly related to his foster-mother.[[302]] The high antiquity of the veil has been alluded to in the first chapter of this work. It has also been mentioned that it is considered more necessary, in Egypt, for a woman to cover the upper and back part of her head than her face; and more requisite for her to conceal her face than most other parts of her person. For instance, a female who cannot be persuaded to unveil her face in the presence of men, will think it but little shame to display the whole of her bosom, or the greater part of her leg. There are, it is true, many women among the lower classes in this country who constantly appear in public with unveiled face; but they are almost constrained to do so by the want of a burko’ (or face-veil), and the difficulty of adjusting the tarhah (or head-veil), of which scarcely any woman is destitute, so as to supply the place of the former; particularly when both their hands are occupied in holding some burden which they are carrying upon the head. When a respectable woman is, by any chance, seen with her head or face uncovered by a man who is not entitled to enjoy that privilege, she quickly assumes or adjusts her tarhah, and often exclaims, “O my misfortune!” or “O my sorrow!” Motives of coquetry, however, frequently induce an Egyptian woman to expose her face before a man when she thinks that she may appear to do so unintentionally, or that she may be supposed not to see him. A man may also occasionally enjoy opportunities of seeing the face of an Egyptian lady when she really thinks herself unobserved; sometimes at an open lattice, and sometimes on a house-top. Many small houses in Cairo have no apartment on the ground-floor for the reception of male visitors, who therefore ascend to an upper room; but as they go upstairs they exclaim several times, “Destoor!” (“Permission!”), or “Yá Sátir!” (“O Protector!” that is, “O protecting God!”), or use some similar ejaculation, in order to warn any woman who may happen to be in the way, to retire, or to veil herself; which she does by drawing a part of her tarhah before her face, so as to leave, at most, only one eye visible. To such an absurd pitch do the Muslims carry their feeling of the sacredness of women, that entrance into the tombs of some females is denied to men; as, for instance, the tombs of the Prophet’s wives and other females of his family, in the burial-ground of El-Medeeneh; into which women are freely admitted; and a man and woman they never bury in the same vault, unless a wall separate the bodies. Yet there are among the Egyptians a few persons who are much less particular in this respect: such is one of my Muslim friends here, who generally allows me to see his mother when I call upon him. She is a widow, of about fifty years of age; but, being very fat, and not looking so old, she calls herself forty. She usually comes to the door of the apartment of the hareem, in which I am received (there being no lower apartment in the house for male visitors), and sits there upon the floor, but will never enter the room. Occasionally, and as if by accident, she shows me the whole of her face, with plenty of kohl round her eyes; and does not attempt to conceal her diamonds, emeralds, and other ornaments, but rather the reverse. The wife, however, I am never permitted to see, though once I was allowed to talk to her, in the presence of her husband, round the corner of a passage at the top of the stairs.
I believe that in Egypt the women are generally under less restraint than in any other country of the Turkish empire; so that it is not uncommon to see females of the lower orders flirting and jesting with men in public, and men laying their hands upon them very freely. Still it might be imagined that the women of the higher and middle classes feel themselves severely oppressed, and are much discontented with the state of seclusion to which they are subjected; but this is not commonly the case. On the contrary, an Egyptian wife who is attached to her husband is apt to think, if he allows her unusual liberty, that he neglects her, and does not sufficiently love her; and to envy those wives who are kept and watched with greater strictness.
It is not very common for an Egyptian to have more than one wife, or a concubine-slave, though the law allows him four wives (as I have before stated), and, according to common opinion, as many concubine-slaves as he may choose. But though a man restrict himself to a single wife, he may change as often as he desires; and there are certainly not many persons in Cairo who have not divorced one wife, if they have been long married. The husband may, whenever he pleases, say to his wife, “Thou art divorced;” if it be his wish, whether reasonable or not, she must return to her parents or friends. This liability to an unmerited divorcement is the source of more uneasiness to many wives than all the other troubles to which they are exposed; as they may thereby be reduced to a state of great destitution; but to others, who hope to better their condition, it is, of course, exactly the reverse. I have mentioned, in a former chapter, that a man may divorce his wife twice, and each time receive her again without any ceremony; but that he cannot legally take her again after a third divorce until she has been married and divorced by another man. The consequences of a triple divorce conveyed in one sentence are the same, unless the man and his wife agree to infringe the law, or the former deny his having pronounced the sentence; in which latter case the woman may have much difficulty to enforce his compliance with the law, if she be inclined to do so.
In illustration of this subject, I may mention a case in which an acquaintance of mine was concerned as a witness of the sentence of divorce. He was sitting in a coffee-shop with two other men, one of whom had just been irritated by something that his wife had said or done. After a short conversation upon this affair, the angry husband sent for his wife, and as soon as she came, said to her, “Thou art trebly divorced;” then addressing his two companions, he added, “You, my brothers, are witnesses.” Shortly after, however, he repented of this act, and wished to take back his divorced wife; but she refused to return to him, and appealed to the “Shara Allah” (or Law of God). The case was tried at the Mahkem′eh. The woman, who was the plaintiff, stated that the defendant was her husband; that he had pronounced against her the sentence of a triple divorce; and that he now wished her to return to him, and live with him as his wife, contrary to the law, and consequently in a state of sin. The defendant denied that he had divorced her. “Have you witnesses?” said the judge to the plaintiff. She answered, “I have here two witnesses.” These were the men who were present in the coffee-shop when the sentence of divorce was pronounced. They were desired to give their evidence, and they stated that the defendant divorced his wife by a triple sentence, in their presence. The defendant averred that she whom he had divorced in the coffee-shop was another wife of his. The plaintiff declared that he had no other wife: but the judge observed to her that it was impossible she could know that; and asked the witnesses what was the name of the woman whom the defendant divorced in their presence? They answered that they were ignorant of her name. They were then asked if they could swear that the plaintiff was the woman who was divorced before them? Their reply was, that they could not swear to a woman whom they had never seen unveiled. Under these circumstances, the judge thought it advisable to dismiss the case, and the woman was obliged to return to her husband. She might have demanded that he should produce the woman whom he professed to have divorced in the coffee-shop, but he would easily have found a woman to play the part he required, as it would not have been necessary for her to show a marriage certificate; marriages being almost always performed in Egypt without any written contract, and sometimes even without witnesses.