The foregoing examples all show the wife as bound to the husband’s kin. The right of a man to his wife’s sister, either in his wife’s lifetime, or after her death, or, as it is found among some races, the right of a woman to share her sister’s husband even in her lifetime, is equally widespread. I have incidentally alluded to it as practised by the Gippsland tribes of Australia. Among the North American Indians, who preserve many traces of mother-right, the usage was common. The Blackfeet regarded all the younger sisters of a man’s wife as his potential wives. If he did not care to marry them they could not be married to any other man without his consent.[382.1] Among the Root-Diggers of California to a whole family of sisters the happy husband often added their mother; and the Seminole and Carib customs were the same. The Pawnee who had married an elder sister might demand all the younger ones as they arrived at maturity. An Osage was obliged to wait two years after his first marriage before demanding another of the same family; and after complying with this demand the parents might refuse him any more. Among the Hidatsas, as probably among other tribes, the wife’s sisters included her cousins according to our reckoning. A Mutsun wife would often press her husband to wed her sister or even her mother.[382.2] An Omaha can marry three wives, who are generally related. Sometimes a wife invites her husband to wed her sister, her aunt or her niece, because “she and I are one flesh.”[382.3] Among the Sioux and some other tribes the lover would attach to another man’s tent as many horses as corresponded in value to the daughters he desired to marry; and if the proposition were accepted they were all married at once.[382.4] In other cases it seems that marriage with one daughter only gave a right of preemption over the others.[382.5] Among some of the tribes of Guiana the husband has to wait until his first wife is dead before marrying her sisters.[383.1] Similar regulations are found among the aborigines of Bengal. In many of their tribes a man may marry two sisters; but, in accordance with the rule as to marriage of a widow with a deceased husband’s brother, the second wife must be a younger sister of the first, not an elder. A second sister, however, cannot always be married during the lifetime of the first.[383.2] Among the Todas a woman became wife to several brothers, and her younger sisters, on attaining maturity, became successively her fellow-wives.[383.3] An Ostiak is allowed to take several sisters.[383.4] In the Laws of Manu it is provided that, “if, after one damsel has been shown, another be given to the bridegroom, he may marry them both for the same price.”[383.5] This refers, of course, to two damsels in the same family. Among the Somali of Eastern Africa a widower commonly marries his deceased wife’s sister.[383.6] On the other side of the continent a folktale from Angola represents the eldest of four sisters as replying to an offer of marriage: “Very well. Thou shalt marry me, if thou marriest us all, the four of us. If thou thinkest that thou wilt have me alone, the eldest, thou canst not marry me. It must be that we marry our one man, the four of us in the fourhood of one mother.” And the gallant had no choice but to fall in with her terms.[383.7] In historical times the Israelites were forbidden to take a woman to her sister to be a rival to her in her lifetime;[384.1] but the more ancient practice, if we may judge by the legend of their eponymous hero as well as by analogies in other parts of the world, permitted it. Under supernatural guidance the Church has bettered the prohibition, so as to prevent the posthumous vexation of a wife by the succession of her sister to her husband’s affections, and has been at pains to give it the logical extension to marriage with a deceased husband’s brother, in the very teeth of the divine institution of the Levirate. It would be profane to call a bargain the provision whereby the English bishops once compounded for the sin of assenting to a nobleman’s union with his deceased wife’s sister, by condemning all such unions for the future. Among the heathen Hovas of Madagascar the first wife might at any time be divorced, unless she allowed her husband to marry her younger sisters and younger cousins. A Gilbert Islander had a right to dispose of his wife’s younger sisters.[384.2] In Samoa a younger sister often accompanied the bride and became an inferior wife to the bridegroom.[384.3] On the island of Mangaia, “if a man of position married the eldest girl of a slave family, the younger sisters became his as a matter of course, being only too glad to have a protector. Even amongst those of equal rank a man often had two or three sisters to wife at the same time. Even now, in Christian times, a woman feels herself to be deeply injured if her brother-in-law does not, on the death of his wife, ask her to become a mother to his children.”[384.4] How greatly it is to be regretted that they who have professed to christianise these poor, benighted Polynesians have disregarded the Church’s canon against such marriages, and permitted so-called Christian homes to be contaminated by the presence of a deceased wife’s sister in the capacity of wife!
Until group-marriage had practically passed away, and society had organised itself into true clans, there could be no actual reception of the wife into the kin. We must therefore not look to so archaic a condition as group-marriage for rites of reception, or for the resulting status of the wife. Where the clan has been most completely organised, we may expect to find its results most logically carried out; and some of the most logical results will often remain even when society has passed into a still higher development. So it was in Rome, where the wife entered into the familia of her husband, or, if her husband had a father living and were still in his power, into that of her husband’s father. Her offering, on the day following her marriage, to her husband’s Penates seems to have been a solemn initiation, in so far at least as that had not been effected by the ceremonies of the confarreatio. This is also the meaning of somewhat similar rites performed by a bride in Ukrainia on entering her new home, where she is first welcomed by all the female neighbours of her bridegroom’s family,[385.1]—and of many ceremonies of the same kind elsewhere, notably the Brahman rites in India. A Chinese married woman is taught to regard her husband’s parents and his remoter ancestors in every respect as if they were her own; while she ceases, on the other hand, to have any but a secondary interest in her own relatives. According to Confucius the very object of marriage was to furnish those who should preside at the sacrifices, among which a prominent place is given to the ancestral offerings. This was indeed expressed in the formula of demand for the hand of a maiden in ancient times. And just as at Rome the bride offered sacrifices to her husband’s Penates, so in China, on the day after the wedding, she prepared and presented a sucking-pig to her husband’s parents, and when they had done eating she finished what was left.[386.1] In this way among the polite Chinese the union of the bride with her husband’s parents is signified and completed. I have already mentioned the Santali and other customs of Bengal, as well as that of the more barbarous islanders of Bonabe, who tattoo the wife with marks representing her husband’s ancestors.
Sometimes a man on marrying was received into the clan of the wife. It is now generally recognised that the words “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” could have originated only at a period when it was customary for a husband to go and dwell with his wife’s kin: that is to say, before the development of the patriarchal system on which the Hebrews in later times were organised. Professor Robertson Smith suggests, ingeniously and with probability, that the expression implies “that the husband is conceived as adopted into his wife’s kin”; for, as he has previously pointed out, both in Arabic and in Hebrew (notably in the priestly legislation of the latter) the word for flesh is equivalent to kindred or clan.[386.2] Residence is indeed one of the tests of kindred. But it is only one, and by no means a conclusive one. For this reason the stories of Isaac’s marriage and those of Jacob cannot safely be cited in support of this suggestion. The curious incident of the bargain with Shechem is more to the point; for in that case a rite was to be undergone which would have the effect of making Shechemites and Israelites “one people.” If, however, we find cases of marriage where not only does the husband dwell with his wife and her family, but his property and earnings also go to them, or are shared in common with them, this will be further evidence of reception into the kin. Among the Kochh a man is taken on marriage to live with his wife and her mother, and all his property is made over to her.[387.1] The Bayaga, a tribe of dwarfs in Equatorial Africa, require the husband to live with his wife’s family, and all the produce of his hunting belongs to them. He may, however, return to his own community and take his wife, but only when he has a son, and that son has killed an elephant. And then he leaves the son behind to fill the place of the daughter taken away.[387.2] This appears to be an instance of the archaic system of mother-right in process of decay. Neither the case of the Bayaga nor that of the Kochh goes quite far enough to be decisive. The North American Indians had customs in their various tribes, which exhibited almost all gradations between the complete absorption of the husband in his wife’s clan, and the last stages of dissolution of the system of mother-right. Without discussing them we may turn to two examples in the East Indies where the matter is put beyond doubt. According to Brahman law the wife now enters the gotra of her husband. The ceremonies are very elaborate, and include of course a solemn procession on the bridegroom’s part to fetch the bride. He is formally welcomed first by the bride’s father, and then by her mother. Follows a rite which, if it mean anything, is a survival of reception into the wife’s kin once practised either by the Aryan invaders of India, or the aboriginal tribes with whom they intermarried. It is called “Satusi or the seven lights of Hymen. Seven married ladies (including the bride’s mother or, if she be a widow, one of the bride’s aunts) in their best attire, each with a small torch made of chita-twig and cotton steeped in oil, go round the bridegroom in succession, led by the bride’s mother, who carries on her head a kulá or flat bamboo-basket, on which are placed twenty-one small lights made of dhatura-fruits. As they go round, they sprinkle libations of water, one of them blows a shell-trumpet, and all vociferate the hymeneal cry of ulu-ulu. After going seven times round the bridegroom, the lights are thrown one by one over his head, so that they fall behind him. The kulá is then picked up and placed in front of the bridegroom, and the bride’s mother takes her stand upon it, and touches the forehead of the bridegroom with water, paddy and durba-grass, betel and areca nut, white mustard-seed, curds, white sandal-paste, vermilion, a looking-glass, a comb, a bit of clay from the bed of the Ganges, a yak’s tail, shells, a cluster of plantains, and certain other odds and ends, while the rest of the women keep up the cry of ulu-ulu. The bridegroom’s height is measured with a thin thread, which the bride’s mother eats in a bit of plantain. She then places a weaver’s shuttle between his folded hands and ties them together with thread, and calls upon him, now that he has been bound hand and foot, to bleat once like a sheep to signify his humility and subjection. Last of all, she touches his breast with a padlock and turns the key, whereby the door of speech is closed to the passage of hard words against the bride.”[389.1] Later accretions are obvious here, but the substance of the ceremony is ancient and can only be explained in one way. In Sumatra there was an old form of marriage, which has been prohibited for a century past, called ambel anak. A man thus married paid no money to the wife’s father, but entered his family on the footing of a son. He became entirely separated from his own kin, who renounced all interest in him, and he lost his right of inheritance. All his earnings belonged to his wife’s family, who became liable to any debts he might contract after marriage and responsible for his crimes, just as his own family were before. His wife’s family might divorce him, in which case he went forth naked as he came. The custom was evidently in decay long before its abolition, for the husband’s status was in some respects hardly so good as that of a natural-born son, while on the other hand there were provisions for enabling him to redeem himself, his wife and children, by paying her jujur or bride-price, and an additional sum for any daughters who had been born. But this could only be accomplished with the goodwill of his wife’s family, because he was incapable of accumulating any property apart from the common stock of the family.[389.2]
The severance of the married person from the clan of which he or she has been previously a member is, as might be expected, sometimes the subject of a special symbol in marriage ceremonies. Thus, among the Santals, when the clothes of a married pair have been tied together (the symbol among many peoples of their union), burning charcoal is pounded with the household pestle, and the glowing embers are extinguished with water. In this way the old household fire of the bride is, so far as she is concerned, put out for ever.[390.1] In Nepal the Sinuwár bride’s parents wash her feet when they give her to the bridegroom, and splash the water over their own heads. By doing this they believe that they wash from her, and as it were take back, the quality of membership of her original sept, and transfer her to the sept of the bridegroom. On the next morning the bride washes the bridegroom’s feet, and drinks the water, saying at the time that she does this as a sign that she has entered his sept, and is truly his wife.[390.2] Among the Wends there are traces of mother-right, though it is no longer the system on which their society is organised. The first night of marriage is always spent at the bride’s house; and sometimes, it would seem, the bridegroom takes up his permanent residence with his wife’s family. On such occasions he bids a solemn farewell, and says to his parents: “Henceforth you will see me no more, nor speak to me; for I am leaving you. Amen.”[390.3] The separation of a Chinese woman from her family on marriage is so complete, that when she returns home on a visit, no brother, nor even her father, may sit with her on the same mat, nor eat with her from the same dish.[390.4] The Marri of Manbhum do not even allow their married daughters to enter the house.[391.1] Among the Rájputs a married daughter may never return to her father’s house without his special leave. He is not likely to send for her, because he must then give her a fresh dower. Conversely, neither he nor any of her near elder relations may go to the village whereinto she is married, nor even drink water from the village well; and though more distant relations taboo not the whole village, they may not eat or drink from her husband’s house.[391.2] Among the Hebrews a priest was forbidden to defile himself for the dead, except for his own kin. His married sister was not one of these, only a sister “a virgin which hath had no husband.” A stranger outside the priest’s kindred, though his guest or hired servant, was not permitted to eat of the heave-offering of the holy things. If a priest’s daughter were married to a stranger, she could not eat of it. But in this respect her separation seems not to have been absolute; for if she were divorced or became a widow, being childless, and so returned “unto her father’s house as in her youth,” she might “eat of her father’s bread.”[391.3] The change of kin was so marked among the Romans that one of their lawyers explained the word soror, a sister, as “quasi scorsum nata, because she is separated from the family wherein she was born, and passes to another.”[391.4]
When the consequences of marriage are the severance from the family or clan of one of its members, and the union of that member to another family or clan, so as to become one flesh with it, and hardly less where, though the member in question be not lost to the clan, a special relationship is about to be entered upon with the other clan for the purpose of producing new members for it to the exclusion of the former clan, it is obvious that each of the two families, or clans, has a very important interest in the transaction. The marriage would affect not only the two principals; it would extend to every member of the family, or clan, diminished, and every member of the family, or clan, thus enlarged and strengthened. Such an interest as this would entitle every member of both to be consulted; and their assent would be required to its validity. Such assent would be shown, as we have already noted, by the presence and assistance of the kindred at the act of marriage; or it might be signified by gifts. But, however shown, it would in many cases have to be purchased by gifts. I have already mentioned a number of instances where the price, or dowry, of the bride is contributed by the bridegroom’s kinsmen. We are about to deal with the converse case, wherein the price, however made up, is divided between the bride’s relatives.
Bride-purchase has been, at some time or other, practised almost all over the world; and where we do not find it still in all its ancient force we frequently find the relics of it. As, in the progress of civilisation, the bonds of the family are drawn tighter, the power of the father over his children increases, and that of the more distant kinsfolk decreases. The substantial price in such cases is paid to the parent; and the other kinsmen are recognised only by a smaller, frequently a nominal, present. Lastly, the gifts on both sides are transformed into a dowry for the bride, and into wedding presents intended for the behoof of the happy couple. In various nations the application of the marriage gifts is found in all stages of transition, from the rudest bargain and sale up to the settlements so dear to English lawyers, and the useless toys which the resources of the newest culture enable us to bestow upon our friends on these interesting occasions, to assist their early efforts in housekeeping. The examples following are drawn, of course, from conditions of barbarism when purchase prevails, or when survivals of its former practice have not yet been all swept away. Into the general question of the extent of the kindred whose assent is necessary in early stages of civilisation I have no space to go. But incidentally we shall find evidence that the entire clan must have had a voice in the matter. Inasmuch, however, as this chapter has already trespassed on the reader’s patience to so great a length, I shall confine myself to a few of the more indisputable and pertinent instances. To attempt more would be to travel over ground which it would be impossible to survey in a satisfactory manner, without a discussion interesting indeed to the student of institutions, but altogether disproportionate to the present work.
Among races whose customs point unimpeachably to the need of obtaining the consent of the general body of the bride’s kinsmen we may begin with the Turanians. A bridegroom of the Hill tribes of Rajmahál is required to present not only a turban and a rupee to his father-in-law, and a piece of cloth and a rupee to his mother-in-law, but also to several of the nearest relations.[393.1] Striking are the ceremonies performed by two of the northern branches of this widespread race. After the purchase-money has been agreed upon, but before it is paid, among the Kirghiz the bridegroom is allowed to visit the bride. This is done by some tribes with great formality. The young man presents himself first to the oldest member of the bride’s family, and asks permission to pitch his tent at the encampment. “This request being granted, he distributes presents among the members of the family, and begs them to use their efforts in persuading the bride to pay him a visit in his tent. As success always crowns their efforts, the bride makes her appearance in the tent, where the young couple are left alone. During this interview the marriage is consummated, though the union is not yet formally consecrated. They are now bound to each other, and neither can withdraw from the mutual obligation they have contracted without being exposed to the vengeance of the injured party.” Further presents are given to the relatives on the formal celebration of the marriage after the purchase-money has been paid.[394.1] Among the tribes of Turkestan the wedding takes place after the payment of the purchase-money to the father. Each party is represented by two witnesses at the wedding ceremony, and a mollah is employed to legalise the contract. All goes on smoothly until “the bride’s witnesses suddenly raise some objection, pretending that they are unwilling to deliver up the bride who is intrusted to their keeping, unless some suitable present is offered for renouncing, on their part, the great treasure placed in their custody.” Nor can the marriage proceed until they are satisfied.[394.2]
The same part is played in Central Europe by the Wendish bridesmaids. The bride awaits her bridegroom sitting at a table by herself. When his procession arrives, the brautführer advances to the table and begs her politely to follow him to the wedding. The bridesmaids interfere, and refuse to give her up without being paid for it: they must have the whole table full of gold! After an amount of haggling, which depends on the persuasive powers of the damsels and the wealth of the bridegroom, they are at length satisfied; and sometimes the business is not concluded until a considerable sum has been paid.[395.1] At an Ukrainian marriage, presents are made with ritual formalities to every one of the bride’s relations by name; and a formal agreement is entered into by which the number, and even the value, of these presents is declared. Among the persons present are women who are strangers to the immediate family. When the presents to the relatives have been settled, these women climb on a bench beside the family hearth, taking a sieve which they beat like a tambourine, clamouring also for their share of the ransom. And the bridegroom is compelled to throw some small pieces of money into the sieve for them. As M. Volkov, in detailing the proceedings, says, it is clear that all this represents a payment in respect of the bride for the benefit of her whole clan. Among the Bulgarians a like payment, distinguished from that to the father, is made in money for all the members of the family, or rather for the family-community. The father usually gives what he receives to his daughter by way of dowry.[395.2] The usage probably differs to some extent in various parts of Bulgaria. In Bessarabia the money paid to the father is used to defray the cost of the bride’s wardrobe, but clothing is also purchased for the bride’s relations. If I read the account correctly, the bridegroom also pays the bride’s mother a few ducats and presents articles of clothing to her sisters. Among other members of the South Slavonic stock the custom likewise varies, but all agree in requiring presents to be made to all the near kindred of the bride. The minimum payment is set down by one reporter, writing of the practice in his own district, as twelve florins to the bride, ten to her father, two to her mother, six to each of her brothers, and to the other relations seven florins each.[396.1]
The final difficulties on the part of the Wendish bridesmaids may be compared with the conduct of the women of the bride’s party at a marriage of the Banks’ Islanders. When the last instalments of the purchase-money have been paid, and the bridegroom’s father and his party, after the interposition of all sorts of difficulties, are on the point of succeeding in obtaining delivery of the bride, the women step in and refuse to give her up until an extra sum has been made over to them to induce them to let her go.[396.2] In Sindh also, as the bridegroom is about to enter the nuptial chamber, his bride’s sister, or a female cousin, opposes him and demands a gift of a few rupees, which he must pay ere he is allowed to pass.[396.3]
A traveller in the earlier half of the last century relates that to a native of Cape Coast the cost of his wedding was seldom more than an ounce of gold among the bride’s relations, two suits of new clothes for the bride, and a fat goat and some palm-wine and brandy for the entertainment.[396.4] In the Zambesi basin to-day the matter is arranged by “the so-called brothers or next of kin,” who alone have the right to consent, the father having no voice in the matter. But what, if anything, is paid to them as the price of their goodwill, beyond a plentiful supply of pombe, which is drunk together by the brethren on both sides after the wedding, I am not able to say.[397.1] It seems clear at all events that in many places the price may be commuted for a feast, or a feast may be added to it, and after the custom of purchase has died out the feast only may remain. So among the Arabs, for example, the stipulated sum which forms the dowry and belongs to the bride is paid to her father; but before the husband can claim his rights he has to feast the maiden and her relations and friends.[397.2]