Under the two types of marriage—namely, motă and ba’al—the positions of women were so diametrically opposed that both could not continue, hence when under the pressure brought to bear upon them, women began to accept the ba’al form of marriage within their own hayy, motă unions were doomed. Of the more ancient form of marriage in Arabia, under which the woman chooses her mate, evidences of which are still extant in that country, and that by capture under which she becomes the slave of her lord, Professor Smith says:
There is then abundant evidence that the ancient Arabs practised marriage by capture. And we see that the type of marriage so constituted is altogether different from those unions of which the motă is a survival, and kinship through women the necessary accompaniment. In the one case the woman chooses and dismisses her husband at will, in the other she has lost the right to dispose of her person and so the right of divorce lies only with the husband; in the one case the woman receives the husband in her own tent, among her own people, in the other she is brought home to his tent and people; in the one case the children are brought up under the protection of the mother’s kin and are of her blood, in the other they remain with the father’s kindred and are of his blood.
All later Arabic marriages under the system of male kinship, whether constituted by capture or by contract, belong to the same type; in all cases, as we shall presently see in detail, the wife who follows her husband and bears children who are of his blood has lost the right freely to dispose of her person; the husband has authority over her and he alone has the right of divorce. Accordingly the husband, in this kind of marriage, is called not in Arabia only, but also among the Hebrews and Aramæans, the woman’s “lord” or “owner,” and wherever this name for husband is found we may be sure that marriage is of the second type, with male kinship, and the wife bound to the husband and following him to his home.[127]
Notwithstanding the humane enactments of Mohammed in the interest of women, their position steadily declined, such enactments having been overbalanced by the establishment of marriages of dominion, by the growing idea that sadica or motă marriages were not respectable, and that women could not depend upon their relations to take their part against their husbands. The history of religion shows that its growth has always followed the same course as have the ideas concerning the relative importance of the sexes. The god-idea and the fundamental doctrines of religion are always found to be in harmony with the established principles and ideas relative to sex domination and superiority. The religion of Mohammed was essentially masculine, all its principles being in strict accord with male supremacy; it is not, therefore, singular that when the weight of religion was added to the already growing tendency toward ba’al marriages that sadica marriages were doomed.
In Arabia, as elsewhere, the duties of the purchased wife were specific. The present which under the older form of marriage had been given to the bride as a love-token, or as an acknowledgment of the husband’s devotion to her, subsequently took the form of a purchase price, and was claimed by her father and brothers as a compensation for the loss sustained by the group through the removal of her offspring, whose services belonged to their mother’s people. In other words, the husband paid a price to the wife’s relations for the right to raise children by her which should belong exclusively to his kin—children which should she remain within her own home would belong to her kindred. The wife was therefore removed to the husband’s hayy, where, so far as the sexual relation was concerned, his rights over her were supreme.
We have observed that wherever the possessions of the gens continued to be the property of all its members, and were controlled by women, the man at marriage went to live with the woman; so soon, however, as men began to claim the soil, and property began to accumulate in their hands, the wife went to reside with her husband and his family as a dependent. Among various tribes, the form of marriage in use depends on the means of the contracting parties; if the man is able to pay to the woman’s father or brothers the full price charged for her, she goes to him as his slave—she is his property as much as is his dog or his gun; if, however, he is unable to pay the amount charged, he goes to live with her and her family, and becomes their slave.
In Japan, among the higher classes, upon the marriage of the eldest son, his bride accompanies him to his paternal home; but, on the other hand, when the eldest daughter marries, her husband takes up his abode with her parents. Eldest daughters always retain their own names, which their husbands are obliged to assume. As the wife of an eldest son becomes a member of her husband’s family, and the husband of an eldest daughter joins the family of his wife and assumes her name, the eldest son of a family may not marry the eldest daughter of another family. Regarding the younger members of the household, if the husband’s family provides the house, the wife takes his name, while if the bride’s family furnishes the home the bridegroom assumes the name of the wife.[128]
In the marriage customs of various nations, and in their ideas relative to the ownership and control of the home, may be observed something more than a hint of the principal causes underlying the decline of female power. Wherever women remain within their own homes, or with their own relations, they are mistresses of the situation; but when they follow the fathers of their children to their homes, they become dependents and wholly subject to the will and pleasure of their husbands.
It is plain, however, that under a system of marriage by sale or contract, although a woman might exercise little influence in the home of her husband, so long as her relations stood ready to defend her she would enjoy an immunity from abuse. The fact that a woman can count upon her relations for protection against her husband, shows plainly that in a certain stage of marriage by contract or sale, women are not the abject slaves which they have been represented to be. Although in the Fiji Islands a man may seize a woman and take her to his home, she does not remain with him unless agreeable to her inclinations.[129]
Amongst the Abipones, a man, on choosing a wife bargains with her parents about the price. But it frequently happens that the girl rescinds what has been agreed upon between the parents and the bridegroom, obstinately rejecting the very mention of marriage.[130]
Among the Charruas of South America, divorce is quite optional. In Sumatra, if a man carries off a virgin against her will, he incurs a heavy fine, or if a man carries off a woman under pretence of marriage, “he must lodge her immediately with some reputable family.”[131]