The grandeur of the Hebrews consisted pretty much in the multiplicity of their wives to attend them, as a showy retinue: as the meaner sort could not well purchase one, they had a light sort of marriage suitable to their circumstances, called by the scholiasts, usu capio; “taking the woman for present use.” When they had lived together about a year, if agreeable, they parted good friends by mutual consent. The Indians also are so fond of variety, that they ridicule the white people, as a tribe of narrow-hearted, and dull constitutioned animals, for having only one wife at a time; and being bound to live with and support her, though numberless circumstances might require a contrary conduct. When a young warrior cannot dress alamode America, he strikes up one of those matches for a few moons, which they term Toopsa Táwah, “a make haste marriage,” because it wants the usual ceremonies, and duration of their other kind of marriages.[[54]]
The friendliest kind of marriage among the Hebrews, was eating bread together. The bridegroom put a ring on the fourth finger of the bride’s left hand before two witnesses, and said, “Be thou my wife, according to the law of Moses.” Her acceptance and silence implying consent, confirmed her part of the marriage contract, because of the rigid modesty of the eastern women. When the short marriage contract was read over, he took a cake of bread and broke it in two, for himself and her; or otherwise, he put some corn between their hands: which customs were used as strong emblems of the necessity of mutual industry and concord, to obtain present and future happiness. When an Indian makes his first address to the young woman he intends to marry, she is obliged by ancient custom to sit by him till he hath done eating and drinking, whether she likes or dislikes him; but afterward, she is at her own choice whether to stay or retire[[XXX]]. When the bridegroom marries the bride, after the usual prelude, he takes a choice ear of corn, and divides it in two before witnesses, gives her one half in her hand, and keeps the other half to himself; or otherwise, {139} he gives her a deer’s foot, as an emblem of the readiness with which she ought to serve him: in return, she presents him with some cakes of bread, thereby declaring her domestic care and gratitude in return for the offals; for the men feast by themselves, and the women eat the remains. When this short ceremony is ended, they may go to bed like an honest couple.
[XXX]. Cant. iii. 4. I held him and would not let him go, until I had brought him to my father’s house, and into the chambers of her that conceived me: See Gen. xxiv. 67. Such was the custom of the Hebrews.
Formerly, this was an universal custom among the native Americans; but this, like every other usage of theirs, is wearing out apace. The West-Floridans, in order to keep their women subject to the law of adultery, bring some venison or buffalo’s flesh to the house of their normal wives, at the end of every winter’s hunt: that is reckoned a sufficient annual tye of their former marriages, although the husbands do not cohabit with them. The Muskóhge men, if newly married, are obliged by ancient custom, to get their own relations to hoe out the corn-fields of each of their wives, that their marriages may be confirmed: and the more jealous, repeat the custom every year, to make their wives subject to the laws against adultery. But the Indians in general, reckon that before the bridegroom can presume to any legal power over the bride, he is after the former ceremonies, or others something similar, obliged to go into the woods to kill a deer, bring home the carcass of venison, and lay it down at her house wrapt up in its skin; and if she opens the pack, carries it into the house, and then dresses and gives him some of it to eat with cakes before witnesses, she becomes his lawful wife, and obnoxious to all the penalties of an adultress.
The Hebrews had another sort of marriage—by purchase: the bridegroom gave the father of the bride as much as he thought she was worth: and according to the different valuation, so sooner or later she went off at market. The only way to know the merit of a Hebrew lady, was to enquire the value for which her father would sell her, and the less rapacious he was, the sooner she might get an husband. Divine writ abounds with instances of the like kind; as Gen. xxxiv. 12. “Ask me never so much dowry and I will give it.” David bought Michal, and Jacob dearly purchased Rachel, &c. The women brought nothing with them, except their clothes, rings and bracelets, and a few trinkets. When the Indians would express a proper marriage, they have a word adapted according to their various dialects, to give them a suitable idea of it; but when they are {140} speaking of their sensual marriage bargains, they always term it, “buying a woman;” for example—they say with regard to the former, Che-Awalas, “I shall marry you,” the last syllable denotes the first person of the future tense, the former, “I shall make you, as Awa, or Hewa was to Ish,” which is confirmed by a strong negative similar expression, Che-Awala Awa, “I shall not marry you.” But the name of their market marriages, is Otoopha, Eho Achumbàras, Saookcháa, “In the spring, I shall buy a woman, if I am alive.” Or Eho Achumbàra Awa, “I shall not buy a woman,” Sàlbasa toogat, “for indeed I am poor:” the former usage, and method of language is exactly calculated to express that singular custom of the Hebrews, per coemptionem.
They sometimes marry by deputation or proxy. The intended bridegroom sends so much in value to the nearest relations of the intended bride, as he thinks she is worth: if they are accepted, it is a good sign that her relations approve of the match, but she is not bound by their contract alone; her consent must likewise be obtained, but persuasions most commonly prevail with them. However, if the price is reckoned too small, or the goods too few, the law obliges them to return the whole, either to himself, or some of his nearest kindred. If they love the goods, as they term it, according to the like method of expression with the Hebrews, the loving couple may in a short time bed together upon trial, and continue or discontinue their love according as their fancy directs them. If they like each other, they become an honest married couple when the nuptial ceremony is performed, as already described. When one of their chieftains is married, several of his kinsmen help to kill deer and buffalos, to make a rejoicing marriage feast, to which their relations and neighbours are invited: there the young warriors sing with their two chief musicians, who beat on their wet deer skin tied over the mouth of a large clay-pot, and raise their voices, singing Yo Yo, &c. When they are tired with feasting, dancing, and singing the Epithalamium, they depart with friendly glad hearts, from the house of praise.
If an Israelite lay with a bond woman betrothed, and not redeemed, she was to be beaten, but not her fellow criminal; for in the original text, Lev. xix. 20. the word is in the fœminine gender. When offenders were beaten, they were bowed down, as Deut. xxv. 2.—so that they {141} neither sat nor stood, and their whip had a large knot to it, which commanded the thongs, so as to expand, or contract them; the punishment was always to be suited to the nature of the crime, and the constitution of the criminal. While the offenders were under the lash, three judges stood by to see that they received their full and just due. The first repeated the words of Deut. xxviii. 58. the second counted the stripes, and the third said, “Hack, or lay on.” The offender received three lashes on the breast, three on the belly, three on each shoulder, &c. But adultery was attended with capital punishment, as Deut. xxii. 22. The parties when legally detected, were tried by the lesser judicatory, which was to consist, at least of twenty-three: the Sanhedrim gave the bitter waters to those women who were suspected of adultery. The former were stoned to death; and the latter burst open, according to their imprecation, if they were guilty: the omnipotent divine wisdom impressed those waters with that wonderful quality, contrary to the common course of nature. The men married, and were divorced as often as their caprice directed them; for if they imagined their wives did not value them, according to their own partial opinion of themselves, they notified the occasion of the dislike, in a small billet, that her virtue might not be suspected: and when they gave any of them the ticket, they ate together in a very civil manner, and thus dissolved the contract.
I have premised this, to trace the resemblance to the marriage divorces and punishments of the savage Americans. The middle aged people of a place, which lies about half-way to Mobille, and the Illinois, assure us, that they remember when adultery was punished among them with death, by shooting the offender with barbed arrows, as there are no stones there.[[55]] But what with the losses of their people at war with the French and their savage confederates, and the constitutional wantonness of their young men and women, they have through a political desire of continuing, or increasing their numbers, moderated the severity of that law, and reduced it to the present standard of punishment; which is in the following manner. If a married woman is detected in adultery by one person, the evidence is deemed good in judgment against her; the evidence of a well grown boy or girl, they even reckon sufficient, because of the heinousness of the crime, and the difficulty of discovering it in their thick forests. This is a corruption of the Mosaic law, which required two evidences, and exempted both women {142} and slaves from public faith; because of the reputed fickleness of the one, and the base, groveling temper of the other. When the crime is proved against the woman, the enraged husband accompanied by some of his relations, surprises and beats her most barbarously, and then cuts off her hair and nose, or one of her lips. There are many of that sort of disfigured females among the Chikkasah, and they are commonly the best featured, and the most tempting of any of their country-women, which exposed them to the snares of young men. But their fellow-criminals, who probably first tempted them, are partially exempted from any kind of corporal punishment.
With the Muskohge Indians, it was formerly reckoned adultery, if a man took a pitcher of water off a married woman’s head, and drank of it.[[56]] But their law said, if he was a few steps apart, and she at his request set it down, and retired a little way off, he might then drink without exposing her to any danger. If we seriously reflect on the rest of their native customs, this old law, so singular to themselves from the rest of the world, gives us room to think they drew it from the Jewish bitter waters that were given to real, or suspected adulteresses, either to prove their guilt, or attest their innocence.
Among those Indians, when adultery is discovered, the offending parties commonly set off speedily for the distant woods, to secure themselves from the shameful badge of the sharp penal law, which they inevitably get, if they can be taken before the yearly offering for the atonement of sin; afterward, every crime except murder is forgiven. But they are always pursued, and frequently overtaken; though perhaps, three or four moons absent, and two hundred miles off, over hills and mountains, up and down many creeks and rivers, on contrary courses, and by various intricate windings—the pursuers are eager, and their hearts burn within them for revenge. When the husband has the chilling news first whispered in his ear, he steals off with his witness to some of his kinsmen, to get them to assist him in revenging his injury: they are soon joined by a sufficient number of the same family, if the criminal was not of the same tribe; otherwise, he chuses to confide in his nearest relations. When the witness has asserted to them the truth of his evidence by a strong asseveration, they separate to avoid suspicion, and meet commonly in the dusk of the evening, near the town of the adulterer, {143} where each of them provides a small hoop-pole, tapering to the point, with knobs half an inch long, (allowed by ancient custom) with which they correct the sinners; for as their law in this case doth not allow partiality, if they punished one of them, and either excused or let the other escape from justice, like the Illinois, they would become liable to such punishment as they had inflicted upon either of the parties.