Primitive Manners and Customs

by James Anson Farrer

Yet, if in China and Russia, much more among uncivilized tribes, would the life in prospect for a bride, unless perchance her wishes coincided with her parents’ interest, cause her to leave the home of her youth with something more than those ‘light regrets’ which cause tears to commingle with smiles even in England. Greenland girls, says Cranz, do nothing till they are fourteen but sing, dance, and romp about; but a life of slavery is in store for them as soon as they are fit for it; ‘while they remain with their parents they are well off, but from twenty years of age till death their life is one series of anxieties, wretchedness, and toil.’[282] Marriage is a fate they would not seek, but cannot avoid. Should they, however, not oppose it, they must enter upon it with reluctance, not with alacrity.

It is worth noticing the reason Cranz gives for this reluctance, because, in so far as modern savages may be taken to represent primitive life, it proves the existence, in that condition, of notions, howsoever they may have arisen, which are exactly analogous to those we connote by the word ‘modesty.’ When the two old women, commissioned to negotiate with a girl’s parents on behalf of a young man, first give a hint of their purpose by praise of him and of his family, ‘the damsel directly falls into the greatest apparent consternation and runs out of doors, tearing her bunch of hair; for single women always affect the utmost bashfulness and aversion to any proposal of marriage, lest they should lose their reputation for modesty, though their destined husbands be previously well assured of their acquiescence.’[283] Not, indeed, that the reluctance is always feigned, for sometimes the name of her proposed husband causes her to swoon, to elope to a desert place, or to effectually free herself from further addresses, by cutting off her hair in token of grief. Should, however, her parents consent to the match, the usual course is for the old women to go in search of her, ‘and drag her forcibly into the suitor’s house, where she sits for several days quite disconsolate, with dishevelled hair, and refuses nourishment. When friendly exhortations are unavailing she is compelled by force, and even blows, to receive her husband.’

In Greenland, then, as in China, the form of capture resolves itself either into a most unequivocal reluctance to leave home or to a reluctance so to do feigned from feelings of bashfulness. Nor about this bashfulness does it appear that Cranz was in error, for Egede agrees substantially with him, telling how the bridegroom, when he has obtained her parents’ and relations’ consent, sends some old women to carry away the bride by force; ‘for though she ever so much approves of the match, yet out of modesty she must make as if it went against the grain, and as if she were much ruffled at it; else she will be blamed and get an ill name.’ When brought to his hut, therefore, she sits in a corner with dishevelled hair, ‘covering her face, being bashful and ashamed.’ For ‘a new-married woman is ashamed of having changed her condition for a married state;’[284] and this feeling occurs again plainly in South-Eastern Russia, where, on the eve of marriage, the bride goes round the village, throwing herself on her knees before the head of each house and begging his pardon.[285]

This last statement of Egede is most important, since it proves the existence of feelings which seem really to contain the keynote of the symbol of capture, however slight the reasons for suspecting their presence in particular cases. The sentiment prevalent in Greenland has also been noticed among the Tartars, for an authentic witness writes, ‘that if one tells a Tartar girl that it is said she is about to be married, she runs immediately out of the room and will never speak to a stranger on that subject.’[286] It has been justly observed that it is unlikely feminine delicacy should diminish with civilization. But the principle impuris omnia impura will meet the difficulty. The Aleutian Islander, says a Russian writer, ‘knows nothing of what civilized nations call modesty. He has his own ideas of what is modest and proper, while we should consider them foolish.’[287] For, addicted though he is to the worst vices of the Northern nations, he will yet blush to address his wife or ask her for anything in the presence of strangers, and will be bashful if he be caught doing anything unusual, as, for instance, buying or selling directly for himself without the agency of an intermediary.

Characteristic as it is of savages to express all the feelings they share with us with an energy intensified a hundredfold, as is shown abundantly in our different manner of grieving for the dead, it is not surprising if we find their feelings of the kind in question display themselves in extraordinary and often ludicrous rules of social intercourse. The same rule, that an Aleutian husband and wife might not be seen speaking together, led Kolbe to think that no such thing as affection existed among the Hottentots. But this was simply for the same reason that prohibited the Hottentot wife from ever setting foot in her husband’s apartment in the hut, or the latter from ever entering hers except by stealth.[288] Among the Yorubas a woman betrothed by her parents is so far a wife that prematrimonial unfaithfulness is accounted adultery; ‘yet conventional modesty forbids her to speak to her husband, or even to see him, if it can be avoided.’[289] A minority of the Afghan tribes are careful to keep up a similar reserve between the time of betrothal and marriage, so that, as among the warlike Eusofyzes, no man can see his wife till the completion of the marriage ceremony.[290] Among the Mongols not only may bride and bridegroom not see each other within the same period, but the bride is not allowed to see his parents.[291] In Russia it was once a disgrace for a young man to propose directly to a lady, and between the day of settling the dowry with her parents and the day of marriage he was strictly forbidden the house of his betrothed.[292] But many tribes continue such reserve even after marriage. A Circassian bridegroom must not see his wife or live with her without the greatest mystery: ‘this reserve continues during life. A Circassian will sometimes permit a stranger to see his wife, but he must not accompany him.’[293] In parts of Fiji which are still unmodified by Christian teaching it is ‘quite contrary to ideas of delicacy that a man ever remains under the same roof with his wife or wives at night.’ If they wish to meet, they must appoint a secret rendezvous.[294] And a similar law of social decorum prevails, or prevailed, among the Spartans, Lycians, Turcomans, and some tribes of America,[295] though the processes of thought which led to such customs lie lost, perhaps hopelessly, behind the darkness of a thousand ages.

The custom, again, of deserting a husband and returning home for a longer or shorter period, as found among the Votyaks of Russia and the Mezeyne Arabs, may possibly be traced to feelings of the same description, for we read that among the Hos, ‘after remaining with her husband for three days only, it is the correct thing for the wife to run away from him and tell all her friends that she loves him not, and will see him no more;’ it is also correct for the husband to manifest great anxiety for his loss, and diligently to seek his wife, and ‘when he finds her he carries her off by main force.’[296] This second show of resistance, customary also among the Votyaks, seems difficult to explain as a traditional symbol of a system of capture.

It is possible that in similar primitive ideas originated the curious restrictions on the intercourse between a man and his mother-in-law, or between a woman and her father-in-law. On the theory that these are remnants of the real anger shown by parents when capture was real, it is not easy to account for the fact that in Fiji the restriction as to eating or speaking together existed not only between parents and children-in-law, or brothers and sisters-in-law, but between brothers and sisters of the same family, and also between first cousins.[297] In Suffolk ‘it is (or was) very remarkable that neither father nor mother of bride or bridegroom come with them to church’ at the weddings of agricultural labourers; and it is said that at Russian weddings also the parents are forbidden to be present, though the priest sometimes waives the prohibition in favour of persons of the higher classes.[298]

There is, therefore, no à priori inconceivability against the theory that kicking and screaming at weddings, where they do not arise from genuine reluctance, are really a tribute to conventional propriety; that, at the marriages of the uncivilized, just as at their burials, shrieks and violence take the place of tears, and a vigorous struggle argues a modest deportment. The evidence of quite independent eye-witnesses confirms this interpretation. The Thlinkeet Indian, on his wedding-day, goes to the bride’s house and sits with his back to her door. All her relations then ‘raise a song, to allure the coy bride out of the corner where she has been sitting;’ after which she goes to sit by her husband’s side; but ‘all this time she must keep her head bowed down,’ nor is she allowed to take part in the festivities of the day.[299]

Atkinson, who was witness of the first visit of a Kirghiz bridegroom to his wife, declares that the latter could only be persuaded by the pressure of her female relations to see him at all; ‘after a display of much coyness she consented, and was led by her friends to his dwelling.’[300]