Chapter XIX: Part II: For the usages of allied races see Rockhill, "Notes (2)

[546] Of course, SPENCER'S reply to McLennan, already
mentioned, is most important; and his argument has not been
overthrown: _Principles of Sociology_, I, 652-56. _Cf._
WESTERMARCK, _Human Marriage_, 388, who favors Spencer's
view; and GROSSE, _Die Formen der Familie_, 107, 108,
who accepts coyness as a partial explanation, though he believes
that the symbol of capture may also be due in some cases to
the honor of having wives taken in war, while frequently it
may represent in a realistic way the release of the woman from
paternal authority and her subjection to the husband's power.
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 287 ff., rejects
Spencer's explanation, regarding the forms of ceremonial
rape as survivals of real capture, marking the transition to
wife-purchase and the paternal system; and LIPPERT,
_Kulturgeschichte_, II, 86 ff., 92 ff., holds a similar position.

[547] STARCKE, _Primitive Family_, 218, 262. He refers
especially to the joint or communal family--the "alpha and the
omega" of the community. But his explanation can hardly be
accepted as sufficient in all cases.

[548] _Cf._ LETOURNEAU, _L'évolution du mariage_,
117, 128, who holds that the ceremonial of capture especially
symbolizes the subjection of woman "achetée ou cédée par les
parents; il sanctionnait les droits, presque toujours excessifs,
que l'époux acquérait sur l'épousée."

[549] _Ibid._, 117. Compare the suggestions of Abercromby,
that "marriage _with_ capture--by which he understands capture
of a bride, associated with some other form of marriage, such
as that by purchase--may be regarded rather as a result of
the innate universal desire to display courage, than as a
survival of a still older practice of taking women captive in
time of war."--WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 388, citing
ABERCROMBY'S "Marriage Customs of the Mordvins," _Folk
Lore_, I, 454. _Cf._ LETOURNEAU, _op. cit._, 128.

"Connubial and formal capture," according to Crawley, "are very widely spread, but are never survivals of real capture." "In fact, formal capture, far from being itself a survival, either of connubial or of actual hostile capture, is the ceremonial mode of which connubial capture is the non-ceremonial; each is a living reality, the one being material and the other ideal."[550]

[550] _Mystic Rose_, 368, 370. In harmony with his theory of
sexual taboo, he declares that it is "not the tribe from which
the bride is abducted, nor, primarily, her family and kindred,
but her sex."

Nevertheless, after all is said, it seems hard to believe that ceremonial capture does not sometimes have a more real significance. Often it may symbolize the coyness or mark the subjection of woman. More frequently it may stand as a mere general reminiscence of the good old times of force and lawlessness. Still it would be strange, indeed, if it did not also appear as a direct survival of actual wife-capture.[551] Granting this, however, the significance of capture _de facto_ remains the same. We perceive more clearly that it has very widely prevailed; yet it must still be regarded as a mere incident of war and pillage. It has nothing whatever to do with the institution of marriage. It could never on any wide scale have been the normal manner of procuring wives. To assume that wife-stealing has been a universal phase in the evolution of marriage is not one whit more reasonable than to hold that robbery has been a normal stage in the evolution of property.[552] In spite of Hobbes or McLennan, it remains to be proved that a state of chronic hostility was ever a general phase in the history of mankind. Such a state is inconsistent with the prevalence of the blood-feud.[553] Even the rule of exogamy among primitive peoples does not harmonize with general wife capture. For the coexistence of clan-exogamy and tribal endogamy means, under normal conditions, a tendency toward peace within the tribe.[554] There is strong reason to believe that in every period of social development consent and contract, in some form, have been the cardinal elements of marriage. Captured or stolen women have usually become slaves or concubines; and, except in rare instances, the relatively small number of them made wives must always have been insignificant as compared with the number of wives obtained in other ways. Thus the solution of the problem of so-called marriage by capture appears to be similar to that of polygyny. The practice of taking several wives is exceedingly common; but on close examination we discover that polygyny is relatively unimportant, and that it has never been able to displace monogamy as the normal type. So it is with the practice of capturing women for wives. However prevalent the custom, it does not seem ever to have greatly influenced the natural laws or modified the fundamental motives upon which marriage and the family rest. But the value of the evidence upon which this conclusion is based can be thoroughly appreciated only after we have traced the origin of contract in marriage. Let us begin with wife-purchase, especially in its relation to the custom of capturing women.

[551] This is in effect conceded by Spencer. While rightly
rejecting the theory of systematic foreign wife-capture, as a
general phase in the development of marriage, he holds that the
symbol of rape may sometimes result from struggles for women
within the tribe, or from the resistance of the father and male
relatives of the bride.

[552] "Der Raub begründet die Ehe nur insofern, als er zugleich
jenes Zusammenleben herbeiführt; er ist Eheschliessungsform
in demselben Sinne, wie er noch nach heutigem Recht als
Besitzerwerbsform bezeichnet werden kann." It is only
a matter of _Kulturgeschichte_ and has no juridical
significance.--BERNHÖFT, "Principien des eur.
Familienrechts," _ZVR._, IX, 393.

[553] This is contrary to the common opinion, as expressed,
for instance, by DARGUN, _op. cit._, 84, but it
appears to be sustained both by reason and the facts. For an
example of the restraint of wife-capture through dread of
the feud, see CURR, _The Australian Race_, I, 108.
REHME, "Das Recht der Amaxosa," _ZVR._, X, 40, shows
that the harshness of the husband is mitigated by fear of the
vengeance of the wife's relatives; and the same fact is noted by
FISON AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 206. _Cf._
KOHLER, "Das Recht der Australneger," _ZVR._, VII, 349;
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 280 ff., 288, 289,
298; LIPPERT, _Geschichte der Familie_, 42; and his
_Kulturgeschichte_, II, 86, 87, for the restraining effects of
the blood-feud.

[554] This fact is overlooked by McLennan, who, though
maintaining that exogamy originates in wife-capture, still
believes that the reduction of capture to a system is due to the
influence of exogamy. WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 389,
makes the same oversight; though, of course, the horror of close
intermarriage, in case of inability to purchase, might lead to
the occasional breach of custom in the form of wife-stealing.

II. WIFE-PURCHASE AND ITS SURVIVAL IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY

It is a common opinion that marriage by purchase supersedes wife-capture as a later and higher stage of development. Such apparently is the view of McLennan, who regards the purchase-contract as of late origin and as the principal means by which the transition from the maternal to the paternal system of kinship and to the individual family was brought about.[555] Post declares that bride-purchase is a universal phase of development, more advanced than that of wife-capture;[556] and he agrees with McLennan in regarding it as a mark of transition.[557] A similar position is taken by Heusler, Lippert, Kulischer, and also by Kohler;[558] while Spencer, without asserting that either is a stage through which marriage among all peoples has passed, thinks that purchase is the usual substitute for violence as civilization progresses. "We may suspect," he says, "that abduction, spite of parents, was the primary form; that there came next the making of compensation to escape vengeance; that this grew into the making of presents beforehand; and that so resulted eventually the system of purchase."[559]

[555] MCLENNAN, _Patriarchal Theory_, 45, 234, 289, 315,
320, 327, 328, 291; _cf._ WAKE, _Marriage and Kinship_,
388 ff.

[556] POST, _Geschlechtsgenossenschaft_, 63 ff.;
_Familienrecht_, 175; _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, I, 329 ff.;
_Ursprung des Rechts_, 56 ff.

[557] POST, _Familienrecht_, 92, 93, 96, 97. Such also
is the opinion of WAKE, _op. cit._, 390 ff.

[558] HEUSLER, _Institutionen_, II, 280; and
LIPPERT, _Geschichte der Familie_, 42, 44 ff., 95-118,
agree with McLennan in regarding purchase, at first as an
alternative for capture, as a general form of marriage through
which transition is made to the paternal system of kinship and
the modern family; KULISCHER, in _ZFE._, X, 193, 218,
and KOHLER, "Studien," _ZVR._, V, 336; "Die Ehe mit und
ohne Mundium," _ibid._, VI, 333 ff., take a like position.

[559] SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_, I, 655.
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 287 ff., takes a
similar position.

It requires little argument, of course, to show that robbery _per se_ is a less civilized method of acquiring property than contract. That is as true among ourselves now as it has ever been among savages. For particular individuals, even for particular tribes, a transition from rape to contract, as the result of moral development, will of course take place. It by no means follows, however, that the one method has succeeded the other as a general stage for all mankind, or indeed for a single community. Even if we admit that "barter and commerce are comparatively late inventions of man"[560]--an assumption which, though probable, still requires proof--rape is not the necessary alternative in getting property, much less in getting a wife.

[560] WESTERMARCK, _Human Marriage_, 400, 389, in
opposition to PESCHEL, _The Races of Man_, 209 ff., who
"contends that barter existed in those ages in which we find the
earliest signs of our race."

It is highly significant that wife-capture, real or pretended, is usually found side by side with wife-purchase. They appear together among peoples exceedingly low in the scale of progress; while marriage by purchase very frequently occurs among rude races where capture, unless as a mere symbol, is not found at all. Thus in Africa purchase is very common, and it is occasionally accompanied by actual or pretended rape.[561] So likewise real capture and wife-purchase coexist in various parts of Europe, Asia, and America; and wherever ceremonial capture occurs among races not far advanced in civilization it is almost invariably combined with marriage by purchase, or its allied forms, marriage by serving, gift, or exchange.[562]

[561] KOHLER, "Das Negerrecht," _ZVR._, XI. 432 ff.,
436; "Studien," _ibid._, V, 350; WESTERMARCK, _op.
cit._, 384; REHME, "Das Recht der Amaxosa," _ZVR._, X,
38.

[562] For additional examples of the coexistence of real or
pretended capture with purchase or its allied forms, see
especially KOHLER, "Studien," _ZVR._, V, 334-68; _idem_,
"Indische Gewohnheitsrechte," _ibid._, VIII, 264 (Orissa);
_idem_, "Ueber das Recht der Papuas," _ibid._, VII, 378, 379
(actual purchase and capture _de facto_); also POST,
_Familienrecht_, 138 ff., 142 ff., 147 ff.; WESTERMARCK,
_op. cit._, 383, 384, 386-88, 399, 401; MCLENNAN,
_Studies_, I, 38, 39; LETOURNEAU, _op. cit._, 120, 126,
144.

If, now, the cases in which capture and purchase appear together be carefully examined, decisive evidence is disclosed that the purchase contract is really the normal form of marriage, while capture is usually, if not always, merely an exceptional, even illegal, means of procuring a wife. It is not surprising, for instance, that uncivilized races, with well-established marital institutions, should occasionally steal women from hostile tribes. Thus the Macas Indians of Ecuador "acquire wives by purchase, if the woman belongs to the same tribe, but otherwise by force."[563] In Australia wives are often, perhaps usually, procured by exchange or purchase; and a girl is generally betrothed when a child, sometimes as soon as she is born.[564] Actual woman-capture exists. But, as shown by Mr. Howitt's researches and those of Spencer and Gillen, marriage with a captured woman is only permitted when the captor and the captive belong to groups which may legally intermarry. Death is sometimes the penalty for violation of the class rules in this regard. The result is that in Australia woman-stealing "amounts merely to a violent extension of the marital rights over a class in one tribe to captured members of the corresponding class in another tribe." Furthermore, if the native songs prove the existence of wife-stealing, they also bear witness in the most decisive manner to love and choice in Australian marriage.[565]

[563] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 383.

[564] FISON AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 276,
285, 343 ff., 347, 348, 352-56; KOHLER, "Das Recht
der Australneger," _ZVR._, VII, 351, 352; CURR, _The
Australian Race_, I, 107; POST, _Familienrecht_, 205,
206; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 390; MCLENNAN,
_op. cit._, I, 40. By the _Tualcha mura_ custom, above referred
to, a daughter is promised _before_ she is born: SPENCER AND
GILLEN, _Native Tribes of Cent. Australia_, 554-60.

Very often capture and purchase are found united in such a way that they seem almost to be contending with each other for the mastery.[566] This union occurs in two general forms: either the woman elopes or is carried off without the guardian's consent, and a reconciliation is subsequently effected through payment of the bride-price or the rendering of a composition; or else the stipulation of the price is made before the abduction. In the latter case it is plain that we are dealing merely with ceremonial capture; in the former case the significant fact is that we have to do with a breach of the law.[567] A price is paid for the stolen woman because, like other property, she has an economic value; or a penalty is rendered in order to escape the blood-feud. Frequently, however, even when abduction occurs without the consent or knowledge of the girl's friends, the subsequent procedure in arranging the price or the penalty is strictly regulated by custom; and this fact may perhaps be regarded as a further proof that the forms under consideration, in special instances, represent a transition from capture to contract. Among the Galela and Tobelorese,[568] for example, when a man wishes a woman of a hostile tribe or family, he causes her to be abducted, as she goes out for water or wood, by twenty or more of his female friends, who bind her, if she resists, and bear her away to his house. Should the relatives of the girl attempt a rescue by force, the villagers assemble and try to effect a reconciliation. Pending the stipulation of the bride-money, the girl is allowed to escape to her home, where she is carefully watched. On the third day the friends assemble to discuss the price. If the woman has not lived with the man, she may then refuse him; otherwise the payment of the price is finally arranged.[569] In case of elopement it is the custom among the same people for the lovers to fly to the forest or to take refuge in a "prahu" on the sea, where they remain a month. On their return they are received in the house of the girl's parents. If the lover pays the bride-money, the woman follows him to his house; otherwise he must remain with his wife, and the children legally belong to the mother.[570] With the Bataks of Sumatra good form requires that the bridegroom should leave behind a weapon, a piece of clothing, or some similar article as a token that he has abducted the bride. Thereupon, when the bride-money is paid the marriage is regarded as legally complete. Should no token be left, however, the rape is illegal and the culprit may receive punishment.[571]

[565] MCLENNAN, _op. cit._, I, 41, 42, as evidence
of wife-capture, gives the following stanzas, taken from
GREY'S _Travels_, II, 313:

"Wherefore came you, Weerang,
In my beauty's pride,
Stealing cautiously,
Like the tawny boreang,
On an unwilling bride?
'Twas thus you stole me
From one who loved me tenderly.
A better man he was than thee,
Who having forced me thus to wed,
Now so oft deserts my bed.
Yang, yang, yang, yoh.

"Oh, where is he who won
My youthful heart;
Who oft used to bless
And called me loved one?
You, Wearang, tore apart
From his fond caress
Her whom you desert and shun;
Out upon the faithless one!
Oh, may the Boyl-yas bite and tear
Her, whom you take your bed to share.
Yang, yang, yang, yoh."

[566] DARGUN, _Mutterrecht und Raubehe_, 85-87, thinks
we have in these forms a transition from actual to formal
wife-capture. Possibly they may represent in particular instances
transition from capture to purchase. _Cf._ POST,
_Familienrecht_, 142 ff., 147 ff. for numerous examples; and
KOHLER, "Studien," _ZVR._, V, 337 ff.

[567] Compare BERNHÖFT, "Principien des eur.
Familienrechts," _ZVR._, IX, 394, 395, who believes that in
Europe rape was never a "legal form" of marriage. It was merely
a "preliminary act." Among primitive men no difference is made
between fact and law; and only in this sense can wife-capture be
regarded as the foundation of a marriage; _ibid._, 392, 393.

[568] Inhabitants of the Malay island of Djilolo. _Cf._
RIEDESEL, "Galela und Tobeloresen," _ZFE._, XVII (1885).

[569] POST, _op. cit._, 148.

[570] _Ibid._, 151, 152.

[571] _Ibid._, 148, 149. For other examples of leaving a token
see _ibid._, 149, 150.

Very naturally elopement or abduction most frequently takes place when it is difficult or impossible to bring about the marriage in the legal or customary way. Either the parties belong to groups between which _jus connubii_ does not exist; or the lover is too poor to pay the price demanded for the bride; or else the parents refuse their consent. Here we have an example of the operation of simple motives with which society, at all times and in all places, has been familiar. Such marriages, it has been pointed out, are usually marriages of inclination at least on the side of the lover, as opposed to the conventional marriage by purchase.[572]

[572] _Ibid._, 138, 154 ff. An excellent illustration is afforded
by Kalmuck custom: KOEHNE, "Das Recht der Kalmücken,"
_ZVR._, IX, 462.

It appears, then, so far as present investigation enables us to determine, that there is not sufficient evidence for assuming that wife-capture, except in isolated cases, has generally grown into marriage by purchase. As a rule, even among the lowest races, foreign or warlike capture is an exceptional method of procuring wives; while bride-stealing at home, though the symbol may sometimes be sanctioned, is merely looked upon as illegal or even immoral;[573] and, therefore, with advancing civilization it yields to contract as the highest means of effecting a marriage.[574]

[573] Among the Nez-Percés Indians, for example, runaway matches
are not unknown, but "the woman is in such cases considered a
prostitute, and the bride's parents may seize upon the man's
property."--BANCROFT, _Native Races_, I, 277.

[574] The view presented in the text should be compared with
BERNHÖFT'S judgment. Granting that capture was crowded
out by purchase, he does not think, with DARGUN,
that it was effected through abduction by prior or subsequent
payment of the composition or price; but rather that it
gradually disappeared in consequence of the severe penalties
imposed for breach of the law and other disadvantages; so
that "in Folge dessen der schon früher durchaus übliche Kauf
zur alleinigen Eheschliessungsform wurde."--"Principien des
eur. Familienrechts," _ZVR._, IX, 401. _Cf._ the theory of
HILDEBRAND, _Ueber das Problem_, 17-22, who thinks rape
follows purchase, at least in the form of gifts, but that it is
of comparatively little importance; and MUCKE, _Horde
und Familie_, 111 ff., 139 ff., who reaches the same result in
a different way. See also DARGUN, _Mutterrecht und
Vaterrecht_. 120-22, 127, where the "illegal" nature of capture
is admitted.

Having now considered its relation to capture, let us next notice the significance of wife-purchase as a social institution.

The custom of giving a compensation for a bride, though not universal, exists or has existed among a vast number of peoples in various stages of progress; and it often survives as a mere symbol in the marriage ceremony. Kulischer, indeed, declares that actual wife-purchase can now be discovered only among a few savage races.[575] But this assertion seems to be wholly inconsistent with the facts. Recent researches, notably those of Post, Kohler, Westermarck, and various American scholars, place it beyond question that taking a wife, as the prosaic result of an ordinary bargain, is a familiar institution in many parts of the world.[576] Husband-purchase also appears, but examples of it are exceedingly rare.[577] Several methods of buying a wife are in use. The simplest way, says Westermarck, is "to give a kinswoman in exchange for her." This method is found in Sumatra;[578] and the Australian male "almost invariably obtains his wife or wives, either as the survivor of a married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life for his daughters."[579] Much more general is the custom, sometimes distinguished with the name of "marriage by service," in which the bridegroom earns his bride by serving her father. "This practice, with which Hebrew tradition[580] has familiarized us, is widely diffused among the uncivilized races of America, Africa, Asia, and the Indian Archipelago."[581] In America, as elsewhere, the custom takes a variety of forms. Among the Mayas the young husband is required to build a house opposite the home of his bride and live in it five or six years while he works for her father. If the service is not faithfully performed, he is dismissed, and the father-in-law gives his daughter to another.[582] In Yucatan the term of service is three or four years; and so stringent is the requirement that it is regarded as highly unseemly to shirk the duty.[583] According to Martius, with whom Souza mainly agrees,[584] the Brazilian native usually gains his first wife by serving her father. For him he goes hunting and fishing. He helps him build his hut, clear the forest, bring wood, and make canoes, weapons, and nets. During this period the lover continues to dwell with his own relatives, but tarries the whole day at the house of his wished-for bride.[585] If his suit is successful, either he may take up his abode for a while with his wife's family, or he may at once set up a separate hut for himself. Among the Guaycurûs the son-in-law dwells permanently with the woman's parents, but from the moment of the marriage they avoid speaking with him; and this custom of "bashfulness," often regarded as a survival of wife-capture and so indirectly of mother-right, prevails very widely in America and in other lands.[586] Service, though merely as proof of manly worth, appears also among the Seri, "probably the most primitive tribe in North America." The "would-be groom is required to enter the family of the girl and demonstrate (1) his capacity as a provider and (2) his strength of character as a man, by a year's probation."[587] Among the Kenai of the far north the lover must perform a year's service for his bride. "The wooing is in this wise: early some morning he enters the abode of the fair one's father, and without speaking a word proceeds to bring water, prepare food, and to heat the bath-room." When asked why he performs these services, "he answers that he desires the daughter for a wife. At the expiration of a year, without further ceremony, he takes her home, with a gift; but if she is not well treated by her husband, she may return to her father, and take with her the dowry."[588] In some places the service must all be rendered in advance; in others, the girl is received on credit and the man serves the required term after the marriage--a familiar example of each of these methods being afforded by the case of Jacob and Laban's daughters.[589] Moreover, as already seen, sometimes it is only the first or chief wife who is earned by service, the later ones being bought in exchange for property in the more usual way.

[575] KULISCHER, "Intercommunale Ehe durch Raub und
Kauf," _ZFE._, X, 219; _cf._ WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._,
390.

[576] In general on wife-purchase and its survivals
see POST, _Familienrecht_, 173-220; _idem_,
_Geschlechtsgenossenschaft_, 63-88; _idem_, _Afrikanische
Jurisprudenz_, I, 329 ff.; WESTERMARCK, _Human
Marriage_, 390-416; STARCKE, _Primitive Family_,
146, 232, 39, _passim_; LETOURNEAU, _L'évolution du
mariage_, 130-50; SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_,
I, 655, 754, 755; HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_,
306 ff., 323 ff.; GROSSE, _Die Formen der Familie_,
111 ff., 169 ff.; HILDEBRAND, _Recht und Sitte_, 19
ff., 31 ff.; BANCROFT, _Native Races_, as below cited;
FRIEDRICHS, "Familienstufen und Eheformen," _ZVR._, X,
213, 218, 245, 246; _idem_, "Ehe und Eherecht der griechischen
Heroenzeit," _ibid._, XI, 327 ff.; BERNHÖFT, "Principien
des eur. Familienrechts," _ibid._, IX, 400; KOHLER,
"Studien," _ibid._, V, 334-68; _idem_, "Indisches Ehe- und
Familienrecht," _ibid._, III, 345 ff.; _idem_, "Die Ehe mit und
ohne Mundium," _ibid._, VI, 333 ff.; and his other monographs,
_ibid._, VI, 167 (Burma), 365 and 405 (China); VII, 351 ff.
(Australia), 371, 372, 378 (Papuas), 382 (India), 395 (Armenia);
VIII, 85 (Gypsies), 86 (Eskimos), 87, 113 (Dekkan), 266 (Orissa),
241 ff. (Islam); IX, 326, 327 (Bengal), 334 (Chittagong), 334
(Burma); XI, 57 (Azteks), 167 (India), 419-21, 432 ff. (Kamerun);
REHME, "Das Recht der Amaxosa," _ZVR._, X, 37, 38;
POST, "Kodifikation des Rechts der Amaxosa," _ibid._,
XI, 232 ff.; HENRICI, "Das Recht der Epheneger,"
_ibid._, XI, 134; KOEHNE, "Das Recht der Kalmücken,"
_ibid._, IX, 461 ff.; LIPPERT, _Geschichte der Familie_,
42 ff., 95-118; UNGER, _Die Ehe_, 11, 17, 33, 46, 47,
77; LEIST, _Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_, 115, 116, 122
ff.; KRAUSS, _Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven_, 272 ff.,
451; JOLLY, _Ueber die rechtl. Stellung der Frauen_, 16
ff.; KAUTSKY, _Kosmos_, XII, 329 ff.; DARGUN,
_Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht_, 122-28, 149-54; HEUSLER,
_Institutionen_, II, 277-86; TILLINGHAST, "The Negro in
Africa and America," _Pub. Am. Ec. Ass._ (New York, 1902), III,
chap. v; ELLIS, _Ewe-Speaking Peoples_, 153 ff., 199 ff.

[577] This occurs, occasionally, where it is the custom for
the husband to pass into the wife's family at marriage:
POST, _Familienrecht_, 174; _cf._ SPENCER,
_Principles of Sociology_, I, 788; WESTERMARCK, _Human
Marriage_, 382, 416.

[578] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 390; MARSDEN,
_History of Sumatra_, 259.

[579] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 390. Compare
CURR, _The Australian Race_, I, 107; FISON AND
HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 276, 285, 343. On exchange
see KOHLER, in _ZVR._, III, 345 (India); VIII, 242
(Islam), 112 (India).

[580] LICHTSCHEIN, _Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmud.
Auffassung_, 10, 11.

[581] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 390, 391. He enumerates
the tribes in each continent among whom the custom is found. The
subject is also discussed by POST, _Familienrecht_,
197, 217-20; _idem_, _Geschlechtsgenossenschaft_, 75;
LETOURNEAU, _op. cit._, 135-37; BERNHÖFT,
"Ehe und Eherecht der griech. Heroenzeit," _ZVR._, XI, 321 ff.
For examples see KOHLER, in _ZVR._, V, 356, 357 (Malay
tribes); VI, 333, 334, 338 n. 49, 167; VIII, 113; IX, 334; XI,
420.

[582] BANCROFT, _Native Races_, I, 662.

[583] LETOURNEAU, _op. cit._, 136.

[584] The "youths serve the parents of the dames two or three
years before they are given them for wives; and they do not give
them except to those who serve them best, the men in love doing
the planting, fishing, and hunting for their fathers-in-law who
wish them to, and fetch them firewood from the forest; and when
the fathers-in-law give over to them the dames, they go and
lodge with the fathers-in-law with their wives," leaving their
own kindred: SOUZA, _Tratado Descriptivo do Brazil_
(1570-87): _Revist. Inst. Hist._, XIV, 311 ff.; _cf._ also
KOHLER, in _ZVR._, V, 352.

[585] During this courting season, among the small tribes on
the Amazon, the lover enjoys the so-called "bosom-right;" and
this custom, which appears to be identical in character with
that of "bundling" and the "proof-night," appears elsewhere
in America and in other parts of the world: MARTIUS,
_Rechtszustande_, 56; _ibid._, _Ethnographie_, I, 108; _cf._
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 321, 322.

[586] Among the Siouan peoples "the mother-in-law never speaks
to her son-in-law, unless on his return from war he bring her
the scalp and gun of a slain foe, in which event she is at
liberty from that moment to converse with him."--DORSEY,
"Siouan Sociology," _XV. Rep. of Bureau of Eth._, 241, 242.
Read especially DORSEY'S very interesting account
of this custom in his "Omaha Sociology," _ibid._, III, 262,
263; and compare BECKWITH, "Customs of the Dakotahs,"
_Rep. Smith. Inst._, 1886, Part I, 256, 257; and LONG,
_Expedition_, I, 253, 254.

It exists likewise in Australia: MATHEW, "Aust.
Aborigines," _Jour. R. S. N. S. Wales_, 408, 409;
DAWSON, _Aust. Aborigines_, 29; among the Kafirs and
Bushmans: FRITSCH, _Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrikas_, 114,
445; in China: SMITH, _Village Life in China_, chap.
xxiii; in general, HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_,
289, 290; LIPPERT, _Kulturgeschichte_, II, 93; and
CRAWLEY, _Mystic Rose_, 391-414, _passim_.

[587] MCGEE, "Siouan Indians," _XV. Rep. of Bureau of
Eth._, 202; and especially his "Seri Indians," _ibid._, XVII,