as a pattern to the most civilised nation upon earth/' On the other hand^ while the Thlinkeet men are said to ** treat their wives and children with much affection/' and the women to show '^ reservoj modesty^ and conjngal fidelity/' they are described as thieyish, ^J^^Sf ^^^ ®^* tremely omel, maiming their prisoners oat of pure wantonness and killing their slaves; and, similarly, though the Bachassins (Bechuanas) are reprobated as lamentably debased, having '^ a universal disregard to truth and indifference to murder,^' yet the women are modest and " almost universally fidthful wives." A kindred anomaly m^ets us on contrasting societies in higher stages. We have but to read Cook's account of the Tahitians, who were not only considerably advanced in arts and social arrangements, but displayed the kindlier feelings in unusual degrees, to be astonished at their extreme disregard of restraints on the sexual instincts. Conversely, those treacherous, bloodthirsty cannibals the Fijians, who commit atrocities which Williams said he dared not recordj display considerable superiority in their sexual relations: Erskine states that '' female virtue may be rated at a high standard for a barbarous people."
Moreover, contrary to what we should expect, we find great sexual laxity in some directions joined with rigidity in others. Among the Koniagas *' a young unmarried woman may live uncensnred in the freest intercourse with the men; though, as soon as she belongs to one man, it is her duty to be true to him." Herrera tells us of the Cumana people — " The maidens * * * made little account of their virginity. The married women * * * lived chaste." And similarly P. Pizarro says of the Peruvians that ''the wives of the common people were &ithf ul to their husbands. ^ ^ * Before their marriage, their fathers did not care about their being either good or bad, nor was it a disgrace with them [to have loose habits.]" Even of those Chibchah husbands above referred to as so strangely indifferent, or 640 THX IKjMMSnC BILATIONB.
leas than indifferent^ to feminine chastity before marriage, it is said that '' neverthelesSj they were very sensitiTe to infidelity."
The evidencOj then, does not allow ns to infer, as we should naturally have done, that advance in the forms of the sexual rehitions and advance in social evolution, are constantly and uniformly connected.
§ 283. Nevertheless, on contemplating the &cts in their ensemble, we see that progress towards higher social types is joined with progress towards higher types of the sexual relations. Gompanson of the extremes makes this unquestionable. The lowest groups of primitive men, without political organization, are also without anything worthy to be called domestic organization: the relations of the sexes and those of parents to offspring are scarcely above those of brutes. Contrariwise, all civilized nations, characterized by definite, coherent, orderly social arrangements, are also characterized by definite, coherent, orderly &mily arrangements. Hence we cannot doubt that, spite of irregularities, the developments of the two are associated in a general way.
Leaving here this preliminary survey and its implications, we have now to trace, so far as we can, the successively higher forms of family structure^ We may expect to find the genesis of each depending on the circumstances of the society: conduciveness to social self-preservation under the conditions of the case, being the determining cause. Setting out with wholly-unregulated relations of the sexes, the first customs established must have been those which most favoured social survival; not because this was seen, bat because the societies that had customs less fit, disappeared.
But before considering the separate forms of the sexual relations, we must consider a previous question — ^Whence come the united persons? — ^Are they of the same tribe or of different tribes? or are they partiy one and partiy the other?
CHAPTER IV.
EXOGAMY AND ENDOGAMY.
§ 284. In luB ingenious and interesting work on Primu live Marriage/f^ tlie words " Exogamy " and " Endogamy *' are used by Mr. McLennan to distingaish the two practices of taking to wife women belonging to other tribes, and taking to wife women belonging to the same tribe. As explained in his preface, his attention was drawn to these diverse customs by an inquiry into '' the meaning and origin of the form of capture in marriage ceremonies;'* — an inquiry which led him to a general theory of early sexual relations. The following outline of his theory I disentangle, as well as I can, from statements that are not altogether consistent.
Scarcity of food led groups of primitive men to destroy female infants; because, ''as braves and hunters were required and valued, it would be the interest of every horde to rear, when possible, its healthy male children. It would be less its interest to rear females, as they would be less capable of self-support, and of contributing, by their exertions, to the common good/' (p. 165.)
Mr. M'Lennan next alleges that '' the practice ih early times of female infanticide," '' rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without.*' (p. 138.)
Joined with a re-statement of the causes we come upon * FrimUive Marriage, By John F. Mliennap. M.A., Edinburgh, 1866.
T T 6^2 THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS.
an inferred result^ as follows: — *' The scarcity of women within the group led to a practice of stealing the women of other gronps^ and in time it came to be considered improper^ because it was unusual^ for a man to marry a woman of his own group." (p. 289.) Or, as he says on p. 140, '^usage^ induced by necessity^ would in time establish a prejudice among the tribes observing it (exogamy) — a prejudice^ strong as a principle of religion, as every prejudice relating to marriage is apt to b^-^gainst marrying women of their own stock."
To this habitual stealing of wives, and re-stealing of them, as among the Australians (p. 76,) he ascribes that doubtful paternity which led to the recognition of kinship through females only. Though elsewhere admitting a more general cause for this primitive form of kinship (p. 159,) he regards wife-stealing as its most certain cause: saying that '' it must have prevailed wherever exogamy prevailed— exogamy and the consequent practice of capturing wives. Certunty as to fathers is impossible where mothers are stolen from, their first lords, and liable to be re-stolen before the birth Assuming the tribes which thus grew into the practice of wife-stealing, to have been originally homogeneous in blood, or at least to have supposed themselves, so Mr. McLennan arg!ies that the introduction of wives who were foreigners in blood, joined with the rise of the first definite conception of relationship (that between mother and child) and consequent system of kinship exclusively in the femsJe line, led to recognized heterogeneity within the tribe: there came to exist within the tribe, children regarded as belonging by blood to the tribes of their mothers. Hence arose another form of exogamy. The primitive requirement that a wife should be stolen from another tribe, naturally became confounded with the requirement that a wife should be of the blood of another tribe; and hence girls bom within the tribe, from mothers belonging to other tribes, became SXOaAMT AND ENDOGAMT. 643 eligible as wives. The original exogamy, carried out only by robbing other tribes of their women, gave place, in part, or wholly, to the modified exogamy carried out by marrying from within the tribe, women bearing family names which implied that they were foreign in blood.
In tracing the development of higher forms of the domestic relations, Mr. M'Lennan postulates, as we have seen, that the scarcity of women " led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without/' Describing and illustrating the different forms of polyandiy, ending in that highest form in which the husbands are brothers, he points out that at this stage there arose recognition not only of descent in the female line, but also of descent in the male line; since the father's blood was known, though not the father.
Then through gradually-established priority of the elder brother, as being the first of the group to marry and the first likely to have children, it became an accepted fiction that all the children were his: " the elder brother was a sort of paterfamilias;" and ''the ide^ of fatherhood'' thus caused, was a step towards kinship through males, and *' a step away from kinship through females." (pp. 243-4.)
Pointing out that among some polyandrous peoples, as the Kandians, the chiefs have become monogamists, Mr. McLennan argues (p. 245) that their example would be followed, and c' thus would arise a practice of monogamy or of polygamy." And he thence traces the genesis of the patriarchal form, the system of agnation, the institution of caste.
Though this outline of Mr. M'Lennan's theory is expressed, wherever regard for brevity permits, in his own words, yet possibly he may take exception to it; for, as already hinted, there are incongruities in his statements, and the order in which they are placed is involved. That many of the phenomena he describes exist, is beyond question. It is undeniable that the stealing of women, still habitual with sundry low races, was practised in the past by races 644 THI DOnSTIO bilations.
now higher; and that the form of captare in marriage ceremonies prerails in Bocietiea where no real captare occurs at present. It is undeniable that kinship through females is, among various primitive peoples^ the only kinship avowedly recognized; and that it leads to the descent of name, rank, and property in the female line. It is undeniable that in many places where wife- stealing is, or has been, the practice, marriage is forbidden between those of the same family name, who are assumed to be of the same stock. But whOe admitting much of the evidence, and while accepting some of the inferences, we shall find reason for doubting Mr. Mljennan's theoiy taken as a whole. Let us consider, first, the minor objections.
§ 285. Sundry facts inconsistent with his conclusion, though referred to by Mr. MfLiennan, he passes over as of no weight. He thinks there is warrant for the belief that exogamy and wife-capture have *^ been practised at a certain stage among every race of mankind'' (p. 138): this stage being the one now exemplified by sundry low races. Nevertheless, he admits that ''the separate endogamous tribes are nearly as numerous, and they are in some respects as rude, as the separate exogamous tribes.'' (p. 145.) Now if, as he believes, exogamy and wife-stealing have "been practised at a certain stage among every race of mankind " — ^that stage being the primitive one; and if, as he seeks to prove, endogamy is a form reached through a long series of social developments; it is difficult to understand how the endogamous tribes can be as rude as the exogamous ones. Again, he names the fact that " in some districts— as in the hills on the north-eastern frontier of India, in the Caucasus, and the hill ranges of Syria — ^we find a variety of tribes, proved, by physical characteristics and the affinities of language, of one and the same original stock, yet in this particular differing toto ccelo from one imother — some forbidding marriage within the tribe, and EZOQAUY AND ENDOGAMY. 645 some proscribing marriage without if (pp. 147-8): a fact by no means congmoas witb his hypothesis.
Should Mr. McLennan reply that on pp. 47-8 he has recognized the possibility^ or probability^ that there were tribes primordially endogamous — should he say that on pp. 144-5 will be found the admission that perhaps exogamy and endogamy ''may be equally archaic;*' the rejoinder is that besides being inconsistent with his belief that exogamy has " been practised at a certain stage among eyery race of mankind/' this possibility is one which he practically rejecta On pp. 148-50, he sketches out a series of changes by which exogamous tribes may eventually become endogamous; and in subsequent sections on the ^' Growth of Agnation/* and " The Eise of Endogamy/' he tacitly asserts that endogamy has thus developed: if not without exception, still, generally. Indeed, the title of one of his chapters — '' The Decay of Exogamy in Advancing Communities," clearly implies the belief that exogamy was general, if not universal, with the uncivilized; and that endogamy grew up along with civilization. Thus the incongruity between the propositions quoted in the last paragraph, cannot be escaped.
Sundry other of Mr. MlJennan's reasonings conflict with one another. Assuming that in the earliest state, tribes were stock-groups ''organized on the principle of exogamy," he speaks of them as having " the primitive instinct of the race against marriage between members of the same stock." (p. 118.) Yet, as we have seen above, he elsewhere speaks of wife-capture as caused by scarcity of women within the tribe; and attributes to this " usage induced by necessity" the prejudice against " marrying women of their own stock." Moreover, if, as he says (and I believe rightly says) on p. 145, *' men must originally have been free of any prejudice ag;ainst marriage between relations," it seems inconsistent to allege that there was a " primitive instinct** " against marriage between members of the same stock."
Again^ wKiIe in some places the establishment of the exogamous prejadice is ascribed to the practice of wifestealing (p. 53-4 and p. 186) it is elsewhere made the antecedent of wife-stealing: interdict against marriage within the tribe was primordial. Now if this last is Mr. M'Lennan's view^ I agree with Sir J. Lubbock in thinking that it is untenable. It cannot be assnmed that in these earliest groups of men^ with which Mr. McLennan commences^ there were any established rules of marriage. Unions of the sexes must have preceded all social laws. The rise of a social law implies a certain preceding continuity of social existence; and this preceding continuity of social existence implies the reproduction of successive generations. Hence reproduction entirely unregulated by interdicts, must be taken as initial Assuming, however, that of his two views Mr. Mnjennan will abide by the more tenable one, that wife-stealing led to exogamy, let us ask how far he is justified in alleging that female infanticide, and consequent scarcity of women, led to wife-stealing. At first sight it appears undeniable that destruction of infant girls, if frequent, must have been accompanied by deficiency of adult females; and it seems strange to call in question the legitimacy of this inference. But Mr. McLennan has overlooked a concomitant. Tribes in a state of chronic hostility are constantly losing their adult males, and the male mortality so caused is usually considerable. Hence the killing many female infants does not necessitate lack of women: it may merely prevent excess. Excess must, indeed, be inevitable if, equal numbers of males and females being reared, some of the males are from time to time slain. The assumption from which Mr. M'Lennan's argument sets out, is, therefore, inadmissible.
How inadmissible it is, becomes conspicuous on finding that where wife-stealing is now practised, it is commonly associated with polygyny. The Fuegians, named by Mr^ EZOaAHT AND SKD00AH7. 647 M'Lennan among wife-stealing peoples^ are poljgynists. According to Dovo> the Tasmanians were poljgynists^ and Lloyd says that polygyny was universal among them; yet the Tasmanians were wife-stealers. The Australians far«-nish Mr. McLennan with a typical instance of wife-stealing and exogamy; and though Mr. Oldfield alleges scarcity of women among them^ yet other testimony is quite at variance with his. Mitchell says: — " Most of the men appeared to possess two [females], the pair in general consisting of a fat plump gin^ and one much younger ''; and according to the Frenchman Peltier^ named in the last chapter as having lived seventeen years with the Macadama tribe in Queensland, the women were '' more numerous than the men, every man having from two to five women in his suite." In North America the Dakotahs are at once wife-stealers and polygynists. Burton tells us. In South America the Brazilians similarly unite these traits; and among the Caribs they are especially associated. Writing of polygyny as practised on the Orinoco, Humboldt says: — " It is most considerable among the Caribs, and all the nations that have preserved the custom of carrying ofiF young girls from the neighbouring tribes.^' How then can wife-stealing be ascribed to scarcity of women 7 A converse incongruity likewise militates against Mr. M^Lennan's theory. His position is that female infanticide, '^rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without.'* But polyandry does not, so far as I see, distinguish wife-stealing tribes. We do not find it among the abovenamed Tasmanians, Australians, Dakotahs, Brazilians; and although it is said to occur among the Fuegians, and characterizes some of the Caribs, it is much less marked than their polygyny. Contrariwise, though it is not a trait of peoples who rob one another of their women, it is a trait of certain rude peoples who are habitually peaceful. There is polyandry among the Esquimaux, who do not even know what 648 THB Dovxsnc biiatioks.
war 18. There is poljandiy among the Todaa^ who in no way aggress upon their neighbonrs.
Other minor difficolties might be dwelt npon. There is the fact that in many cases exogamy and endogamy co-exist; as among the ComancheSj the New Zealanders, the Lepchas, the Califomians. There is the fact that in sundry cases polygyny and polyandry co-exist, as among the Faegians, the Caribs^ the Esqnimaux, the WaranSj the Hottentots, the ancient Britons. There is the fact that there are some exogamons tribes who have not the form of capture in marriage; as the Iroquois and the Chippewas. But not dwelling on these, I torn to certain cardinal difficulties, obyious d priori, which appear to me insuperable.
§ 286. Setting out with primitive homogeneous groups, Mr. McLennan contends that the scarcity of women caused by destruction of female infants, compelled wife-stealing; and he thinks that this happened '' at a certain stage among every race of mankind.^' (p. 138.) The implication is, therefore, that a number of adjacent tribes, usually belonging to the same variety of man in the same stage of progress, were simultaneously thus led to rob one another. But immediately we think of wife-stealing as a practice not of one tribe only, but of many tribes forming a cluster, there presents itself the question — How was the scarcity of wives thus remedied f If each tribe had fewer women than men, how could the tribes get wived by taking one another's women f The scarcity remained the same: what one tribe got another lost. Bearing in mind the low fertility and great infant mortality among savages, if there is a chronic deficiency of women and the tribes rob one another equally, the result must be diminished population in all the tribes. If some, robbing others in excess, get enough wives, and leave certain of the rest with very few, these must tend towards extinction. And if the surviving tribes carry on the process, there appears no limit until the strongest tribe.
wwwmpip EZOQAMY Am) IKDOGAMT. 649 eontinniag to sapply itself with women from tlie less strong, finally alone sunrives and has no tribes to rob.
Should it be replied that female infanticide is, on the average of cases, not carried so far as to make the namber of wiyes insufficient to maintain the aggregate population — should it be said that only exceptional tribes rear so few women as not to haye mothers enough to produce the next generation; then we are met by a still greater difficulty. If in each of the exogamous tribes forming the supposed cluster, the men are forbidden to marry women of their own tribe, and must steal women from other tribes; the implication is that each tribe knowingly rears wiyes for neighbouring tribes, but not for itself. Though each tribe kills many of its female infants that it may not be at the cost of rearing them for its own benefit, yet it deliberately rears the remainder for the benefit of its enemies. Surely this is an inadmissible supposition. In proportion as the interdict against marrying women within the tribe is peremptory, the preservation of girls will be useless — ^worse than useless, indeed, since adjacent hostile tribes, to whom they must go as wiyes, will be thereby strengthened. And as all the tribes, liying under like interdicts, will have like motives, they will all of them cease to rear female infants.
Manifestly, then, exogamy in its original form, can never have been anything like absolute among the tribes forming a cluster; but can have been the law among some of them only.
§ 287. In his concluding chapter, Mr. McLennan says that " on the whole, the account which we have given of the origin of exogamy, appears the only one which will bear examination.'' (p. 289.) It seems to me, however, that setting out with the postulate laid down by him, that primitiv^e groups of men are habitually hostile, we may, on asking what are the concomitants of war, be led to a different theory, open to none of the objections above raised.
In all times and places, among savage and civilized, vio« 650 THS DOMESTIC BlIATIONS.
tory is followed by pillage. Whateyer portable tilings of worth the conquerors find^ thej take. The enemies of the Faegians plunder them of their dogs and arms; pastond tribes in Africa have their cattle driven away by oonqoering marauders; and peoples more advanced are robbed of their money^ ornaments^ and all valuable things that are not too heavy. The taking of women is manifestly bat a part of this process of spoiling the vanquished. Women are prised as wives^ as concubines^ as drudges; and^ the men having been killed^ the women are carried off along with the other moveables. Everywhere among the uncivilized we find this. Turner tells us that ^* in Samoa^ in dividing the spoil of a conquered people^ the women were not killed, but taken as wives." We learn from Mitchell that in Australia, '*^on some whites telling a native that they had shot a man of another tribe, his only remark was: — ' Stupid whitef ellows!
why did you not bring away the gins?' " And P. Martyr says that among the cannibal Caribs in his day, " to eat women was considered unlawful. * * * Those who were captured young were kept for breeding, as we keep fowl, etc'* Early legends of the semi -civilized show us the same thing; as when in the Iliad we read that the Greeks plundered ''the sacred city of Eetion," and that part of the spoils " they divided among themselves *' were the women. And there need no examples to recall the fact that in later and more civilized times, successes in battle have been followed by transactions allied in character, if not the same in form. Hence it is obvious that from the beginning down to comparatively late stages, women-stealing has been an incident of successful war.
Observe, next, that the spoils of conquest, some of them prized for themselves, are some of them prized as trophies Proofs of prowess are above all things treasured by the savage. He brings back his enemy's scalp, like the North American Indian. He dries and preserves his enemy's head, like the New Zealander. He fringes his robe with EZOOAMT AND ENDOOAUT. 6ol locks of hair cut from his slain foe. Among other signs of success in battle is return with a woman of the yanquished tribe. Beyond her intrinsic value she has an extrinsic value. Like a native wife, she serves as a slave; but unlike a native wife^ she serves also as a trophy. As^ then^ among savages, warriors are the honoured members of the tribe — as, among warriors, the most honoured are those whose bravery is best shown by achievements; the possession of a wife taken in war becomes a badge of social distinction. Hence members of the tribe thus married to foreign women, are held to be more honourably married than those married to native women. What must result?
In a tribe not habitually at war, or not habitually successful in war, no decided effect is likely to be produced on the marriage customs. If the great majority of the men have native wives, the presence of a few whose superiority is shown by having foreign wives, will fail to change the practice of taking native wives: the majority will keep one another in countenance. But if the tribe, becoming more successful in war, robs adjacent tribes of their women more frequently, there will grow up the idea that the nowconsiderable class having foreign wives form the honourable class, and that those who have not proved their bravery by bringing back these living trophies are dishonourable: nonpossession of a foreign wife will come to be regarded as a proof of cowardice. An increasing ambition to get foreign wives will therefore arise; and as the number of those who are without them decreases, the brand of disgrace attaching to them will grow more decided; until, in the most warlike tribes, it becomes an imperative requirement that a wife shall be obtained from another tribe — ^if not in open war, then by private abduction.
A few facts showing that by savages proofs of courage are often required as qualifications for marriage, will carry home this conclusion. Hemdon tells us that among the Mahu6s, a man cannot take a wife until he has sub- 652 THS DOM ssnc ulatiohs; nutted to severe torture. Bates, speaking of the Paas^ on the Upper Amasons, says that formerly " the yoang men earned their brides by valiant deeds in war." Before he ia allowed to marry, a yonng Dyak must prove his bravery by bringing back the head of an enemy. Bancroft quotes Colonel Cremony as saying that when the Apaches warriors return unsuccessful, '' the women turn away from them with assured indifference and contempt. They are upbraided as cowards, or for want of skill and tact, and are told that such men should not have wives." That among other results of sentiments thus exemplified, abduction of women will be one, is obvious; for a man who, denied a wife till he has proved his courage, steals one, satisfies his want and achieves reputation at the same time. If, as we see, the test of deserving a wife is in some cases obtainment of a trophy, what more natural than that the trophy should often be the stolen wife herself? What more natural than that where many warriors of the tribe are distinguished by stolen wives, the stealing of a wife should become the required proof of fitness to have one? Hence would follow a peremptory law of exogamy.
In so far as it implies that usage grows into law, this interpretation agrees with that of Mr. McLennan. It does not, however, like his, assume either that this usage origrinated in a primordial instinct, or that it resulted from scarcity of women caused by infanticide. Moreover, unlike Mr. M^ennan's, the explanation so reached is consistent with the fact that exogamy and endogamy in many cases co-exist; and with the &ct that exogamy often coexists with polygyny. Further, it does not involve us in the difficulty raised by supposing a peremptory law of exogamy to be obeyed throughout a cluster of tribes.
§ 288. But can the great prevalence of the form of capture in marriage ceremonies be thus accounted forf Mr* M'l^unan believes that wherever this form is now found.
I EXCMUMT AND ENDOQAMT. 653 complete exogamy once prevailed. Examination will^ I thinks show that the implication is not necessary. There are several ways in which the form of captnre naturally arises; or rather, let as say, it has several conspiring caoses.
If, as we have seen, there still exist rude tribes in which men fight for possession of women, the taking possession of a woman naturally comes as a sequence to an act of capture. That monopoly which constitutes her a wife in the only sense known by the primitive man, is a result of successful violence. Thus the form may originate from actual capture within the tribe, instead of originating from actual capture without it.
Beyond that resistance to a man's seizure of a woman apt to be made by other men within the tribe, there is the resistance of the woman herself. Sir John Lubbock expresses the opinion that female coyness is not an adequate cause for the establishment of the form of capture; and it may be that, taken alone, it does not suffice to account for everything. But there are reasons for thinking it an important factor. Here are some of them. Crantz tells us concerning the Esquimaux, that when a damsel is asked in marriage, she— <* direcUy falls into the greatest apparent consternation, and nins 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."
Like behaviour is shown by Bushmen girls. When — " a girl has grown up to womanhood without having previously been betrothed, her lover must gain her own approbation, as well as that of the parents; and on this occasion his attentions are received with an affectation of great alarm and disinclination on her part, and with some squabbling on the part of her Mends."
Again, among the Sinai Arabs, says Burckhardt, a bride— '* defends herself with stones, and often inflicts wounds on the young men, even though she does not dislike the lover; for, according to custom, the more she struggles, bites, kicks, cries, and strikes, the more she is applauded ever after by her own companions.'* During the procession to the Losband's camp, " decency obliges her to ciy and sob most bitterly."
Of the Muzos^ Piedrahita narrates that after agreement with the parents was made— " the bridegroom came to see the bride, and stayed three days caressing her, while she replied by beating him with her fists and with sticks. After these three days she got tamer, and cooked his meals." In these cases^ then, coyness, either real or affected for reputation's sake, causes resistance of the woman herself. In other cases there is joined with this the resistance of her female friends. We read of the Sumatran women that ^^ both the bride and her female relatives make it a point of honour to prevent (or appear to prevent) the bridegroom from obtaining his bride.'' On the occasion of a marriage among the Araucanians, Smith tells us that ''the women spring up en masse, and arming themselves with clubs, stones, and missiles of all kinds, rush to the defence of the distressed maiden. * * * It is a point of honour with the bride to resist and struggle, however willing she may be." And once more we learn from Grieve that when a Elamtschadale '^ bridegroom obtains the liberty of seizing his bride, he seeks every opportunity of finding her alone, or in company of a few people, for during this time all the women in the village are obliged to protect her."
Here we have, I think, proof that one origin of the form of capture is feminine opposition — ^primarily of the woman herself, and secondarily of female friends who naturally sympathize with her. Though the manners of the inferior races do not imply much coyness, yet we cannot suppose coyness to be wholly absent. Hence that amount of it which really exists, joined with that further amount simulated for reputation's sake, will make resistance, and consequently capture, natural phenomena. Moreover, since a savage makes his wife a slave, and usually treats her brutally, she has an additional motive for resistance.
Nor does forcible opposition proceed only from the girl and her female friends: the male members of her BXOQAMY AND ENDOGAMT^ 656