Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 23, 1912.djvu/126

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
104
Correspondence.

than No. 2, may come along, and the same tragedy may be repeated. Can the result be called a true marriage? Surely not. Mr. Lang refers to the case of the Gorilla, where each male lives for a time with a female in solitary state.[1] I feel great difficulty in understanding how under a solitary life any progress could be made; and have suggested the habits of the social Quadrumana, which live in often large troops, comprising several males, as probably more nearly resembling those of our ancestors.

I cannot, however, ask the Editor to find room for the evidence which I have brought forward in The Origin of Civilisation and in Marriage, Totemism, and Religion.

Origin of Marriage.—If, then, there was a time when the institution of marriage did not exist, how did it originate?

I have suggested that, if a man captured a woman from another tribe, he acquired a recognised right of possession. But, says Mr. Lang, how could this apply to marriage within the tribe? "When men took to capturing women within their own tribe, the tribe would be broken up by internal blood-feuds. A tribe which practised, as a rule, capture of brides within the tribe would be weakened by internal dispeace." Mr. Lang has referred to one or two cases in which I have overlooked passages of his. In this case he does not notice that, as long ago as 1866, I anticipated and answered, or attempted to answer, this objection. I referred[2] to the numerous cases of what I called "expiation for marriage," in which the prior rights of the tribe were admitted and redeemed, before the marriage was recognised. When such arrangements were amicably made, the final ceremony was very generally a mock marriage by capture.

This symbol of marriage by capture is very widely distributed. It occurs in many Indian tribes, in the Malay Peninsula, among

  1. He points out an important omission in a quotation from Mr. Darwin which I much regret. My copyist is generally very correct, and unfortunately I omitted to notice the error. It does not, indeed, affect my argument, but makes my difference from Mr. Darwin greater than would otherwise appear. I cannot, of course, put my opinion against Darwin's, but I am disposed to think that, if he had had before him the evidence which has since accumulated, he might have modified his views.
  2. The Origin of Civilisation etc., pp. 130 et seq.