Page:The History of the American Indians.djvu/202

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

190 On the defcent of the American Indians from the Jews.

empted from the law of mourning, has a liberty to tie up her hair, anoint and paint herfelf in the fame manner as the Hebrew widow, who was refufed by the furviving brother of her deceafed hufband, became free to marry whom me pleafed.

The warm-conftitutioned young widows keep their eye fo intent on this mild beneficent law, that they frequently treat their elder brothers-in-law with fpirituous liquors till they intoxicate them, and thereby decoy them to make free, and fo put themfelves out of the reach of that mortifying law. If they are difappointed, as it.fometimes happens, they falcon the men, call ing them Hoobuk Wakfe^ or Skoobdlc, Hajfe kroopha, " Eunuchus prasputio detefto, et ene brcvi ," the moft degrading of epithets. Similar to the Hebrew ladies, who on the brother's refufal loofed his fhoe from his foot, and fpit in his face, (Deut. xxv. 9.); and as fome of the Rabbies tell us they made water in the Ihoe, and threw it with defpite in his face, and then readily went to bed to any of his kinfmen, or moft diftant relations of the fame line that fhe liked beft ; as Ruth married Boaz. Jofephus, to pal liate the fact, fays (he only beat him with the Ihoe over his face. Da vid probably alludes to this cuftom, Pfal. Ix. 8. "Over Edom I will caft out my fhoe," or detraction.

Either by corruption, or mifunderftanding that family-kitting cuftom of the Hebrews, the corrupt Cheerake marry both mother and daughter at once , though, unlefs in this inftance, they and all the other favage na tions obferve the degrees of confanguinity in a ftrider manner than the Hebrews, or even the chriftian world. The Cheerake do not marry their firft or fecond coufins , and it is very obfervable, that the whole tribe reckon a friend in the fame rank with a brother, both with regard to mar riage, and any other affair in focial life. This feems to evince that they copied from the ftable and tender friendfhip between Jonathan and David; efpecially as the Hebrews had legal, or adopted, as well as natural bro thers.

��ARGU-

�� �