II. The Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies

In the whole range of legal symbolism there is no symbol more remarkable than that of capture in marriage ceremonies—the origin of which it is our purpose to investigate—nor is there any the meaning of which has been less studied. So far as we know, neither has the extent to which it prevails been made the subject of inquiry; nor its significance the subject of thought. In two cases, indeed, the occurrence of the symbol could not fail to receive some attention. But, naturally, it did not lie in the way of the historians of either Greece or Rome to examine the matter very minutely, or to follow up the suggestions which, upon examination, it might have yielded, as to the early condition of the Dorians or Latins. Accordingly, the custom has been accepted as meaning no more than Festus said it did among the Romans, than Muller says it did among the Spartans; as indicating nothing at Rome but the popular appreciation of the good fortune of Romulus in the rape of the Sabines; as indicating, at Sparta, the feeling that a young woman “could not surrender her freedom and virgin purity unless compelled by the violence of the stronger sex.” It is surprising that writers so acute should have rested content with such explanations, and that their views should have been so generally adopted. The theory of Festus we shall have occasion to notice hereafter: of that of Muller we observe that before we can entertain it, we must suppose that in the exceedingly lax community of the Spartans, or at least within certain of the tribes composing that community, there had been an early period of austere virtue, the tradition of which was still so influential as to compel the Spartans to observe in their marriages this custom as the shadow of their former delicacy. Now, of the existence of such a period of prudery among the ancient Dorians, or among the Pelasgi, or the Achæans, there is not a tittle of evidence. On the contrary, such evidence as we have, points to the Lacedæmonian customs as having been an improvement on ancient practice. Savages are not remarkable for delicacy of feeling in matters of sex, and the wandering hordes, who in succession overran the Peloponessus, were no better than savages when they first come under our observation. Again, no case can be cited of a primitive people among whom the seizure of brides is rendered necessary by maidenly coyness. On the contrary, it might be shown, were it worth while to deal seriously with this view, that women among rude tribes are usually depraved, and inured to scenes of depravity from their earliest infancy. In this state of the facts, it is remarkable that any one should have been satisfied with so improbable an explanation.

Rejecting, then, the primitive prudery hypothesis, which requires for its basis a declension from ancient standards of purity—of the existence of which we have no evidence—we proceed to examine the various phases in which the symbol of capture is presented. We shall find it in places far from classic ground, and pointing, in all its varieties, so steadily to the true theory of its origin, that the mere exhibition of its phases will lead the reader to anticipate much of what we have to say on the subject. In order to see what is the precise state of the facts with which we have to deal, it is necessary to say something of the nature of the symbol, and to adduce at some length such accounts of it as we find in our authorities.

The symbol of capture occurs whenever, after a contract of marriage, it is necessary for the constitution of the relation of husband and wife that the bridegroom or his friends should go through the form of feigning to steal the bride, or carry her off from her friends by superior force. The marriage is agreed upon by bargain, and the theft or abduction follows as a concerted matter of form, to make valid the marriage. The test, then, of the presence of the symbol in any case is, that the capture is concerted, and is preceded by a contract of marriage. If there is no preceding contract, the case is one of actual abduction.

So far of the nature of the symbol. We proceed to examine the instances of its occurrence. That the form was observed in the marriages of the Dorians, and was, equally with betrothal, requisite as a preliminary of marriage, rests chiefly on the authority of Herodotus and Plutarch. The evidence of Herodotus is indirect, and is contained in the well-known passage in which he explains how Demaratus robbed Lestychides of his bride Percalus, to whom he had been betrothed—forestalling him in carrying her off and marrying her. The case was one of actual abduction; but the language of Herodotus implies that it remained for Lestychides, in order to make Percalus his wife, that he should go through the form of carrying her off. With this must be conjoined the express statement of Plutarch, that the Spartan bridegroom always carried off the bride by feigned violence. He says, indeed, by violence; but at the same time he shews that the seizure was made by friendly concert between the parties. These passages must be held sufficiently to prove that the custom existed at Sparta. It is equally certain that it was observed at Rome, in the plebeian marriages which were not constituted by Confarreatio or Coemptio. The bridegroom and his friends—the time agreed upon having arrived—invaded the house of the bride, and carried off the lady with feigned force from the lap of her mother, or of her nearest female relation if the mother were dead or absent. The seizure is vividly described by Apuleius in the story of the Captive Damsel, in which he is understood to have had the plebeian form of marriage in view. The lady, narrating how she had been carried off, says that her mother having dressed her becomingly in nuptial apparel, was loading her with kisses, and looking forward to a future line of descendants, when on a sudden a band of robbers, armed like gladiators, rushed in with glittering swords, made straight for her chamber in a compact column, and, without any struggle or resistance whatever on the part of the servants, tore her away half dead with fear from the bosom of her trembling mother. The custom is said still to prevail to a great extent among the Hindus. It may well do so, for we find what must, as we shall show, be held to be the form of capture, prescribed as a marriage ceremony to the Hindus in the Sutras. It prevails among the Khonds in the hill tracts of Orissa. The marriage being agreed upon, a feast, to which the families of the parties equally contribute, is prepared at the dwelling of the bride. “To the feast,” says Major M’Pherson, “succeed dancing and song. When the night is far spent, the principals in the scene are raised by an uncle of each upon his shoulders, and borne through the dance. The burdens are suddenly exchanged, and the uncle of the youth disappears with the bride. The assembly divides into two parties; the friends of the bride endeavour to arrest, those of the bridegroom to cover her flight, and men, women, and children, mingle in mock conflict, which is often carried to great lengths.” “On one occasion,” says Major-General Campbell, “I heard loud cries proceeding from a village close at hand. Fearing some quarrel, I rode to the spot, and there I saw a man bearing away upon his back something enveloped in an ample covering of scarlet cloth; he was surrounded by twenty or thirty young fellows, and by them protected from the desperate attacks made upon him by a party of young women. On seeking an explanation of this novel scene, I was told that the man had just been married, and his precious burden was his blooming bride, whom he was conveying to his own village. Her youthful friends—as, it appears, is the custom—were seeking to regain possession of her, and hurled stones and bamboos at the head of the devoted bridegroom, until he reached the confines of his own village. Then the tables were turned, and the bride was fairly won; and off her young friends scampered, screaming and laughing, but not relaxing their speed till they reached their own village.” The custom may be presumed to prevail among the Koles, the Ghonds, and the other congeners of the Khonds; but we are without authority on the subject.

According to De Hell, the form of capture is observed in the marriages of the noble or princely class among the Kalmucks. The price to be paid for the bride to her father having been fixed, the bridegroom sets out on horseback, accompanied by the chief nobles of the horde to which he belongs, to carry her off. “A sham resistance is always made by the people of her camp, in spite of which she fails not to be borne away on a richly caparisoned horse, with loud shouts and feux de joie.” Dr. Clarke describes the ceremony differently, and it is possible that it assumes different forms in the different nations of the Kalmucks. “The ceremony of marriage among the Kalmucks,” he says, “is performed on horseback. A girl is first mounted, who rides off in full speed. Her lover pursues; if he overtakes her, she becomes his wife, and the marriage is consummated on the spot; after this she returns with him to his tent. But it sometimes happens that the woman does not wish to marry the person by whom she is pursued; in this case, she will not suffer him to overtake her. We were assured that no instance occurs of a Kalmuck girl being thus caught, unless she have a partiality to the pursuer. If she dislikes him, she rides, to use the language of English sportsmen, ‘neck or nought,’ until she has completely effected her escape, or until her pursuer’s horse becomes exhausted, leaving her at liberty to return, and to be afterwards chased by some more favoured admirer.” This ride for a wife is never undertaken till after the price for her has been fixed between the friends of the parties, the lover having to pay for as well as to catch her. The custom is not mentioned in the account of the Kalmucks by Pallas, who knew of their marriage customs only by hearsay. But it favours the supposition that there are varieties of the form in use among this people, that Bergman describes the ceremony somewhat differently from both Clarke and De Hell. The necessity for the appearance of using force is satisfied, according to Bergman, by the act of putting the bride by force upon horseback when she is about to be conducted to the hut prepared for her by the bridegroom. And, indeed, we find the form reduced to this minimum of pretence in not a few cases. Thus in North Friesland, a young fellow, called the bride-lifter, lifts the bride and her two bridesmaids upon the waggon in which the married couple are to travel to their home.

Among the Tunguzes and Kamchadales, a matrimonial engagement is not considered to be definitely concluded until the suitor has overcome his beloved by force, and torn her clothes—the maiden being bound by custom to defend her liberty to the utmost. Also among the Bedouin Arabs it is necessary for the bridegroom to force the bride to enter his tent. A similar custom existed among the French, at least in some provinces, in the 17th century. In all the cases just mentioned the form assumed by the custom was analogous to the rule prescribed in the Sutras, where it was provided that at a certain vital stage of the marriage ceremony, a strong man and the bridegroom should forcibly draw the bride and make her sit down on a red ox-skin.

There is good ground for believing that the form of capture is observed in the marriage ceremonies of the Nogay Tartars. The rule which prohibits a Kalmuck bride from entering the yurt of her parents for a year or more after her marriage, and which is undoubtedly connected with the form of capture, prevails among the Nogais, as it does also among the Kirghiz. At any rate, we find the custom in the Caucasus in the immediate neighbourhood of the Nogais. The form which it assumes among the Circassians, indeed, closely resembles that observed in ancient Rome. The wedding is celebrated with noisy feasting and revelry, “in the midst of which the bridegroom has to rush in, and with the help of a few daring young men, to carry off the lady by force; and by this process she becomes his lawful wife.” The custom also prevailed till a recent date in Wales. Lord Kames says that the following marriage ceremony was in his day, or at least had till shortly before been customary among the Welsh. “On the morning of the wedding day, the bridegroom, accompanied with his friends on horseback, demands the bride. Her friends, who are likewise on horseback, give a positive refusal, upon which a mock scuffle ensues. The bride, mounted behind her nearest kinsman, is carried off and is pursued by the bridegroom and his friends, with loud shouts. It is not uncommon on such an occasion to see two or three hundred sturdy Cambro-Britons riding at full speed, crossing and jostling to the no small amusement of the spectators. When they have fatigued themselves and their horses, the bridegroom is suffered to overtake his bride. He leads her away in triumph, and the scene is concluded with feasting and festivity.” Some such picture we should have had from De Hell had he expanded his account of the mock scuffle among the Kalmucks of the hordes of the bride and bridegroom.

We have now found the custom in various parts of Europe and Asia; it occurs also in Africa and in America. Lord Kames vouches for the custom among the Inland Negroes. “When the preliminaries of the marriage are adjusted, the bridegroom with a number of his companions set out at night and surround the house of the bride as if intending to carry her off by force; she and her female attendants pretending to make all possible resistance, cry aloud for help, but no person appears.” Speke mentions an incident which he observed in Karague, and which may have been the sequel to a capture. “At night,” he says, “I was struck by surprise to see a long noisy procession pass by where I sat, led by some men who carried on their shoulders a woman covered up in a blackened skin. On inquiry, however, I heard she was being taken to the hut of her espoused, where bundling fashion she would be put to bed; but it is only with virgins they take so much trouble.” Traces of the custom are indeed frequently met with in Africa, but in so distinct and marked a form as that mentioned by Lord Kames, we have not found it. His lordship has not given his authority. He mentions the custom, however, merely for its singularity, and apparently in ignorance of its connecting itself with any wide-spread practice of mankind, which demanded investigation. Among the primitive races throughout the whole continent of America traces of the form of capture (that is, customs seemingly of no significance, except in the light of this form) are of frequent occurrence. Among the people of Tierra del Fuego, however, the form itself appears almost in perfection. “As soon,” says Captain Fitzroy, speaking of the Fuegians, “as a youth is able to maintain a wife by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent of her relations, and does some piece of work, such as helping to make a canoe, or prepare seal-skins, etc., for her parents. Having built or stolen a canoe for himself, he watches for an opportunity, and carries off his bride. If she is unwilling she hides herself in the woods, until her admirer is heartily tired of looking for her, and gives up the pursuit, but this seldom happens.”

These are among the best marked instances of the Form with which we are acquainted. The instances fix our attention especially upon a few geographical points. But nothing in nature stands by itself. Each example of the Form leads us to contemplate a great area over which the custom once prevailed, just as a fossil fish in rock on a hill-side forces us to conceive of the whole surrounding country as at one time under water. Were we to enumerate and examine all the customs which seem to us connected with the Form, we should be led into discussions foreign to our purpose, and there would be few primitive races with which we should not have to deal. Suffice it, that the Form which of old appeared so well defined in the peninsulas of Italy and Greece, may be traced thence, on the one hand, northwards through France and Britain, south-westwards through Spain, and north-eastwards through Prussia; on the other hand, northwards through ancient Thessaly and Macedonia, into the mountainous regions on the Black Sea and the Caspian; again, that the form which is perfect among the Kalmucks shades away into faint and fainter traces throughout almost all the races of the Mongolidæ; that we may assume it of frequent occurrence in Africa, as it unquestionably was among the red men of America; that it occurs among the Hindus, and may be assumed to have been common among the aboriginal inhabitants of the plains of India, of whom we have a well-preserved specimen in the Khonds of Orissa.