right, more or less modified in the laws of the different countries, underlies modern European legislation; the husband generally administers and has the use of his wife's dotation, but it remains her property.1

Among the Germans of early times, the bride-price which was handed over to the woman as her marriage portion became her exclusive property, of which the husband could not dispose. Besides this dos, she received from her parents an endowment, as a sort of compensation for her inheritance, or as an advance on it. This also was her private property, at least so far that it went to her if the marriage was dissolved. Among the Slavs, the dower seems originally to have been given to the wife as a security in the event of her needing independent support; and, among the Poles and Bohemians, the husband could make no use of it, unless he left his own goods as a deposit. In Wales, a woman received not only a part of the bride-price, "cowyll," but also a marriage portion from her father, called "agweddi" (representing the "tincur " of the Irish), which, during cohabitation, belonged to husband and wife jointly. In case they separated before the end of seven years, the wife was to receive this portion back; and in any case, even if she left her husband. for no reason before the seventh year, she had her "cowyll." If the separation took place after this period, the property which the wife brought with her was divided."

The Hebrews, in early times, generally gave daughters as a dowry only a part of the "mohar." Afterwards a woman who married was endowed with a portion called "nedunia," of which the husband had the usufruct as long as the marriage lasted. The Mohammedans, as a rule, settle very large

1 Eccius, in v. Holtzendorff, Encyclopädie der Rechtswissenschaft,' pt. ii. vol. i. pp. 412, et seq.

2 Weinhold, 'Deutsche Frauen,' vol. i. p. 331. Idem, 'Altnordisches Leben,' pp. 241, et seq.

3 Olivecrona, loc. cit. p. 51. Nordström, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 50.

4 Macieiowski, loc. cit. vol. ii. pp. 214–218.

5 O'Curry, loc. cit. Sullivan's Introduction, vol. i. pp. clxxii., clxxviii.

Lewis, loc. cit. pp. 8, et seq.

Mayer, Die Rechte der Israeliten,' &c., vol. ii. pp. 342-344.

dowers on their wives; and it is generally stipulated that twothirds of the dowry shall be paid immediately before the marriage contract is made, whilst the remaining third is held in reserve, to be paid to the wife in case of her being divorced against her own consent, or in case of the husband's death.1 And whatever property the wife receives from her parents or any other person on the occasion of her marriage, or otherwise, is entirely at her own disposal, and not subject to any claim of her husband or his creditors.2 Speaking of newly-married people among the Mexicans, Acosta says, "When they went to house they made an inventory of all the man and wife brought together, of provisions for the house, of land, of iewells and ornaments, which inventories every father kept, for if it chanced they made any devorce (as it was common amongest them when they agree not), they divided their goods according to the portion that every one brought." 3

Among races at a lower stage of civilization * the dowry commonly subserves a similar end-that is, in case of separation or divorce, the wife gets back her marriage portion, though the husband, as it seems in most cases, has the usufruct of it as long as marriage lasts. But, in savage life, the dowry plays no important part. Often nothing of the kind exists, and, where it does, the portion generally consists of some food, clothes, household goods,

1 Macnaghten, 'Principles of Muhammadan Law,' p. xxxv. Lane, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 218.

2 Lane, vol. i. p. 138, note †.

3 Acosta, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 370.

4 Kenai (Richardson, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 407), Thlinkets (Holmberg, in Acta. Soc. Sci. Fennicae,' vol. iv. p. 315), Ahts (Bancroft, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 197), Creeks (Hawkins, in 'Trans. American Ethn. Soc.,' vol. iii. pt. i. p. 66), Kingsmill Islanders (Wilkes, loc. cit. vol. v. p. 101), Siamese (Moore, loc. cit. p. 169), Kukis (Lewin, loc. cit. p. 254), Abyssinians (Lobo, loc. cit. p. 26), people of Madagascar (Rochon, loc. cit. p. 747), Touaregs (Chavanne, 'Die Sahara,' p. 181).

5 Cf. Heriot, loc. cit. p. 335 (North American Indians); Ellis, 'Polynesian Researches,' vol. i. p. 270 (Tahitians); Waitz, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 110 (Negroes); Burton, 'The Lake Regions of Central Africa,' vol. ii. p. 332 (East Africans); Post, ‘Afrikanische Jurisprudenz,' vol. i. p. 376 (several African peoples); Huc, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 185 (Tartars); Georgi, loc. cit. pp. 67, et seq. (Voguls).

or other trifles, and occasionally of cattle.

Ultimately,

as we have seen, the dowry is due to a feeling of respect and sympathy for the weaker sex, which, on the whole, is characteristic of a higher civilization.3 And, as we have spoken of a stage of marriage by capture and another stage of marriage by purchase, we may now speak of a third, where fathers are bound by law or custom to portion their daughters.

4

Thus the Hebrews and Mohammedans 5 consider it a religious duty for a man to give a dower to his daughter. In Greece, the dowry came to be thought almost necessary to make the distinction between a wife and a concubine (πаλλaкý); and Isaeus says that no decent man would give his legitimate daughter less than a tenth of his property.7 Indeed, so great were the dowers given that, in the time of Aristotle, nearly two-fifths of the whole territory of Sparta were supposed to belong to women. In Rome, even more than in Greece, the marriage portion became a mark of distinction for a legitimate wife. It was the duty of the wife to provide her husband with dos, and a woman herself had a legal claim to be provided with a dower by her father or

1 Cf. Nordenskiöld, 'Grönland,' p. 508 (Greenlanders); v. Martius, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 115 (Brazilian aborigines); Bove, loc. cit. p. 132 (Fuegians); Waitz, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 522 (Somals); Marshall, loc. cit. p. 212 (Todas); Prejevalsky, Mongolia,' vol. i. p. 70 (Mongols); Pallas, Merkwürdigkeiten der Morduanen, Kasaken,' &c., p. 262 (Kalmucks); Post, 'Die Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtsleben,' pp. 54, et seq.

2 Cf. Last, in 'Proc. Roy. Geo. Soc.,' N. S. vol. v. p. 532 (Masai); Metz, loc. cit. p. 87 (Badagas); Davy, loc. cit. p. 286 (Sinhalese).

3 It is remarkable that dowry is unknown among the Chinese, whereas, in the wild aboriginal tribes of China, it is usual for wives among the wealthy families to receive marriage portions (Gray, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 304).

4 Mayer, 'Die Rechte der Israeliten,' vol. ii. p. 344.

5 The Kôran,' sura iv. v. 3.

6 Potter, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 268. Cauvet, in 'Revue de législation,' vol. xxiv. p. 152. Cf. Meier and Schömann, loc. cit. pp. 513, et seq.

7 Isaeus, ‘Περὶ τοῦ Πύῤῥου κλήρου, § 51, p. 43.

8 Aristotle, loc. cit. book ii. ch. ix. § 11. 9 Laboulaye, 'Recherches,' pp. 38, et seq. et seq. Meier and Schömann, pp. 513, et seq.

Ginoulhiac, loc. cit. pp. 66,

other paternal ascendants. And though, later on, Justinian in several of his constitutions declares that dos is obligatory for persons of high rank only, the old custom did not fall into desuetude. The Prussian Landrecht' still prescribes that the father, or eventually the mother, shall arrange about the wedding and fit up the house of the newly-married couple. According to the Code Napoléon,' on the other hand, parents are not bound to give a dower to their daughters, and the same principle is generally adopted by modern legislation. Yet there is still a strong feeling, especially in the so-called Latin countries, in favour of dotation. This feeling, as Sir Henry Maine remarks, is the principal source of those habits of saving and hoarding which characterize the French people, and is probably descended, by a long chain of succession, from the obligatory provisions of the marriage law of the Emperor Augustus.

In this course of development, the marriage portion has often become something quite different from what it was originally. It has in many cases become a purchase-sum by means of which a father buys a husband for his daughter, as formerly a man bought a wife from her father. Euripides, transferring to the heroic age the practice of his own time, makes Medea complain that her sex had to purchase husbands with great sums of money. "Pars minima est ipsa puella sui," the Latin poet sings. And, in our days, a woman without a marriage portion, unless she has some great natural attractions, runs the risk of being a spinster for ever. This state of things naturally grows up in a society where monogamy is prescribed by law, where the adult women outnumber the adult men, where many men never marry, and where married women too often lead an indolent life.

1 Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 693. Mayer, 'Die Rechte der Israeliten,' &c., vol. ii. p. 347. 2 Ginoulhiac, loc. cit. p. 103. 3 For dos necessaria in Germany during the Middle Ages, see Mittermaier, Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen Privatrechts,' vol. ii. p. 3. 4 Eccius, in v. Holtzendorff, 'Encyclopädie der Rechtswissenschaft,' pt. ii. vol. i. p. 414. 5 'Code Napoléon,' art. 204.

6 Maine, Early History of Institutions,' p. 339. 7 Euripides, 'Mýdeca,' vv. 231–235.

CHAPTER XIX

MARRIAGE CEREMONIES AND RITES

AMONG primitive men marriage was, of course, contracted without any ceremony whatever; and this is still the case with many uncivilized peoples. Among the Eskimo, visited by Captain Hall, "there is no wedding ceremony at all, nor are there any rejoicings or festivities. The parties simply come together, and live in their own tupic or igloo." The Bonaks of California, according to Mr. Johnston, have no marriage ceremony. The man simply speaks to the girl's parents, and to the girl herself; and, if the couple live together for some time harmoniously, they are considered husband and wife.2 Among the Comanches, too, "there is no marriage ceremony of any description ;" and the same is said of several other aboriginal tribes of America, as also of the Outanatas of New Guinea, the Solomon Islanders,

1 Hall, loc. cit. p. 567. Cf. Lyon, loc. cit. p. 352; Dall, loc. cit. p. 139. 2 Schoolcraft, loc. cit. vol. iv. p. 223. 3 Ibid., vol. ii. p. 132.

4 Kaniagmuts (Lisiansky, loc. cit. pp. 198, et seq.), Aleuts (Coxe, loc. cit. p. 230. v. Langsdorf, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 47. Bancroft, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 92), Mahlemuts (Bancroft, vol.i. p.81), Chippewyans (Richardson, loc. cit. vol.ii. p. 24), Chippewas (Keating, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 157), Creeks (Schoolcraft, loc. cit. vol. v. p. 268), Moxes, Iroquois (Heriot, loc. cit. pp. 326, 332), Navajos (Letherman, in 'Smith. Rep.,' 1855, p. 294), Arawaks (Brett, loc. cit. p. 101), Múras (Wallace, 'Travels on the Amazon,' p. 512), Tupis, Chiriguana (Waitz, loc. cit. vol. iii. pp. 422, et seq.), Patagonians (Falkner, loc. cit. p. 124), Fuegians (Bove, loc. cit. p. 132).

5 Finsch, Neu-Guinea,' p. 62.

6 Elton, in 'Jour. Anthr. Inst.,' vol. xvii. p. 94.

E E