Among the Kookas the clans are endogamous. No marriage can be contracted between kinsfolk up to the degree of first cousins; the clans are indeed permitted to intermarry, but they rarely do so, and such marriages are condemned by public opinion. This endogamy of the clan becomes intelligible when we learn that the Kooka clans of North Cachar differ widely in customs and interests, and are often hotly at war. This clanendogamy is therefore only a form of the customary endogamy of the tribe.

There is a small group of facts, in connection with those we have already stated, which we cannot pass over, although they are not of great importance. It is not uncommon to forbid parents and children-in-law to associate freely with each other. Tylor mentions this custom in his "Early History of Mankind," and quotes many instances of it, to which others might easily be added. Tylor connects the custom with Tabu-a very vague and indefinite explanation, since we have still to find the reason of Tabu. Lubbock regards the custom as an expression of displeasure on the part of the bride's parents, which it would be easy to understand at a time when the marriage still took place by capture, and it would therefore be a further proof of such a mode of marriage. We do not think it possible to give a single interpretation of the collective forms of the custom in question; they certainly have their origin in different ideas.

3

At

In some cases the prohibition extends to both parentsin-law, both as regards the son-and-daughter-in-law, while in other cases it is only partially applicable. one time a son-in-law may not address his mother-inlaw, at another the daughter-in-law may not be seen by her father-in-law. The first glance makes it doubtful

1 Journal Asiat. Soc. of Bengal, 1855, vol. xxiv. p. 640.

2 Ibid., p. 617.

Lubbock, Orig. of Cic., p. 123. Instances of the custom, p. 12.

how far marriage by capture can explain these regulations, and the doubt increases when we regard the phenomenon more closely. It is, indeed, quite possible that a custom which has arisen under given circumstances may persist longer than these circumstances, but this explanation can only be accepted, as we have repeatedly said, when no other is possible, and it has some inherent probability, which is here by no means the case.

Alberti tells us that a Bechuana father-in-law may only see his daughter-in-law in the presence of others, and that is also the case with a mother- and son-in-law; if they should meet accidentally, the son- or daughter-inlaw seeks to hide or escape.1 Alberti regards this as an expression of their abhorrence of incest, and I know of nothing to contradict this suggestion but the fact that there is no such concealment in the case of parents and children, after the manner in which a Nair seeks to avoid being alone with his younger sister. This objection, however, has no weight, since a sexual connection between parent and children-in-law is possible before the marriage takes place, which is not the case with kinsfolk by blood; it is, therefore, not surprising that the restriction which first occurs in mature age should be marked by a special sign. Münzinger writes of the Beni-Amir: "There is a firm and eternal friendship between the bride and the comrades of the bridegroom, which never fails; they may no longer see each other, but retain a mutual affection. . . . The woman conceals herself, as the man does from his mother-in-law." " A feeling of enmity cannot account for this state of things, nor will jealousy and the fear of incest help us, since these could not influence the relations of a mother- and daughter-in-law, and, moreover, there is much unchastity among the Beni-Amir

1 Alberti, p. 105.

2

2 Münzinger, p. 325. For Ostjaks and Samojedes, see Pallas, vol. iv. pp. 71, 99, 577; Californians, Baegert, Smithsonian Report, 1863, p. 368; China, Astley Collection, vol. iv. p. 91.

women after marriage.1 But when we learn that the Bechuana's marriage only becomes valid after the birth of a child, and that among the Basutos, who are of the Bechuana race, the prohibition only extends to the date of the birth of the eldest child,2 it becomes evident that the prohibition is an expression of the ideas which characterize the transition state, in which the relations of the new kinsfolk are not altogether established. The ideas that sexual intercourse must be avoided arise from the reverence which the sons- and daughters-in-law owe to the parents.

This latter consideration is undoubtedly the only one in some cases. As we saw above, the Karib bridegroom leaves his own house in order to dwell with his fatherin-law; his wives, who are sisters and daughters of the house, have free and unrestricted intercourse with all, but this is not the case with the husband, without express permission, unless his wife's kinsfolk are still children, or when they are drunk. We find similar instances among the North American tribes; the Dyak, again, may not call his father-in-law by name; a Mongolian or Kalmuck bride may not speak nor sit down in her father-in-law's presence; a Jakutan wife may not appear in her household garment, "stripped to the waist," before her father-in-law and her husband's elder brother; a Banyai man is forbidden to sit down negligently in the presence of his mother-in-law; a Mishmayan never eats in his father-in-law's house; a Fijian never eats with his wife, his sister, niece, father-, or mother-in-law, and a son may not speak to his father after he has attained his fifteenth year, etc.*

Caillié gives an instance of a nature for which Lubbock's explanation would suffice. On the Senegal, 1 Münzinger, p. 326. 3 Alberti, p. 104.

3 Du Tertre, vol. ii. p. 378.

p. 236.

Tylor, Early History. Livingstone, Miss. Trav. p. 622. Cooper, Williams and Calvert, p. 117. Among the Veddahs, the father does not speak to his adult son, nor the mother to her adult daughter.

a bridegroom may never see his parents-in-law. He carefully avoids them, and they cover their faces when they see him. If the wooer comes from another encampment, he conceals himself from the bride's fellow-villagers, with the exception of a few friends, with whom he lives. He sometimes migrates to the bride's encampment, in which case he takes his cattle with him, becomes one of its members, and ceases to practise any concealment.1 It is more doubtful how we are to interpret the Australian prohibition to speak either of the parents- or children-inlaw by name,2 and also that an Australian is displeased, even if his mother-in-law's shadow falls upon his legs.3 There is a similar prohibition in the case of the Araucanians. But if any one attempts to connect these phenomena with the rape of women, further consideration will show that they can have had no independent influence on the symbol of rape, but must rather have been dependent on it.4

1 Caillié, vol. i. p. 139.

3 Fison and Howitt, p. 103.

2

Eyre, vol. ii. p. 339. 4 Smith, p. 217.

CHAPTER VII.

MARRIAGE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.

Sexual impulse-Civilizing power of religion-Stages of developmentMother's rights-Father's rights-Bellerophon myth--Perpati mythPele and Tamapua myth-Interpretation of myths-Tsui-goab myth -Allegories of theory and conception-Customs of civilizationJealousy-Object of marriage-Use of fire-Primitive wooingDuration of marriage-Birth of child-Marriage-Polygamy-Wedding-Bride's family-Setting aside of polygamy-Tolerant and intolerant forms of marriage-Chastity in marriage-Paternal loveChastity of unmarried girls-The man's obligation of chastity-Love and marriage-Independence of married women-Emancipation of women-Education of children-Unmarried women-Moral independence of married women.

We have now seen that legal considerations for the most part define the conception of the relations between parents and chidren, and also the sphere within which individuals are permitted to intermarry. Exogamy sets its mark on a given sphere as too restricted for the establishment within it of the legal ordinance which is termed marriage; endogamy, on the other hand, prescribes the limits beyond which marriage is no longer possible. We must therefore regard marriage as a legal institution, and the sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only one of the matters with which this institution has to do; it is by no means its central point and raison d'être. We are in some respects disposed to under-estimate the great influence which sexual matters exert on all the concerns of social life, and the attempt