扶桑国

麦克伦南： 原始婚姻 Primitive Marriage ， CHAPTER V.

关键词： 麦克伦南    原始婚姻    Primitive    Marriage                                          

93

CHAPTER V.

OF THE RULE AGAINST MARRIAGE BETWEEN

MEMBERS OF THE SAME TRIBE ——OF

THE COINCIDENCE OF THIS RULE WITH

THE PRACTICE OF CAPTURING WIVES

DE FACTO, AND WITH THE FORM OF

CAPTURE IN MARRIAGE CEREMONIES.

We proceed to show the prevalence of the rule forbidding marriage within the tribe or group of kindred, and the concurrence of this ban with the fact or pretence of capturing wives.

Here, still more than in our former investigation, we are made to feel how imperfect and unconnected is the record from which our facts have to be drawn ; and farther, how difficult it is to bring together such facts as have been observed,

94

owing to the wide field over which they lie sparsely scattered. In many cases, the authorities are silent just on the points on which we are most eager for information ; while on matters of no moment they enlarge ad nauseam. But, too often, they have nothing to tell. Skirting a coastline the traveller sees natives at points here and there, and can describe their dress and personal appearance ; of their habits he is as ignorant as a child of the free life of the beasts he sees in a caravan. Where the opportunities of observation are better, the observer often does not know what to look for. Of the jus connubii among the Kalmucks not one word is said by Clarke or Pallas or Strahlenberg ! and but for some remarks of Bergman's we should be entirely in the dark on the subject .

     We begin with the Khonds. This

95

people presents us with capture as a form. Major-General Campbell says that the Khonds marry women from remote places,  the reason of which he takes to be, that they have to buy their wives, and can get them at lower prices at a distance. " They pretend, moreover," he adds,* " to regard it as degrading to bestow their daughters in marriage on men of their own tribe ; and consider it more manly to seek their wives in a distant country." Major M'Pherson — a more intellient witness — gives us the distinct statement, that among the Khonds intermarriage between persons of the same tribe, however large or scattered, is considered incestuous, and punishable by death ; **a view more consistent with other

______________________

* Ut supra, p. 141.

** "An Account of the Religion of the Khonds in Orissa," p. 57 ; and see M'Pherson's Report on the Khonds, already referred to.

 

96

known facts than that of General Campbell. " Marriage," Major M'Pherson , tells us, " can take place only betwixt members of different tribes, and not even with strangers who have been long adopted into or domesticated with a tribe, and a state of war or peace appears to make little difference as to the practice of intermarriage between tribes. The people of Bara Mootah and of Burra Des, in Goomsur, have been at war time out of mind, and annually engage in fierce conflicts, but they intermarry every day. The women of each tribe, after a fight, visit each other to condole on the loss of their nearest common relations." No doubt these friendly intermarriages must in time alter the relations of the tribes to one another ; no doubt also the time

97

was when the marriages were not effected in friendly fashion.

Let us now examine the cases of the Kalmucks and Circassians. To understand that of the former, we must attend a little to their political system. The Kalmucks are divided into four great nations or tribes under hereditary chiefs or khans ; — the Khoskots, the Dzun- gars, the Derbets, and the Torgots. Each of these, according to Pallas,* is under the command of many little and nearly independent princes, called Noïons. The horde commanded by a Noïon is called an Oulouss, and is subdivided into several Aïmaks, each of which again is commanded by a noble called Sais-sang. The Aïmaks again are sub-

____________________

*"Voyages dans Plusieurs Provinces de 1'Empire de Russia, etc.," Paris (no date), vol. ii., p. 191. Nou- velle Edition .

98

divided into many companies or khatoun, consisting of from ten to twelve tents, for convenience in pasturing; and each khatoun has its chief, but whether of the noble class we are not informed. It will thus be seen that there is among the Kalmucks a very large governing or princely class. Now, it appears that they have two systems of marriage law ; one for the common people, and one for the nobles, or princely class. The common people, we are told by Bergman,* enter into no unions in which the parties are not distant from one another by three or four degrees ; but how the degrees are counted we are not informed. We are told that they have great abhorrence for the marriages of near relatives, and have a proverb — " The great folk and dogs know

_________________

* Bergman's " Streiferein." Riga, 1804, vol. iii., p. 145, et seq.

99

no relationship" — which Bergman says is due to members of the princely class sometimes marrying sisters-in-law. We find, however, that these sisters-in-law are uniformly women of an entirely different stock from their husbands — different, or what is taken for different. For no man of the princely class (and it is in the marriages of the Kalmucks of this class, according to De Hell, that the form of capture is chiefly observed*), in any of the tribes, can marry a woman of his own tribe or nation. Not only must his wife be a noble, but she must be a noble of a different stock. For princely marriages, says Bergman, "the bride is chosen from another people's stock — among the Derbets from the Torgot stock ; and among the Torgots from the Derbet stock ; and so on." Here, then, we have the principle

_______________

* See ante, p. 30.

100

of exogamy in full force in regard to the marriages of the governing classes — a large body in each nation, as we have seen, and, which is most to our present purpose, the body in whose marriages the form of capture is said to be observed. Whether or not the commonalty, with whom the nobles have no intermarriage — the people of black birth, as they are called — were originally of an alien, inferior, and conquered race ; and whether or not the governing classes were originally independent exogamous tribes, we have the prohibition against marriage within the stock here concurrent with the form of capture in the weddings of the nobility. How far the commonalty observe the form we have no informaion, but it is not unlikely that they mimic, after a fashion, the marriage ceremonies of their superiors.

The case of the Circassians is simple,

101

and quickly told: — "The Circassian word for their societies or fraternities," says Bell,* " is ' tleush,' which signifies also ' seeds.' The tradition with regard to them is, that the members of each all sprang from the same stock or ancestry ; and thus they may be considered as so many septs or clans, with this peculiarity, that, like seeds, all are considered equal. These cousins-german, or members of the same fraternity, are not only themselves interdicted from intermarrying, but their serfs, too, must wed with the serfs of another fraternity ; and where, as is generally the case, many fraternities enter into one general bond, this law in regard to marriage must be observed by all. The confidential dependant, or steward, of our host here is a tokao who fled to his pro-

_______________________

*James Stanislaus Bell. "Journal of a Residence in Circassia," 1840, vol. i., p. 347.

H

102

tection from Notwhatsh, because, having fallen in love with and married a woman of his own fraternity, he had become liable to punishment for this infraction of Circassian law. Yet his fraternity contained perhaps several thousand members. Formerly, such a marriage was looked upon as incest, and punished by drowning ; now a fine of two hundred oxen, and the restitution of the wife to her parents, only are exacted." Elsewhere,* Bell observes that these fraternities sometimes embrace thousands of persons, between whom marriage is by this ancient law totally prohibited. Here, too, as in Khondistan, and among the Kalmucks, we find the form of capture as well as the principle of exogamy.

Our next case is that of the Yurak Samoyeds (Siberia) among whom no man can

_______________

* Ut supra, vol. ii., 1 10.

103

take a wife from the tribe to which he belongs.* These Samoyeds hold kinsmanship to be coextensive with the tribe. All the members of the tribe, however large or small, consider themselves relations, even where the common ancestor is unknown, and the evidence of consanguinity is wholly wanting. They fall into three divisions ; the members of any of which may take wives from either of the other two, but not from their own ; and as these divisions occupy sites far removed from one another, the Samoyeds have to go great distances for their wives.

We find the same state of things among the Kafirs, the Sodhas of northern India, the Beduanda Kallung (Singapore), and many others, including the Kirghiz and the Nogais.**

_______________________

* Latham, " Descriptive Ethnology," vol. ii. p. 45 5 .

** It must not be thought that the form of capture

104

The Warali (India) tribes fall into divisions, and no man may marry a woman of his own division ; he must go for a wife to one of the others. The Magar tribes fall into thums, all the members of each of which are supposed to be descended from a common ancestor: the Magar husband and wife must belong to different thums ; within one and the same thum there is no marriage. Latham, in noticing the Magars, says — "This is the first time* I have found occasion to mention this practice. It will not be the last ; on the contrary, the principle it suggests is so common as to be almost universal.

___________________

occurs wherever exogamy prevails — that exogamy and the practice of capturing wives, which at a certain stage must be the resource of exogamous tribes, will in every case leave the form of capture behind them. We shall see the explanation of this hereafter. We have no information whether or not the Samoyeds practise the form of capture.

* Vol. i. p. 80, "Descriptive Ethnology."

105

We find it in Australia, in North and South America, in Africa, in Europe ; we shall suspect and infer it in many places where the actual evidence of its existence is incomplete." This is a sweeping statement ; but before we conclude we hope to show that it may fairly be accepted as correct.

In the institutes of Menu it is laid down that a twice-born man might elect for nuptials " a woman not descended from his paternal or maternal ancestors within the sixth degree, and who is not known by her family name to be of the same primitive stock with his father."* This passage might

——————————————————————

* " Institutes of Menu," cap. iii., sec. 5. The words "or mother" occur in the gloss of Calluca. The rule fixing the stock by the father is, as we hope to show, far from being archaic. The twice-born classes are the sacerdotal, military, and commercial (Menu x. 4). Nearly all the Indian castes are now divided into nations that do not intermarry ; the nations into sects,

106

some of which do not intermarry. All the nations are divided into certain families, called gotrams ; a man cannot marry a woman of his own gotram. Buchanan's "Journey from Madras," 1807, vol. i. pp. 273, 300, 354, 396, 419, 421, 423; Muir's "Sanskrit Texts," Part II., 1859, pp. 378, 387 ; " Vivada Chinta- mani," Calcutta, 1863, Preface, p. 45.

107

ing the origin, meaning, and effect of this institution. Of old each clan inhabited its particular strath or glen, and had its own well-defined hill ranges. In the Aird district there were none but Frasers ; about Moy were none but M'Intoshes. The members of the clans are now interfused even in the country districts, and in towns like Inverness or Dingwall may be found members of all the clans. Now, suppose that originally a man was not allowed to marry a woman of his own clan, and that, subsequent to the interfusion of the clans, that ancient prejudice remained ; the rule for enforcing it — the question of degrees of affinity apart — would just be the rule of Menu. So, in considering the origin of that rule, are we not remanded from the social state in which it was fixed in a code, to an earlier state, in which the population consisted of distinct clans or tribes organ-

108

ised on the principle of exogamy, and living apart from one another, as all tribes do in early times, until they are brought, by conquest or otherwise, under a common government ? We have already had examples of tribes with this rule, so that, in this conception of the early state of the Indian population, we are making no improbable supposition. On the contrary, it is not only probable in itself, but it is the only supposition that will explain the fact ; and if we accept it as indicating the origin of the rule of Menu, it gives us such an idea of the prevalence of this law of incest as we could never reach by the contemplation of the individual tribes among which it is the law. It will be recollected that the form of capture is found among the Hindus.*

______________

* Ante, p. 27, and see Appendix A.

109

We believe it may still be possible, in the case of some communities in which marriage between persons of the same family name is prohibited, to analyse the population into its constituent (stock) tribes, and to prove that the tribes had this law of incest. In one case, in particular, investigation seems to be courted. The Munnieporees, and the following tribes inhabiting the hills round Munniepore — the Koupooees, the Mows, the Murams, and the Murring — are each and all divided into four families — Koomul, Looang, Angom, and Ningthaja. A member of any of these families may marry a member of any other, but the intermarriage of members of the same family is strictly prohibited. In explanation, so far, of these family divisions,*

___________________

* "Account of the Valley of Munniepore and of the Hill Tribes." M'Culloch, 1859, pp. 49-69.

110

we have the fact, well authenticated in the history of Munniepore, that the Koomul and Looang formerly existed as distinct and powerful tribes, and that the Koomul, in particular, at one time preponderated in the valley. Presuming that these tribes held inter marriages of their members to be incestuous, the origin of two of the family divisions, and of te marriage law, is plain enough, at least so far as the hill tribes are concerned ; and it is in the hills alone that the law is strictly enforced. Most of the members of the tribes would remain in the valley and mix with the Meithei, by whose prowess they were vanquished ; but we can conceive that bands of the Koomul and Looang might escape to the hills, and mix with each other and with the tribes of the Angom and Ningthaja, whose existence in former times we must postulate,

111

in explanation of the family divisions of the same names. Is it beyond hope that the farther examination of local traditions, or exploration of the wilds to the south and north-east of Munniepore, may yet furnish us with information regarding the Angom and Ningthaja, or with data from which their existence in former times may be legitimately inferred, apart from the present speculation ?

The conclusion at which we have arrived as to the origin of the rule of Menu, will also explain the case of the native populations of Australia, North and South America, and the islands in the Pacific. In these quarters we obtain light regarding the causes which lead to the break up of the primitive exogamous groups, and to the intermixture in local tribes of people recognised as being of different bloods. Let us first attend to the

112

Australians, whom we find divided into small tribes named after the districts which they inhabit ; for though they are nomads, their wanderings, like those of the nomadic agriculturists of the Indian hills, are circumscribed within well-defined bounds. It appears that the tribe inhabiting a particular district regards itself as the owner thereof, and the intrusion of any other tribe upon that district as an invasion to be resented and punished ; and that within the district individuals have portions of land appropriated to them.* Thus the tribal system is in force, with an apparent perfect separation and independence of the tribes. But, on close examination, the tribes are found to be fused and welded together by blood-ties in the most extraordinary manner. According

______________________

* Letter, Dr. Laing to Dr. Hodgkin, 1840. " Reports of the Aboriginal Protection Society."

113

to credible accounts,* the natives of different tribes extending over a great portion of the continent, are divided into a few families, and all the members of a family, in whatever local tribes they may be, bear the same name as a second or family name. These family names and divisions are perpetuated and spread throughout the country by the operation of two laws : first, that the children of either sex always take the name of the mother; and second, that a man cannot marry a woman of his own family name. The members of these families, though scattered over the country, are yet to some intents as much united as if they formed separate and independent tribes ; in particular, the members of each family are bound to unite for the purposes of de-

_________________

* " Grey's Journals," etc., vol. ii., chap. xi.

114

fence and vengeance, the consequence being that every quarrel which arises between the tribes is a signal for so many young men to leave the tribes in which they were born, and occupy new hunting grounds, or ally themselves with tribes in which the families of their mothers may happen to be strong, or which contain their own and their mother's nearest relatives. This secession, if we may so call it, is not always possible, but it is of frequent occurrence notwithstanding ; where it is impossible, the presence of so many of the enemy within the camp affords ready means of satisfying the call for vengeance ; it being immaterial, according to the native code, by whose blood the bloodfeud is satisfied, provided it be blood of the offender's kindred. Thus, as the Australians are polygamists, and a man often has wives belonging to different families,

115

* Mr. Maine has been unable to conceive how human beings could be grouped on any principle more primitive than that of the patriarchal system, or be bound together by any ruder blood-ties than those of agnation derived from the patria potestas. We think his mistake has arisen from a too exclusive attention, in his researches, to those systems of ancient law which, like the Hindoo, Roman, and Jewish, belonged to races which were far advanced at the earliest dates to which their history goes back. Had he examined the primitive races now extant, he certainly would not have written the following passage : * " It is obvious that the organisation of primitive societies would have been confounded if men had called themselves relatives of their mother's relatives. The inference would have been that a prson might be subject to two distinct patria potestates ; but distinct patria potestates implied distinct jurisdictions, so that

________________________________

* "Ancient Law," 1861, p. 149.

116

rous tribe residing to the north-west of Sidney, the rules in force are very complex and peculiar. These tribesmen fall into

____________________

anybody amenable to two of them at the same time would have lived under two dispensations. As long as the family was an imperium in imperio, a community within the commonwealth, governed by its own institutions, of which the parent was the source, the limitation of relationship to the agnates was a necessary security against a conflict of laws in the domestic forum." Here we see the ingenious thinker trammelled by notions derived from Roman jurisprudence. Among the Australian Blacks — to confine ourselves to a single instance— we have seen that men are relatives of their mother's relatives, and of none other ; and that their societies are, aliunde, held together, notwithstanding the conflict of laws in the domestic forum, engendered by polygamy, exogamy, and female kinship. Kinship depends, in fact, not at all on convenience. The first kinship is the first possible — that through mothers, about whose parental relation to children there can be no mistake. And the system of kinship through mothers only, operates to throw difficulties in the way of the rise of the patria potestas, and of the system of agnation. But of this hereafter.

117

divisions resembling castes, and at the same time observe the rule against marriages between members of the same family.*

Our information is so imperfect that we do not know whether there exist anywhere in Australia tribes whose distinctive names are those of the families into which the population is divided. But we should not expect to find such tribes. The constant tendency of groups to fall to pieces, and of the parts to separation and independence of one another, and the practice of naming groups from their lands, would tend to obliterate the traces of the original stock-groups, except so far as they have been preserved in the names of families to keep the blood pure by avoidance of marriage between mem-

___________________

* Mr. Ridley's account quoted, p. 491, vol. ii., Pritchard's " Natural History of Man." Norris' edition.

118

bers of the same stock. But we cannot doubt that such stock-groups at one time existed, organised on the principle of exogamy, and were the germs of the native population. Whencesoever they were derived, it was inevitable, that the law which recognised blood relationship as existing only through females, conspiring with the primitive instinct of the race against marriage between members of the same stock, should tend in the process of time to transfuse the blood of each stock through all the tribal divisions. The men of the group A marrying women of the group B ; and the men of the group B marrying women of the group A ; and all the children of the women of B being counted of the stock of B ; and all the children of the women of A being counted of the stock of A ; we at once have so many B's within A, and so

119

many A's within B. And so on, until in time A's from the northmost point appear in the homes of Z at the southmost ; and Z's in the homes of A. Each local tribe would thus contain within itself members between whom there was connubium ; the original tribal divisions would be lost sight of, and nothing would remain of the stock- groups but the family names to which they gave birth. Should the process of transfusion go far enough, the state of matters which would lead to the practice of capturing wives would be modified, but not extinct. The system of polygamy of itself, and any want of balance between the sexes of different families within a tribe, would long tend to maintain this practice; which, moreover, like every other practice connected with marriage or religion, must be credited with a special tenacity of existence. As we have seen,

120

there prevails among the Australians a system of betrothals — always between persons of different stocks — along with an extensive practice of capturing wives. This is just what might be expected if our theory of the origin of capture be a sound one. Since the tribes of Australians, while exogamous in principle, contain persons who regard each other as of different descent and free to intermarry, marriage can be, and is, made the subject of bargain. Again, habits formed in previous times of necessity — and no doubt occasional necessity still existing — keep up the practice of capture.

We now take the case of the American Indians — North and South. They have political and district divisions;* but besides these the nations among them

______________

* " Archaeologia Americana," vol. ii. p. 109.

121

have had from time immemorial divisions into families or clans. " At present, or till very lately" — we quote from the Archaeologia Americana — " every nation was divided into a number of clans, varying in the several nations from three to eight or ten, the members of which respectively were dispersed indiscriminately throughout the whole nation. It has been fully ascertained that the inviolable regulations by which these clans were perpetuated amongst the southern nations were, first, that no man could marry in his own clan ; secondly, that every child should belong to his or her mother's clan. Among the Choctaws there are two great divisions, each of which is subdivided into four clans, and no man can marry in any of the four clans belonging to his division. The restriction among the Cherookees, the Creeks, and the Natches, does not extend

122

beyond the clan to which the man belongs. There are sufficient proofs that the same division into clans, commonly called tribes, exists among almost all the other primitive nations. But it is not so clear that they are subject to the same regulations which prevail amongst the southern Indians." At the root of these divisions and prohibitions we find here, as in Australia, the feeling that marriage between persons of the same blood is incestuous. " They profess to consider it highly criminal for a man to marry a woman whose totem (family name) is the same as his own, and they relate instances when young men, for a violation of this rule, have been put to death by their own relatives."* The

————————————————————

*From a circular letter by Mr. L. H. Morgan of Rochester, New York, issued by the United States Government to its diplomatic agents and consuls in foreign countries, and which contains much interesting

123

Indian nations, they say, were divided into tribes just lest any one might, through

———————————————————————

information regarding the laws of primitive relationship, we quote the following passage as the most recent and authoritative statement regarding the tribal

divisions of the red men : —

" Nearly all, if not all, of the Indian Nations upon this continent were anciently subdivided into Tribes or Families. These tribes, with a few exceptions, were named after animals. Many of them are now thus subdivided. It is so with the Iroquois, Delawares, lowas, Creeks, Mohaves, Wyandottes, Winnebagoes, Otoes, Kaws, Shawnees, Choctaws, Otawas, Ojibewas, Potowottomies, etc.

   "The following tribes are known to exist, or to have existed in the several Indian Nations — the number ranging from three to eighteen in each : The Wolf, Bear, Beaver, Turtle, Deer, Snipe, Heron, Hawk, Crane, Duck, Loon, Turkey, Musk-rat, Sable, Pike, Cat-fish, Sturgeon, Carp, Buffalo, Elk, Rein -deer, Eagle, Hare, Rabbit, and Snake ; also, the Reed- grass, Sand, Water, Rock, and Tobacco-plant. " Among the Iroquois — and the rule is the same to the present day in most of the nations enumerated — no man is allowed to marry a woman of his own tribe, all the members of which are consanguinii. This was

124

temptation or accident, marry a near relation, which "at present is scarcelypossible,

—————————————————————————

unquestionably the ancient law. It follows that husband and wife were always of different tribes. The children are of the tribe of the mother, in a majority of the nations ; but the rule, if anciently universal, is not so at the present day. Where descent in the female line prevailed, it was followed by several important results, of which the most remarkable was the perpetual disinheritance of the male line. Since all titles as well as property descended in the female line, and were hereditary, in strictness, in the tribe itself, a son could never succeed to his father's title of Sachem, nor inherit even his medal or his tomahawk. If the Sachem, for example, was of the Wolf tribe, the title must remain in that tribe, and his son, who was necessarily of the tribe of his mother, would be out of the line of succession ; but the brothers of the deceased Sachem would be of the Wolf tribe, being of the same mother, and so would the sons of his sisters : hence we find that the succession fell either upon a brother of the deceased ruler or upon a nephew. Between a brother of the deceased, and the son of a sister, there was no law establishing a preference : neither as between several brothers on one side, or several sisters on the other, was there any law of primogeniture.

125

for whoever intends to marry must take a person of a different tribe,"* and the same feeling has been remarked by Dobuzhoffer in South America.**

What we have said of the Australians may be assumed to have been true, at one time at least, of the New Zealanders. In " The Curse of Mania"*** and several other of the New Zealand legends we have evidence that the wife never belonged to the tribe of her husband, and that the children belonged to the family of their mother. So among the Feejees, who appear to count

__________________________

They were all equally eligible, and the law of election came in to decide between them." — Cambrian Journal, vol. iii., second series, p. 149.

*Tanner's "Narrative," p. 313, quoted in Arch. Amen, and by Grey, ut supra.

**" Account of the Abipones," vol. i. p. 69.

*** " Polynesian Mythology," ut supra, p. 162. In " The Curse of Mania" the reader will find an instance of children fleeing from the tribe of birth to that of the mother's kindred.

126

blood relationship through the mother only. In the system of vasu-ing, which determines the claims of children upon the tribe of their mother, we have evidence that the mother always belongs to a different tribe from the father, and that the children are held to be of the family or tribe of their mother.* At any rate, vasu-ing is a relic of a stage in the development of the Feejees wherein that was the rule.

Curiously enough, there is reason for believing that exogamy prevailed among the Picts ; in other words, according to the most approved doctrine, among the Gael or Highlanders ; which fact bears at once on the rapes of the Cruithnians, the old Welsh and French customs, and the plebeian marriage-ceremonies of Rome, for the Celtic element was strong in

_________________

* Erskine's "Pacific," at supra, pp. 153-215.

127

Rome. That the Celts were anciently lax in their morals, and recognised relationship through mothers only, are facts well vouched ;* and of such facts it is the usual concomitant, that the children should be named after the mother. The facts brought out by the distinguished antiquary, Mr. Skene, from a study of the list of Pictish kings down to 731, when Bede says that the law of succession through females was still in force, may to some extent be explained by the sons taking the names of their mothers ; but they point to something beyond this. By favour of Mr. Skene, we are at liberty to give here the results at which he has arrived, and which have not hitherto been published.

__________________               

* Caesar, "De Bello Gallico," lib. v. § 14. Xiphiline, Monum. Histor. Ixi. Solinus, idem. Irish Nennius, liv.

128

1st, That brothers always succeeded each other.

2d, That in no case does a son succeed a father ; after the brothers have reigned a new family comes in.

3d, That the names of the fathers and of the sons are quite different. In no case does the name borne by any of the sons appear among the names of the fathers, nor conversely is there an instance of a father's name appearing among the sons.

4th, The names of the sons consist of a few Pictish names borne by sons of different fathers. Thee are — 6 Drusts, 5 Talorgs, 3 Nectans, 2 Galans, 6 Gart-naidhs, 4 Brudes. In no case does the name of a father occur twice in the list of fathers.

5th, In the list there are two cases of sons bearing Pictish names whose fathers

129

are known to have been strangers, and these are the only fathers of whom we have any account. They are — 1.Talorg Macainfrit. His father was undoubtedly Ainfrit, son of Aethelfrith, King of Northumbria, who took refuge among the Picts, and afterwards became King of Northumbria; 2. Brude Mac Bile. His father was a Welshman, King of the Strath-Clyde Britons. In an old poem Brude Mac Bile is called son of the King of Ailcluaide, i.e., Dumbarton; and when, by the battle of Drunichen, he became King of the Picts, another old poem says, " to-day Brude fights a battle about the land of his grandfather."

The fact that the only fathers of whom we have any account are known to have been strangers — especially when taken along with the other facts which we possess about the Picts — raises a strong presumption that all the fathers were men of

 

130

other tribes. At any rate there remains the fact, after every deduction has been made, that the fathers and mothers were in no case of the same family name.

We have now, by an irresistible array of instances, established the fact of exogamy being a most widely prevailing principle of marriage-law among primitive races. We have found the areas to be, for the chief part, conterminous within which exogamy and the practice of capturing wives de facto prevails. Farther, in all the modern instances in which the symbol of capture is most marked, we have found that marriage within the tribe is prohibited as incest, as among the Khonds, the Fuegeans, the Kalmucks, and Circassians; also that in several cases where traces of the symbol appear, as among the Nogais and the Kirghiz, exogamy is more or less perfectly observed.

131

We have seen good reason for thinking that exogamy and the practice of capture de facto, co-existed among the old Celts ; and that in that co-existence lies the explanation of the symbol among the French, the Welsh, and the plebeians of Rome. Of the jus connubii of the Muscovites and Livonians in former times we have no direct information. Magnus is silent on the subject. But it is implied in his narrative that husband and wife invariably belonged to different kinships and village communities. We have found exogamy and the symbol co-existing in ancient India. Not to dwell on the slighter and more doubtful instances, we think it must now be admitted that we have sufficiently proved both the existence of exogamous tribes, and that among such tribes there prevails, or has prevailed, a system of capturing women for wives.

 

第五章
关于反对同部落成员结婚的规定——关于有着猎妻习惯的这种规定，其证据，以及有婚礼中劫略仪式的这种规定的一致性

        我们继续说明部落或血缘家族群体内部禁止结婚规则的流行，以及与这种禁令共存的实际的或伪装的劫略妻子。
        这里，仍然有超出我们前面调查的，使我们觉得我们得出证据的记录是多么不完整和不连贯；以及更进一步，由于其稀疏分散分布的领域之广，连缀观察到的这类证据是多么困难。在许多案例中，作者恰好在我们最渴望信息的地方是沉默的；而在无关紧要的事上他们令人反胃地（ad nauseam）夸夸其谈。但太多的时候，他们什么也没有告诉。巡行海岸线，旅行者随处看到土人，并能够描写其装饰和容貌外观；关于他们的习性他就象一个孩子对在大篷车里看到的野兽的自由生活一样无知。在观察时机更好的地方，观察者常不知道看什么。关于Kalmucks人中法律许可的婚姻（jus connubii）Clarke 或Pallas  或Strahlenberg没有一字提及！而在此主题上仅仅对于Bergman的一些注释我们就会完全陷入黑暗。
        我们从孔德人开始。这个民族呈现给我们的劫略是一种形式。Major-General Campbell坎贝尔说孔德人从遥远的地方娶女人。他接受的理由是，他们不得不购买他们的妻子，而在远处可以用较低的价格得到她们。“此外，他们假装，”他补充到，“认为把女儿嫁给他们自己部落的男人是可耻的；并认为在遥远的地方寻找他们的妻子更有男子气概。”Major M'Pherson——一个更聪明的证人——给我们清楚的综述，在孔德人中同一部落的人之间的结婚，无论部落多大多分散，都被看作乱伦的，并可以用死为惩罚；一个比General Campbell的更能与其他证据相容的观察。“结婚，”Major M'Pherson告诉我们，“只能在不同部落的成员之间发生，甚至一个部落长期收养或驯服的外族人之间也不能，而战争状态或和平状态看来关于部落间异族结婚惯例产生的差别很小。在Goomsur， Bara Mootah 和 Burra Des的人们处在疯狂战争之中，每年忙于猛烈的冲突，但他们却每天通婚。一次战斗之后，各个部落的女人互相访问慰问她们失去的最亲近的共同亲戚。”无疑这些友好的异族结婚必然及时改变部落彼此的关系；也无疑那时婚姻的友好氛围没有受影响。
        现在让我们检查Kalmucks人 和 Circassians人的案例。为理解其前身，我们必须注意一下他们的政治制度。Kalmucks人分为四个大的世袭首领或可汗统治下的民族或部落；—— Khoskots、Dzun- gars、Derbets和Torgots。根据Pallas，每一个在许多小的和近于独立叫做Noïons的王子指挥之下。由Noïons指挥的游牧部落叫做Oulouss，后者分成若干每个又由叫做Sais-sang 的贵族指挥的Aïmaks。Aïmaks再被分为许多为方便放牧由十到十二个帐篷组成的群或khatoun；每个khatoun各有首领，但是否属于贵族阶级我们不得而知。由此可见Kalmucks人中有一个非常庞大的管理或高贵的阶级。现在看来，他们有两个婚姻法体系；一为普通民众，一为贵族或高贵的阶级。普通民众，我们被Bergman告知，不进入其集体为三或四个相互不远的等级的联合体；但等级如何计算我们不知道。我们被告知，他们非常憎恶亲近的亲戚间结婚，有谚语云——“大人和狗不知道亲属关系”—— Bergman说是针对高贵的等级的成员有时与表姊妹结婚。我们发现这些表姐妹一律是同她们的丈夫完全不同祖先的——不同是真正的，或是安排的。因为没有任何部落内一个高贵等级（而根据De Hell，正是在Kalmucks人的这个等级，抢劫形式被首先观察到）的男子在可以同他自己部落或部族的女子结婚。他的妻子必须不仅是一个贵族，她还必须是一个不同祖先的贵族。对高贵等级的婚姻，Bergman说，“新娘选自另一个部族的祖先——在Derbets人中来自Torgot祖先，在Torgot人中来自Derbet祖先；以及诸如此类。”那么我们这里异族结婚的原则对认识管理阶层的婚姻发挥了充分的威力——每一部族是一庞大的团体，且如我们所见，其大多数对我们现在的目标来说，是在它们的婚姻中劫略的形式根据介绍被遵守的团体。无论是否贵族与之没有联姻的平民团体，——黑出身的人，他们这样称呼——原先是外侨、下等人和被征服的种族；以及无论是否管理阶级原先是独立的异族结婚的部落，我们这儿都有与高贵婚礼中抢劫形式相伴的反对同一祖先（本初血统）内结婚的禁令。平民大众遵守这种形式到什么程度我们没有资料，但并非靠不住的，他们跟风模仿他们的高等级的婚礼。
        切尔克斯人的案例是简单的，可很快地讲述：——“切尔克斯人关于友伴或兄弟会（译按：包括women’s fraternities）的词汇”贝尔说，“是‘特留须tleush’，也意为‘种子’。 相关的传统对它们的认识是，每个成员都源自同一祖先（本初血统）或血统（ancestry，译按：集合称，意为祖先、家系、血统）的；而它们因此可以被看作具有这种象种子般特性的如此众多的氏族或克兰，所有的都被认为是平等的。这些同(外)祖父母的堂表兄弟姊妹，或同一兄弟会的成员，不仅它们自己被禁止内部通婚，而且它们的奴隶也必须与另一兄弟会的奴隶结婚；而且，哪里象通常的情形那样许多兄弟会结成一个大的联合，这条关于婚姻的法律就必须被全体遵守。我们这儿的主人的机密侍从或干事是一个脱离了Notwhatsh保护的tokao，因为陷入一个本兄弟会女子的情网并与之结婚，他变得由于对这条切尔克斯人法律的违犯应受惩罚。至今他的兄弟会也许包含数千成员。从前，这样一种婚姻被视同乱伦，并受到溺死的惩罚；现在只要求赔偿一大群两百头的牛，并归还妻子给她的父母。”在别处，贝尔观察到这些兄弟会有时包含数以千计的人，他们之间的结婚按照这种古老的法律被完全禁止。这里也象在孔德斯坦在卡尔梅克人（Kalmucks）中间，我们发现抢劫的形式的同时发现异族结婚的原则。
        我们的下一个案例是Yurak萨莫耶德人（西伯利亚）的，他们中间男子不能从他自己所属的部落获得一个妻子。萨莫耶德人（Samoyeds）拥有的同族关系是随部落而延伸的。所有部落，无论多大多小，其成员认为他们自己是亲属，甚至在共同的祖先不知是谁，且血缘关系的迹象完全缺如的地方。他们分成三个区，每一个区的成员可从其他两个区的任一个区，但不能从他们自己的区获得妻子；而由于这些区占据的地方彼此相距遥远，萨莫耶德人不得不为了他们的妻子走很远的距离。
        我们在Kafirs人中、印度北部的Sodhas人中、Beduanda Kallung（新加坡）和许多其他人，包括吉尔吉斯人和诺盖人（Nogais）人中发现事情的同样状态。
        Warali（印度）部落分成区，男子不可以同本区女子结婚；他必须到其他区之一去找一个妻子。Magar部落分成萨母，每个萨母的成员被假定传自一个共同的祖先：Magar的丈夫和妻子必须属于不同的萨母；同一个萨母内没有结婚。莱瑟姆（Latham）注意到Magars人，他说：“这是我第一次找到机会提到这个惯例。它不会是最后一次；相反，它暗示的原理是如此普通以至于几乎是普遍的。我们在澳洲、在南北美洲、在非洲、在欧洲发现它；我们将在许多它的存在的实际证据不完全的地方猜测并推断它。”这是一个全面的综述；但在我们作出结论之前，我们希望说明它可以公正地被接受为正确的。
        在《摩奴法论》一个再生族的男子可以选择与“六个地位之内一个不是传自他父亲的或母亲的祖先，且不清楚她的家族名字同他的父亲是相同原始血统的女子结婚。”这一段可以作为讨论整个禁婚问题的课文，而我们必须多加留意，因为在我们现在的考查上它有基轴的重要性。这个规则的目标是防止同原始血统成员之间结婚；它还指出家族名字作为人们是否属于相同（本初）血统的检验。就象一个Fraser不能同一个Fraser结婚，一个M'Intosh也不能同一个M'Intosh结婚。比较苏格兰高地原先的状况和它们现在的情况，特别是城镇人口的情况，我们可以理清我们的思想，认识这种机制的起源、含义和影响。古时每个克兰占据它特定的宽谷或峡谷，并有它自己明确界定的山岗范围。在Aird地区只有Frasers人没有其他的；至于Moy除了M'Intoshes人没有其他的。现在克兰成员甚至混入了郡区，并且在象Inverness或Dingwall等城镇可以找到所有克兰的成员。现在假设起初一个男子不允许同他自己克兰的女子结婚，到了后来，克兰混合，古老的成见却保持着；要强迫执行的规则——姻亲关系程度的问题除外——将正是摩奴规则。所以，考虑那种规则的起源时，我们不是从凝固在法典中的状态回归到一个人口由不同的以异族结婚原则组织的克兰或部落组成，并象所有的早期氏族一样彼此分离居住，直到他们由于征服或其他方式带到一个共同政权之下的较早状态吗？我们已经有了使用这种规则的部落，所以，我们并非不可能猜想，它在印度人口早期状态的观念之中。相反，它不仅自身是可能的，而且是唯一决心解释这种事实的假定；而如果我们接受它指示着摩奴规则的起源，它给了我们关于乱伦的这种法律流行的思想，因为我们永远不能经过凝思单个部落中它是法律而达到这种思想。抢劫形式在印度人中被发现会被回忆起来。
        我们相信在禁止相同家族名字的人之间结婚的一些团体中，分析人口深入其构成（本初血统）部落，和证明这种部落有关于乱伦的这种法律也许仍然是可能的。特别地，在某一案例中，调查就象是被求爱。Munnieporees，及居住在曼尼普尔（Munniepore）周围山地的下列部落—Koupooees、Mows、Murams和 Murring — 每一个都被分成四个家族 — Koomul、 Looang、Angom和Ningthaja。这些家族的任何一个成员可以同任何其他家族的成员结婚，但是同一家族成员的联姻是严格禁止的。迄今为止，对这些家族区分的解释，我们有曼尼普尔（Munniepore）历史中良好鉴别过的论据，Koomul和Looang原来作为独特的和强大的部落存在，而特别是Koomul部，某一个时期在流域内占有优势。假定这些部落认定它们内部成员间结婚是乱伦的，这两个家族的区分的起源和婚姻法的起源便足够明白了，至少目前作为山区部落受到了关注；这种法律单独在山中被严格执行。这些部落的大多数成员留在山谷同他们被它的威力征服的Meithei混杂；但是我们可以设想Koomul 部和 Looang部的山地边界可能消失，并互相混合，也和Angom部和Ningthaja部混合；为了解释相同名字的部落区分，后者在先前时代的存在是我们必须假定的。是否除了现在的思索之外，对当地传统的更进一步检查，或对南部和东南曼尼普尔（Munniepore）蛮荒地区的解释，还可以提供给我们有关认识Angom和Ningthaja的 信息，或有关它们在先前时代的存在可以由之合理推定的资料，就没有希望了？
        我们在摩奴规则起源上获得的结论，也将解释澳洲、南北美洲和太平洋岛屿土人的情形。在这些部分，我们在认识引发原始异族结婚群体的瓦解，及导致被认为属不同血统人民的当地部落混合的原因上获得了光明。让我们首先关注我们发现他们以其居住地区命名的分为小部落的澳大利亚人；虽然他们是流浪者，他们的漫游却象印度山地的那种游耕，限制在明确界定的范围内。看来这种居住在特定地区的部落认为自己是其中的主人，任何其他部落在该地区的闯入被认为入侵而被憎恨和惩罚；而地区内部个体有指定给他们的土地份额。因此这种具有显然理想的部落分离和独立的部落体系是大规模的。但是，经仔细检查，这类部落以方式最奇特的血统关系熔合焊接在一起。根据可靠记录，延伸于大陆广大部分的不同部落的土人分为若干家族，而一个家族的所有成员，不管他们可能是哪一种地方部落，都具有作为第二名或家族名的共同名字。这些家族名和分区经由两条法律的实行而不朽并蔓延贯穿整个地区：首先，孩子们无论性别都随母亲的名字；第二，一个男子不能与一个他自己家族名字的女子结婚。这些家族的成员虽然散布整个区域，仍然有某种如同他们组成分离和独立的部落同样强烈的联合意愿；特别地，每个家族的成员受约束为防御和复仇的目的而联合，结果是每一次发生在部落间的争吵是众多年轻男子离开他们出生部落的信号，他们去占据新的狩猎场所，或者与他们母亲的家族可能在其中恰好是强大的部落、或包含他们自己和他们母亲最亲近亲戚的部落结盟。这种分离，如果我们可以这样称呼它的话，不是总是可能的，但它还是频繁发生；在它不可能的地方，众多敌人的出现在严阵以待的营地里意味着对复仇号召的拥护；倘若是冒犯者亲属的血统，它是非实质的，根据土人规约，血族复仇根据一个人的血统被拥护。因此，由于澳大利亚人是多配偶制，而一个男子常有属于不同家族的妻子，在争吵中发现同一父亲的孩子们准备互相反对并不罕见；甚或反对他们父亲自己，因为根据他们奇特的法律，父亲永远不能是他孩子们的亲戚。在卡米拉罗伊人，一个居住在悉尼西北的为数众多的部落中，大量的规则非常复杂和奇特。这些部落男子分为类似等级的区，而同时遵守反对同家族成员之间结婚的规则。
        我们的资料是如此不完整以至我们不知道在澳大利亚人口被划分进那些名字特别的家族的部落是否存在于任何地方。但是我们将不期待发现这种部落。群体分片、诸部分彼此分离和独立的不变倾向，以及以其土地命名群体的惯例，将趋向最初血统群体的痕迹湮没，除非它们被保存在家族名字中得以通过避免同（本初）血统成员间的结婚来保持血统的纯净。但我们不能怀疑这种（本初）血统群体在某一时期存在，组织在异族结婚的原则之上，并且是土著人口的根源。无论它们得自什么地方，只通过女性认可血统关系的法律是不可避免的，与种族反对同祖先成员间结婚的原始本能结合，将趋向随时间的推移使每个祖先的血统（本初血统）传遍所有部落分区。群体A的男子同群体B的女子结婚；群体B的男子则同群体A的女子结婚；而所有B的女人的孩子被计入B血统；所有A的女人的孩子被计入A血统。我们立即在A内部有了许多的B血统的人，在B内部则有了许多的A血统的人，如此，直到来自最北端的A群体血统的人出现在处于最南端的Z家，Z血统的人则出现在A家为止。每个当地部落将因此在它自己内部包含有配偶关系的成员；最初的部落区分将被忽视，除了它们产生的家族名（本初）血统群体什么也没有留下。如果这种传输过程走得足够远，会导致猎妻惯例的事态将被改进，但不会熄灭。多偶制自身，以及部落内不同家族的性平衡的缺失，将长期趋于维持这种惯例；而且，它象其他每一种与婚姻或宗教相联系的惯例一样依托于一种实在的特殊坚韧。如我们所见，在澳大利亚人中流行一种婚约制度——总是在不同（本初）血统的人之间——随同一种广泛的猎妻惯例一起。如果我们的关于抢劫起源的理论是一个合理的理论这恰好是可以期待的。自从澳大利亚的部落，当异族结婚成为原则，包含互相认为属于不同的世系并可以自由通婚的人，婚姻可以成为而且成为了契约的主题。此外，必然地形成于以前时期的习俗——而且无疑现在仍偶然是必要的——维持着抢夺的惯例。
        现在我们来关注美洲印第安人的案例——北方的和南方的。他们有政治的和地区的分区；但除了这些他们中的部族有从远古时代区分成的家族或克兰。“目前或直到最近”——我们引自美国历史考古学会——“每个部族被划分成一些克兰，在几个部族中从三个到八个或十个不等，各克兰的成员各自无差别地被散布遍于整个部族。已充分确定，这些克兰由之在南方民族中间得以永存的不可侵犯的规程，首先是，没有人可以在自己的克兰内结婚；其次，每个孩子应该属于他或她母亲的克兰。在乔克托人（Choctaws）中间有两个大分区，各分成四个克兰，没有人可以在属于他自己分区的四个克兰中的任何一个内结婚。切罗基人（Cherookees）、克里克人（Creeks）和 纳齐兹人（Natches）中间的约束没有超出个人所属的克兰。同样分为克兰的区，通常被称为部落，存在于几乎所有的其他原始民族有着充分的证据。但它们是否流行在南方印第安人中间的同样规程的主题则不是这么清楚。”在这些分区和禁令的源头我们在这里发现，同在澳大利亚一样，以同血统的人之间的结婚为乱伦的感觉。“他们表示认为一个男人与一个其图腾（家族名字）同他自己相同的女人结婚是极大的罪恶，随即他们举例讲述年轻男子因为对这个规定的违反，被他们自己的亲戚处死。”印第安部族，他们说，被分成部落只是为了避免任何人可能，通过诱惑或者意外，同一个亲近的亲戚结婚，那“在现在几乎是不可能的，因为不论谁想要结婚必须同一个不同部落的人，”而同样的感受也被在南美的Dobuzhoffer提及。
        我们关于澳洲人所说的可以被假设至少在某一个时期在新西兰曾是真的。在《颠狂的诅咒》和其他几个新西兰传说中我们有妻子从未属于她丈夫的部落，以及子女属于母亲的家族的证据。在看来只通过母亲计算血统关系的斐济人中间也是如此。在对子女的要求权取决于母亲部落的vasu-ing制度中，我们有母亲总是属于与父亲不同的部落的证据，而子女为他们母亲的家族或部落所有。不管怎样，vasu-ing是斐济人发展中那是规则的一个阶段的一种痕迹。
        十分奇怪，有理由相信异族结婚流行于皮克特人（Picts）之中；换句话说，根据最可靠的学说，流行在有证据直接与劫夺Cruithnians人有关的盖尔人或苏格兰高地人中；在古老的威尔士和法兰西习俗中；以及在罗马平民婚礼中，因为凯尔特成分在罗马是强大的。凯尔特人古代在他们的道德上是松驰的，而只承认通过母亲的亲属关系是充分确定了的事实；并且由于这种事实，子女应该根据母亲命名是通常的伴随物。这些事实由著名的古文物研究者Skene先生从一项延至731年——当时比德(译注：Saint, 673-735, 英国历史学家及神学家)说通过女性的继承法仍然有效——的皮克特族君主序列的研究中得出，可以在一定程度上用儿子们取得他们母亲的名字来解释；但是它们指向的超出了这个。得益于Skene先生，我们得以自由地在此给出他曾经达到、但迄今未公布的结论。
        1、兄弟总是互相继承。
        2、与兄弟支配一个新产生的家庭相一致，决没有一个儿子继承一个父亲。 
        3、父亲的名字同儿子的名字彻底不同。没有案例一个儿子接受的名字出现在父亲名字中，反过来说也没有一个父亲的名字出现在儿子名字中的实例。
        4、儿子们的名字由不多几个不同祖先的儿子接受的皮克特族名字组成。这些是——6个 Drust、5个 Talorg、 3个 Nectan、 2个Galan、 6个 Gartnaidh、 4个 Brude。没有一个案例中一个父亲的名字两次出现在祖先名单中。
        5、在名单中有两个已知父亲是外族人的儿子接受皮克特族名字的案例，而这些是我们所有清单中唯一的父亲。他们是——1.Talorg Macainfrit。他的父亲无庸置疑地是Ainfrit，Aethelfrith的儿子，Northumbria的国王，他在皮克特人中得到庇护，并在后来成为Northumbria的国王；2. Brude Mac Bile。他的父亲是一个威尔士男子，不列颠克莱德宽谷的君主，也就是在古诗《Brude Mac Bile》中所称Ailcluaide王之子，Dumbarton；并且在那时，经Drunichen战役，他成为皮克特王，另一首古诗说：“今天Brude为了他祖先的土地进行了一场战争。”
        我们所有的记录中唯一的父亲们已知是外族人这个事实——特别当它同我们占有的关于皮克特人的其他事实一起——支持着一个坚强的假定：所有的父亲都是其他部落的男子。在每一个推论都被考虑过后，至少留有事实，父亲和母亲决不是相同家族名字的。
        现在我们有了一个不可抵抗的实例阵列，确定了异族结婚的事实是原始民族中婚姻法流行最广的原则。我们发现，在主要的部分，异族结婚的面积和实际抢劫妻子惯例流行的面积有共同的边界。进一步，在所有抢劫的象征最显著的现代实例中，我们发现部落内结婚如同乱伦被禁止，就象在孔德人、Fuegeans人、卡尔梅克人（Kalmucks）和切尔克斯人中一样；也是在这种象征的痕迹出现的若干案例中，如诺盖人（Nogais）和吉尔吉斯人中间，异族结婚被或多或少完全地观察到。我们看到了好的理由思考异族结婚和实际的抢劫惯例共存于古代凯尔特人中间；以及在那种共存中含有的对法兰西人、威尔士人和罗马平民中间这种象征的解释。对先前时期莫斯科人和Livonian人的合法婚姻（jus connubii）我们没有直接的资料。Magnus在这个主题上是沉默的。但在他的叙述中丈夫和妻子总是属于不同的血族关系和村社，暗示了这一主题。我们发现了异族结婚和抢劫象征共存于古代印度。不要因为多少可疑的实例而犹豫，我们认为现在肯定已被承认，我们充分证明了异族结婚部落的存在，而且这种部落中流行或曾经流行一种劫略女子为妻子的制度。
                08-7-27 13：30改

【作者: ydwq3613】【访问统计:】【2008年07月10日 星期四 09:15】【注册】【打印】