2o8 Reviews.
His theory of " the taboo of personal isolation " colours his view of the entire subject of marriage and marriage-rites. The second principal object of marriage-rites to which he refers is union. To establish union on the one hand and to avert the dangers of contact on the other are, so far as I can gather, the main objects of the ceremonies of marriage. The rites of union are, he says, " essentially identical with love-charms ; " they are intended to secure the permanence of the marriage -relation. These love-charms arise from the physiological impulse mentioned above. The bride and bridegroom become " one flesh," " but," we are assured, " this is union of two individuals only." " The object of marriage-ceremonies is not, and never was [the italics are mine], to join together the man or the woman, as the case may be, with ' the life, or blood, or flesh of the tribe.^ " I may observe incidentally that the author does not distinguish between the tribe and the kin. If he mean here the tribe, the entire local band, he is doubtless correct. If, however, we are to understand the kin, or the clan, this is by no means so clear. Among the savage tribes of Bengal, some of the most vivid rites of union are practised. They correspond to the blood-covenant, and certain of them are in fact modifications of it. Our information is express that the bride does become a member of the husband's clan. On the island of Bonabe, in Micronesia, the wife is tattooed with marks representing her husband's ancestors. In the Society Islands a blood-covenant-rite caused the two families (namely, of the bride and bridegroom) to regard themselves ever after as one. On a higher plane of civilisation the Roman bride entered the familia of her husband. The ceremonies were not quite the same ; but they included the confarreatio, which is analogous in its meaning to the blood-covenant. These instances, the first that occur to me, are enough to induce caution in accepting Mr. Crawley's assertions.
Speaking generally, indeed, he is too dogmatic. He holds a brief for primitive monogamy, for primitive individuahsm. On behalf of his theory an assertion, clear, unqualified and emphatic, is too often all that he considers necessary to establish his case. A complete examination of the book would involve writing a treatise on marriage and marriage-customs almost as long as his. I have perhaps said enough to show that his theories are far too broadly stated. He would have done better to be more cautious
