Yet Dr. Karl Schmidt has endeavoured, in a learned work, to prove that the _droit du siegneur_ never existed in Europe, the later belief in it being merely “ein gelehrter Aberglaube,” which arose in various ways. Thus there was classical witness to ancient traditions of tyrants, who had distinguished themselves by such proceedings as that right was supposed to legalize. From various parts of the world came reports of travellers as to tribes among whom defloration was the privilege or duty of kings, priests, or other persons set apart for the purpose. A grosser meaning than the words will warrant had, besides, in Dr. Schmidt’s opinion, been attached to the fine paid by the vassal to his feudal lord for permission to marry. That law, he says, which is believed to have extended over a large part of Europe, has left no evidence of its existence in laws, charters, decretals, trials, or glossaries.[409]
This is not the proper place to discuss Dr. Schmidt’s hypothesis; but his arguments do not seem to be conclusive.[410] Several writers speak of estate-owners in Russia who claimed the _droit du seigneur_ in the last and even the present century;[411] and a friend of mine informs me that, when travelling in that country, he met with aged men whose wives had been victims of the custom. It was certainly a privilege taken by the law of might. But how in such cases shall we draw the line between might and what is properly accepted as right?
Bachofen, Giraud-Teulon, Kulischer, and other writers[412] regard the _jus primae noctis_ accorded to a special person, as a remnant of a primitive state of promiscuity or “communal marriage.” It is, in their opinion, a transformation of the ancient communal right, which was taken away from the community and transferred to those who chiefly represented it—the priest, the king, or the nobility.
But why may not the practice in question have been simply a consequence of might? It may be a right taken forcibly by the stronger, or it may be a privilege voluntarily given to the chief man as a mark of esteem,—in either case, it depends upon his authority. Indeed, the right of encroaching upon the marital rights of a subject is not commonly restricted to the first night only. Where the chief or the king has the power of life and death, what man can prohibit him from doing his will? “Quite indisputed,” Dr. Holub says, with reference to the Marutse, “is the king’s power to put to death, or to make a slave of any one of his subjects in any way he choses; he may take a man’s wife simply by providing him with another wife as a substitute.”[413] In Dahomey, all women belong to the king, who causes every girl to be brought to him before marriage, and, if he pleases, retains her in the palace.[414] Among the Negroes in Fida, according to Bosman, the captains of the king, who have to supply him with fresh wives, immediately present to him any beautiful virgin they may see; and none of his subjects dare presume to offer objections.[415] In Persia, it was a legal principle that whatever was touched by the king remained immaculate, and that he might go into the harem of any of his subjects.[416] Among the Kukis, “all the women of the village, married or single, are at the pleasure of the rajah,” who is regarded by his people with almost superstitious veneration.[417] The Kalmuck priests, who are not suffered to marry, may, it is said, pass a night with any man’s wife, and this is esteemed a favour by the husband.[418] And in Chamba (probably Cochin China), Marco Polo tells us, no woman was allowed to marry until the king had seen her.[419]