customary for the parents to decide upon who is to marry their daughters, and that, though she may frustrate the plan, “this seldom happens.”  Darwin further informs us that “Hearne describes how a woman in one of the tribes of Arctic America repeatedly ran away from her husband and joined her lover.”  How much this single instance proves in regard to woman’s liberty of choice or power to aid sexual selection, may be inferred from the statement by the same “excellent observer” of Indian traits (as Darwin himself calls him) that “it has ever been the custom among these people to wrestle for any woman to whom they are attached; and, of course, the strongest party always carries off the prize”—­an assertion borne out by Richardson (II., 24) and others.  But if the strongest man “always carries off the prize,” where does woman’s choice come in?  Hearne adds that “this custom prevails throughout all their tribes” (104).  And while the other Indian instances referred to by Darwin indicate that in case of decided aversion a girl is not absolutely compelled, as among the Kaffirs, to marry the man selected for her, the custom nevertheless is for the parents to make the choice, as among most Indians, North and South.

Whereas Darwin’s claim that primitive women have “more power” to decide their fate as regards marriage “than might have been expected,” is comparatively modest, Westermarck goes so far as to declare that these women “are not, as a rule, married without having any voice of their own in the matter.”  He feels compelled to this course because he realizes that his theory that savages originally ornamented themselves in order to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex “presupposes of course that savage girls enjoy great liberty in the choice of a mate.”  In the compilation of his evidence, unfortunately, Westermarck is even less critical and reliable than Darwin.  In reference to the Bushmen, he follows Darwin’s example in citing Burchell, but leaves out the words “which, however, does not often happen,” which show that liberty of choice on the woman’s part is not the rule but a rare exception.[132] He also claims the Kaffirs, though, as I have just shown, such a claim is preposterous.  To the evidence already cited on my side I may add Shooter’s remarks (55), that if there are several lovers the girl is asked to decide for herself.  “This, however, is merely formal,” for if she chooses one who is poor the father recommends to her the one of whom he calculated to get the most cattle, and that settles the matter.  Not even the widows are allowed the liberty of choice, for, as Shooter further informs us (86), “when a man dies those wives who have not left the kraal remain with the eldest son.  If they wish to marry again, they must go to one of their late husband’s brothers.”  Among the African women “who have no difficulty in getting the husbands whom they may desire,” Westermarck mentions the Ashantees, on the authority of Beecham (125).  On consulting