Note 139 — Chapter II · THEORY OF THE HORDE AND MOTHER-RIGHT

The monograph of Dr. Karl Schmidt, Jus primae noctis, is the most elaborate work on the subject. The author denies (41 ff., 365 ff., 379) that the custom existed in feudal Europe or elsewhere as a right; and he holds that the practices so called are not evidences of promiscuity. His views are sharply criticised by Hellwald, Die mensch. Familie, 349 n. 4; and especially by Kohler, in ZVR., IV, 279-87. Schmidt has a supplementary discussion in ZFE., XVI, 44 ff.; and is reviewed unfavorably by Kohler, ZVR., V, 397-406. See also Schmidt's Slavische Geschichtsquellen zur Streitfrage über das Jus Primae Noctis; Kohler, Urgeschichte der Ehe, 140; idem, in ZVR., VII, 350, 351; VIII, 85; Schneider, Die Naturvölker, II, 471-73; Giraud-Teulon, op. cit., 32-41; Weinhold, Die deutschen Frauen, I, 300, 301; Letourneau, L'évolution du mariage, 56-62; Suggenheim, Geschichte der Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft, 104, who believes the "right of the lord" existed in France far down into the Middle Ages; Bachofen, Mutterrecht, 12, 13, 17, 18, passim; Post, Anfänge, 17, 18; idem, Geschlechtsgenoss., 37; Kulischer, "Die communale Zeitehe," in Archiv für Anthropologie, XI, 228 ff., who refers to the recent existence of the alleged custom in Russia; Friedrichs, in ZVR., X, 214, 215; Starcke, op. cit., 124-26. There is a learned discussion in the quaint De uxore theotisca, cap. i, of Grupen; the literature cited in Bibliographical Note II should be consulted; and Schmidt has appended a very full bibliography to his book. The term jus primae noctis is especially applied to the alleged "right of the lord" in feudal times; but the existence of even this custom as a legal privilege is still an unsettled question.