FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 



203 



Put another way, the figures show that the families 

 of bride and groom were separated by 



Less than 33 places in the wealth scale in 13 cases, 

 between 34 and 66 places in 14 cases, between 67 

 and 99 places in 6 cases, and between 100 and 

 132 places in 3 cases, 



which means that in only 13 of the 36 cases were 

 the two families nearly at the same economic level. 

 Not only do men of richer families tend to marry 

 girls of poorer families, as seen above, but the 

 tendency in "mixed" marriages all along the line 

 is for the difiFerence to be greater when a richer 

 man marries a poorer girl than when a richer girl 

 marries a poorer man. Thus in marriages: 



Within the same wealth-quarter, the average number 

 of places on the wealth scale separating the 

 families where the man is richer is 14, and where 

 the woman is richer, 11.4; 



In consecutive quarters, where the man is richer, it is 

 37.4, and where the woman is richer it is 25; 



In alternate quarters, where the man is richer, it is 63, 

 and where the woman is richer, 63.8; and 



In opposite quarters, where the man is richer, it is 

 112.7, and where the woman is richer, 73. 



Three questions arise: (1) Why do marriages cut 

 across wealth lines? (2) Why do men marry girls 

 poorer than themselves, and (3) what becomes of 

 the daughters of the rich? The answers are all 

 closely related. A wealthy man with a daughter 

 to marry off is faced with the problem of having 

 much land, with the prospect of losing a worker; 

 if he marries the girl to a rich man, she surely 

 leaves him, whereas he can sometimes obtain a 

 poor son-in-law who will come to live with him. 

 This is an exceptional, although not uncommon, 

 marriage that cuts across wealth lines. It is a 

 recognized "peculiar" marriage in a generally 

 patrilocal culture; to arrange it, the girl's parents 

 may even initiate the proposal — a rather abnormal 

 procedure. This kind of marriage accounts for 

 some of the recent cases in which the girl's family 

 has been wealthier than the boy's. On the other 

 hand, a family with a son prefers a relatively poor 

 girl (all considerations of character, beauty, etc., 

 constant) because she will more certainly come to 

 live at the house and help with the work; she usual- 

 ly "knows how to work," and she will make a 

 better daughter-in-law for the dependence she will 

 feel and the advantages she will get. 



The answer to the last question, insofar as I can 

 answer it, is that the daughters of the rich tend 

 to marry later for the reasons that (1) there is no 



economic pressure on her or her family to accept a 

 husband, (2) suitors are apt to hesitate to ask for 

 her hand for fear of a refusal and because of the 

 expense involved in case of an acceptance, and 

 (3) a man of a family as rich or almost as rich will 

 prefer a poor girl for reasons mentioned above. 

 In the richest family in the community there are 

 two daughters who were, in 1936, about 31 and 16 

 years of age respectively; they were immarried as 

 late as 1941. The older girl might easily remain a 

 maid; she is not unattractive, but of com^e there 

 may be other factors involved. In the second 

 richest family there were two girls of marriageable 

 age m 1936. One has since married a poor man 

 who was brought to the house to live; the other 

 (about 17 in 1936) had an illegitimate child by a 

 son of the richest family and was still unmarried 

 in 1941. The two stepdaughters of the third 

 richest family had had three illegitimate children 

 by 1936 (two of them reportedly by the stepfather) 

 and remained unwed. The only daughter of the 

 fourth richest man was, again, married to a man 

 who came to her father's house to live and work. 

 And so on down the list of the very rich: late 

 marriages, spinsters, unwed mothers, matrilocal 

 residence are more common than among the poor. 

 I never heard expression either of envy or dep- 

 recation ia connection with marriages between 

 poor men and rich gii'ls; I think that there is some 

 loss of respect, however, if the girl's family takes 

 the initiative and, in a sense, buys the man. Nor 

 were there remarks about a girl's good fortune in 

 marrying a rich man; in one case there was some 

 pity for how hard the girl would have to work. 

 There seems to be no notion of "marrying for 

 money," perhaps because there are few romantic 

 notions about marriage. That there is so little 

 affect connected with cross-wealth-lines marriages 

 doubtless makes them easier to contract. There 

 also appears to be no strong deprecation of late 

 marriage or feminine bachelorhood ; it is true that 

 few women remain unmarried, but comments 

 about those who do are conspicuous by their ab- 

 sence. Thus, it is not as strange as it would other- 

 vnse be that the rich permit their daughters to go 

 husbandless. Finally, the attitude toward il- 

 legitimacy is relatively mUd; no great disgrace 

 attaches itself to the girl or her family, and none to 

 the child. (But the conduct of loose women is 

 frowned upon, and illicit relations with Ladinos, 

 especially, are taken seriously.) 



