In descriptions of travel in the fifteenth century, the aboriginal inhabitants of Teneriffe are represented as having married no woman who had not previously spent a night with the chief, which was considered a great honour.[403] The same right, according to Dr. Barth, was presumably granted to the chief of Bagele in Adamáua;[404] and, according to Herodotus, to the king of the ancient Adyrmachidae.[405] Navarette tells us that, on the coast of Malabar, the bridegroom brought the bride to the king, who kept her eight days in his palace; and the man took it “as a great honour and favour that his king would make use of her.”[406] Again, according to Hamilton, a Samorin could not take his bride home for three nights, during which the chief priest had a claim to her company.[407] Sugenheim believes even that, in certain parts of France, a similar right was accorded to the higher clergy during the Middle Ages.[408] 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.