_ The utter indifference of the Kaffirs to chastity and their licentiousness, approved and even prescribed by national custom, were not the only obstacle to the growth of sentiments rising above mere sensuality. Commercialism was another fatal obstacle. I have already quoted Hahn's testimony that a Kaffir "would rather have big herds of cattle than a good-looking wife." Dohne asserts (Shooter, 88) that "a Kaffir loves his cattle more than his daughter," and Kay tells us that
"he is scarcely ever seen shedding tears,
excepting when the chief lays violent hands
upon some part of his horned family; this
pierces him to the heart and produces more
real grief than would be evinced over the
loss of wife and child."
On another page he says that in time of war the poor women fall into the enemy's hands, because
"their husbands afford them no assistance or
protection whatever. The preservation of the
cattle constitutes the grand object of their
solicitude; and with these, which are trained
for the purpose, they run at an astonishing
rate, leaving both wives and children to
take their chances."
Such being the Kaffir's relative estimation of cows and women, we might infer that in matrimonial arrangements bovine interests were much more regarded than any possible sentimental considerations; and this we find to be the case. Barrow tells us that
"the females being considered as the property of their
parents, are always disposed of by sale. The common
price of a wife is an ox or a couple of cows. Love with
them is a very confined passion, taking but little hold
on the mind. When an offer is made for the purchase of
a daughter, she feels little inclination to refuse; she
considers herself as an article at market, and is
neither surprised, nor unhappy, nor interested, on
being told that she is about to be disposed of. There
is no previous courtship, no exchange of fine
sentiments, no nice feelings, no attentions to catch
the affections and to attach the heart."[141]
[FOOTNOTE 141:
It may seem inconsistent to condemn Barrow on one page as unreliable and then quote him approvingly on another. But in the first case his assertion was utterly opposed to the unanimous testimony of those who knew the Kaffirs best, while in this instance his remarks are in perfect accordance with what we would expect under the circumstances and with the testimony of the standard authorities.] _