Adultery and abduction of a married woman

The rice is firm in the planting hole, and should not be gnawed at Even if the wife of someone else is beautiful,

It is forbidden to start a dispute because of her

Even if she shows that she is interested, one avoids getting involved³⁶

A married woman might consider more daring options than running away to force a divorce upon her husband and parboru: starting an affair or—even more serious—running off with another man. The risks involved, however, were great. Besides creating serious problems for her parboru—whom she put in a very disadvantageous position vis à vis her aggrieved husband—

she also put her lover’s life at risk. Her husband and her parboru might jointly fight him and seek redress through the rajas’ intervention.

The lengthy discussion in Patik (1899) illustrates how strongly the Batak felt about the infringement of a husband’s rights vested in his wife.³⁷ The author distinguished between no less than five degrees of attempt to seduce a married woman (molamola),³⁸ followed by a discussion of adultery and the abduction of a married woman (langkup). The last two offences were considered capital crimes of the most serious kind. If a married woman and her lover were found in each other’s company, but not engaged in the sexual act, the case still could be settled by the rajas. The culprit had to pay ‘a buffalo worth four binsang’, the expense of the lawsuit, and some additional fines. If the couple was caught in flagrante delicto, the husband was entitled to kill the adulterer on the spot ‘like a pig in the rice field’.

The aggrieved husband might prefer to bring the case before the rajas, however, after he had dragged the culprit to the village and tied him to the pole in the centre of the village square, together with his unfaithful wife. The rajas would then decide on the compensation his family

34 Vergouwen [1933] 1964:232. Perhaps there was some truth in this belief, as the psychological pressure on a woman to conceive was relieved after co-wife had delivered a son.

35 See the case of Marianna boru Huta Uruk (Chapter 12, section 12.4).

36 Pir eme di lobong sitongkai gugutonna; Uli pe jolma ni dongan, singkai guluton; Uli pe jolma ni dongan,sitongkai guluton;

Nang ro na shali lampong, sitongkai gulutonna. (Patik 1899 [tr. Vergouwen 1932:36]). Vergouwen’s translation is not a literal one, nor is the one made by De Boer, which is slightly different (Patik 1899 [tr. Boer 1921:366]).

37 The various courses of events, the actions, and the emotions of the parties involved are narrated with great feeling for drama. The text is profusely larded with Batak sayings and dialogues between the judging rajas, the aggrieved husband, and the culprit, which show the characteristic Batak style of argumentation (Patik 1899 [tr. Boer 1921:201-24, 356, 364-9]) and [tr. Vergouwen 1932: 15-31, 36-38}.

38 A husband who had even the flimsiest suspicion that another man was interested in his wife could demand that he publicly swear an oath denying his desire for her. If others had witnessed him approaching the married woman, or if she had an item in her possession that could prove she had an affair, or if the woman accused him of approaching her with dishonourable intentions, the accused had to pay a compensation to the husband. This relieved him of the obligation to swear an oath, which meant that he had to commit perjury—an act, as mentioned above, very much feared because of belief in its disastrous consequences for the culprit and his family.

had to pay, meanwhile putting him in the block.³⁹ If the relatives of the culprit did not pay up, the villagers killed him and consumed his flesh. Junghuhn (1847:147), however, reported that such a death sentence was executed only if the abductor was a commoner who had fled with the wife of a raja. In other cases, it was possible to pay off the crime with a fine of 30 piasters and a buffalo.⁴⁰ Marsden ([1783]: 1975: 389) reported that the marital state of the adulterer was taken into account by the rajas: if he was unmarried, he was outlawed and banished. The rajas could mete out a death sentence for a married man, but Marsden added soothingly that nearly all crimes could be redeemed. The same procedure was followed if the perpetrator had raped a married woman.

The rajas did not pass judgement on an unfaithful wife, but they could summon her to testify if in doubt about her role. The picture the author of Patik sketches of a woman suspected of an extra-marital relationship is telling: he presented her as a treacherous creature, prone to lying. By saying that the accused man had harassed her, she denied that she had anything to do with him. Such a testimony to save her own skin could be enough to let her off the hook. But if she was caught in flagrante delicto and therefore could not deny her infidelity, she, too, was tied to pole in the centre of the village, together with her lover.⁴¹ In this case, the rajas also did not pass judgement on her, but left it to her husband and parboru to punish her. Such punishment could involve shaving her head or piercing her ears. Her husband could also put her in the block, expecting her family to pay for her misdeed; and if they did not, he might sell her into slavery (Marsden [1783] 1975: 389; Adatrechtsregelen van Naipospos 1932:135).⁴² This demonstrates that the husband held her parboru responsible for his wife’s conduct. The parboru might try to persuade his offended son-in-law not to repudiate his unfaithful wife, offering compensation to mellow him. But if her husband refused this and was set on a divorce, the rajas were likely to demand of the parboru the same settlement as in the case of a ‘wayward’ daughter, a boru mahilolong.

Adultery was regarded not only as a violation of the rights of a husband, but also as a crime against the public order and the ancestors of the area of the husband’s marga.⁴³ People believed an extra-marital affair would invite a tiger to come to the village to devour beast and man, and that all kind of pests would destroy the crops (Raja Salomo 1938:30). Only after the rajas and elders of the village had dealt with the offense appropriately—the couple punished and a ceremony held to lift the state of impurity (rota, Malay: retak = cracked) caused by the crime—

would the natural equilibrium be restored.⁴⁴

The abduction of a married woman was a crime that rippled even further than adultery.

If a man managed to abduct a married woman and take her out of the area of the jurisdiction of the rajas of her clan, he was guilty of langkup, the term explained in section 5.2. As soon as

39 The author of Patik does not give details of the fine to be paid. Another, older source (Adatrechtsregelen van Naipospos ([+/- 1845] 1932:135-7) mentioned a fine of twelve binsang of gold (the equivalent of 140 Spaanse matten), a buffalo for the divorce, twelve measures (sibalambung) of rice, plus small payments to the intermediaries, and the usual fee (pagopago) for the rajas. This source also mentions that the death sentence could be executed and the flesh of the culprit consumed.

40 Apparently, this custom had already long disappeared in Silindung, because the author of Patik did not mention this sanction.

41 Henny (1869:40) mentioned that an unfaithful wife had to pay for adultery with her life.

42 Marsden 1975 [1873]:389. Adatrechtsregelen van Naipospos 1932:135.

43 Vergouwen [1933] 1964: 263.

44 The Balinese also appease the wrath of ancestors by holding a religious ceremony if a case of adultery has made the village area impure (leteh), for example if a woman is pregnant outside wedlock.

her husband heard of his wife’s abduction, he would convene the rajas of his own and adjacent villages to enlist their support in the pursuit of the abductor, who would be declared an outlaw. If the abductor had lived in the area, his possessions were confiscated. War with the clan protecting him would not end until the culprit, the pangalangkup, had given himself up or was turned over by the party that had given him refuge. He was not allowed any protection, even by his own relatives; and if he dared to appear at any ceremony or in the market, he had to be captured immediately. In other words, an abductor had no other option than to flee as far away as possible and never to return to his region of origin.⁴⁵

According to the author of Patik, the only option open to the abductor and his family to settle the dispute was to pay the brideprice once paid by the aggrieved husband for the abduction of his wife seven times over. On top of that he had to give one buffalo ‘for carrying off the woman, another for her steps, another for her speech, another for her hearing, another for the sky above her, yet another for the earth under her feet, and one for the divorce’. He also had to invite the whole region to a ceremonial meal to atone for his misdeed. In practice, the fines imposed were lower if the abductor was a member of the same community than if he was an outsider.⁴⁶ As mentioned earlier, an adulterer or abductor could have been assisted by the wife’s parboru, who was fed up with his son-in-law (Ruhut [tr. Meerwaldt) 1905:105). If her husband sued him, the rajas would fine the parboru for his complicity.

One would expect that cases of adultery and abduction occurred rarely, not only because of the very harsh punishments for these crimes, but also because the adulterer or abductor risked war with the aggrieved party and ostracism by his own family. Yet adultery did occur, as the following high-profile and tragic case shows, which led to local warfare in the late 1870s in the Batak interior of Singkel and Baros. The war was triggered by an illicit relationship between the wife of Raja Bantar of Kota Baru and an underling of Raja Indra Moelia of Tanjong Amas. Raja Bantar killed the culprit, for which Indra Mulia, who happened to be the most powerful raja in the region, demanded retribution. When Raja Bantar subsequently also killed his unfaithful wife, her father, set on revenge, joined forces with Indra Mulia. The entire region was in turmoil for several years, and the disturbances even negatively affected trade, because traders did not dare to travel into the interior.⁴⁷

Love affairs did not always lead to war and legal action, however. Missionary Schütz told the story of a young woman, later baptized Bertha, who had been married off at a very young age but was unhappy and therefore ran off with another man. Her husband and family took no action.⁴⁸ The author of Ruhut (1898 [tr. Meerwaldt 1904/5:104-5]) stated that it was not rare for women to commit adultery, and that their subsequent marriage often proved durable. It may have been that commoners made less of a problem if their wife was unfaithful, and that the aggrieved husband or his family faced with the fait accompli made the best of it and arranged the separation with his wife’s parboru. Or perhaps the husband heeded the parboru’s plea to keep the alliance intact by accepting compensation.

45 See Ypes (1932:367) for a legendary case of adultery forcing the culprit to flee to another region.

46 Patik 1899 (tr. Vergouwen 1932:38). He probably meant a man who did not belong to the local horja or bius community, but to another region.

47 Koloniaal Verslag 1881:8. This region was still outside the jurisdiction of the colonial state at the time. The Dutch Controllers stationed in Sibolga, adjacent to Singkel, offered their mediation in the case but were unsuccessful in persuading the warring parties to settle the matter.

48 Schütz 1882:100. Bertha’s second marriage, with a Muslim man, ended in divorce, and Bertha returned to her village and continued Bible class.

Unlike adultery committed by a married woman, adultery by a married man was not considered a crime as long as the woman with whom he was involved was not engaged or married. If the woman was not yet betrothed, her relatives would demand that he take her as his wife or otherwise pay a fine. As was customary, he also had to ask for forgiveness for the transgression of the public order (manopoti) by offering the girl and her family a ceremonial meal (Vergouwen [1933]1964:266). A wife could not demand a divorce on the basis of her husband’s sexual escapades or extramarital relationship. It is telling that of all the records on disputes in the late colonial period, there is not one case in which a woman sued her husband for adultery.