and promised to a peer of her father who had many other
wives. She would not submit to be one of many, and
besides she loved and she eloped with her beloved. This
was interesting and romantic. She was at the time in a
very coarse travelling dress, but assured of protection
she took fresh apparel and ornament from her basket and
proceeded to array herself, and very pretty she looked
as she combed and plaited her long hair and completed
her toilette. In the meantime I had sent for the
'beloved,' who had kept in the background, and alas!
how the romance was dispelled when a _dual_ appeared!
_She had eloped with two men!_"

Every reader will laugh at this denouement, and that laugh is eloquent
proof that in saying there can be no real love without absolute
monopolism of one heart by another I simply formulated and emphasized
a truth which we all feel instinctively. Dalton's tale also brings out
very clearly the world-wide difference between a romantic love-story
and a story of romantic love.

Turning from the Old World to the New we find stories illustrating the
same amusing disregard of amorous monopolism. Rink, in his book of
Eskimo tales and traditions, cites a song which voices the reveries of
a Greenland bachelor:

"I am going to leave the country--in a large ship--for
that sweet little woman. I'll try to get some beads--of
those that look like boiled ones. Then when I've gone
abroad--I shall return again. My nasty little
relatives--I'll call them all to me--and give them a
good thrashing--with a big rope's end. Then I'll go to
marry--_taking two at once_. That darling little
creature--shall only wear clothes of the spotted
seal-skins, and the other little pet shall have clothes
of the young hooded seals."

Powers (227) tells a tragic tale of the California Indians, which in
some respects reminds one of the man who jumped into a bramble-bush
and scratched out both his eyes.

"There was once a man who loved two women and wished to
marry them. Now these two women were magpies, but they
loved him not, and laughed his wooing to scorn. Then he
fell into a rage and cursed these two women, and went
far away to the North. There he set the world on fire,
then made for himself a tule boat, wherein he escaped
to sea, and was never seen more."

Belden, who spent twelve years among the Sioux and other Indians,
writes (302):

"I once knew a young man who had about a dozen horses
he had captured at different times from the enemy, and
who fell desperately in love with a girl of nineteen.
_She loved him in return_, but said she could not bear
to leave her tribe, and go to a Santee village, unless
her two sisters, aged respectively fifteen and
seventeen, went with her. Determined to have his
sweetheart, the next time the warrior visited the
Yankton village he took several ponies with him, and
bought all three of the girls from their parents,
giving five ponies for them."


OBSTACLES TO MONOPOLISM

Heriot, during his sojourn among Canadian Indians, became convinced
from what he saw that love does not admit of divided affections, and
can hardly coexist with polygamy (324). Schoolcraft notes the "curious
fact" concerning the Indian that after a war "one of the first things
he thought of as a proper reward for his bravery was to take another
wife." In the chapter entitled "Honorable Polygamy" we saw how, in
polygamous communities the world over, monogamy was despised as the
"poor man's marriage," and was practised, not from choice, but from
necessity. Every man who was able to do so bought or stole several
women, and joined the honorable guild of polygamists. Such a custom,
enforced by a strong public opinion, created a sentiment which greatly
retarded the development of monopolism in sexual love. A young Indian
might dream of marrying a certain girl, not, however, with a view to
giving her his whole heart, but only as a beginning. The woman, it is
true, was expected to give herself to one husband, but he seldom
hesitated to lend her to a friend as an act of hospitality, and in
many cases, would hire her out to a stranger in return for gifts.

In not a few communities of Asia, Melanesia, Polynesia, Australia,
Africa, and America polyandry prevailed; that is, the woman was
expected to bestow her caresses in turn on two or more men, to the
destruction of the desire for exclusive possession which is an
imperative trait of love. Rowney describes (154) what we might call
syndicate marriage which has prevailed among the Meeris of India:

"All the girls have their prices, the largest price for the
best-looking girl varying from twenty to thirty pigs, and,
if one man cannot give so many, he has no objection to take
partners to make up the number."

According to Julius Caesar, it was customary among the ancient Britons
for brothers, and sometimes for father and sons, to have their wives
in common, and Tacitus found evidence of a similar custom among the
ancient Germans; while in some parts of Media it was the ambition of
the women to have two or more husbands, and Strabo relates that those
who succeeded looked down with pride on their less fortunate sisters.
When the Spaniards first arrived at Lanzarote, in South America, they
found the women married to several husbands, who lived with their
common spouse in turn each a month. The Tibetans, according to Samuel
Turner, look on marriage as a disagreeable duty which the members of a
family must try to alleviate by sharing its burdens. The Nair woman in
India may have up to ten or twelve husbands, with each of whom she
lives ten days at a time. Among some Himalayan tribes, when the oldest
brother marries, he generally shares his wife with his younger
brothers.


WIVES AND GIRLS IN COMMON

Of the Port Lincoln Tribe in Australia, Schürmann says (223) that the
brothers practically have their wives in common.

"A peculiar nomenclature has arisen from these singular
connections; a woman honors the brothers of the man to
whom she is married by the indiscriminate name of
husbands; but the men make a distinction, calling their
own individual spouses yungaras, and those to whom they
have a secondary claim, by right of brotherhood,
kartetis."

R.H. Codrington, a scientifically educated missionary who had
twenty-four years' experience on the islands of the Pacific, wrote a
valuable book on the Melanesians in which occur the following luminous
remarks:

"All women who may become wives in marriage, and are
not yet appropriated, are to a certain extent looked
upon by those who may be their husbands as open to a
more or less legitimate intercourse. In fact,
appropriation of particular women to their own
husbands, though established by every sanction of
native custom, has by no means so strong a hold in
native society, nor in all probability anything like so
deep a foundation in the history of the native people,
as the severance of either sex by divisions which most
strictly limit the intercourse of men and women to
those of the section or sections to which they
themselves do not belong. Two proofs or
exemplifications of this are conspicuous. (1) There is
probably no place in which the common opinion of
Melanesians approves the intercourse of the unmarried
youths and girls as a thing good in itself, though it
allows it as a thing to be expected and excused; but
intercourse within the limit which restrains from
marriage, where two members of the same division are
concerned, is a crime, is incest.... (2) The feeling,
on the other hand, that the intercourse of the sexes
was natural where the man and woman belonged to
different divisions, was shown by that feature of
native hospitality which provided a guest with a
temporary wife." Though now denied in some places,
"there can be no doubt that it was common everywhere."

Nor can there be any doubt that what Codrington here says of the
Melanesians applies also to Polynesians, Australians, and to
uncivilized peoples in general. It shows that even where monogamy
prevails--as it does quite extensively among the lower races[12]--we
must not look for monopolism as a matter of course. The two are very
far from being identical. Primitive marriage is not a matter of
sentiment but of utility and sensual greed. Monogamy, in its lower
phases, does not exclude promiscuous intercourse before marriage and
(with the husband's permission) after marriage. A man appropriates a
particular woman, not because he is solicitous for a monopoly of her
chaste affections, but because he needs a drudge to cook and toil for
him. Primitive marriage, in short, has little in common with civilized
marriage except the name--an important fact the disregard of which has
led to no end of confusion in anthropological and sociological
literature.[13]


TRIAL MARRIAGES

At a somewhat higher stage, marriage becomes primarily an institution
for raising soldiers for the state or sons to perform ancestor
worship. This is still very far from the modern ideal which makes
marriage a lasting union of two loving souls, children or no children.
Particularly instructive, from our point of view, is the custom of
trial marriage, which has prevailed among many peoples differing
otherwise as widely as ancient Egyptians and modern Borneans.[14] A
modern lover would loathe the idea of such a trial marriage, because
he feels sure that his love will be eternal and unalterable. He may be
mistaken, but that at any rate is his ideal: it includes lasting
monopolism. If a modern sweetheart offered her lover a temporary
marriage, he would either firmly and anxiously decline it, fearing
that she might take advantage of the contract and leave him at the end
of the year; or, what is much more probable, his love, if genuine,
would die a sudden death, because no respectable girl could make such
an offer, and genuine love cannot exist without respect for the
beloved, whatever may be said to the contrary by those who know not
the difference between sensual and sentimental love.


TWO ROMAN LOVERS

While I am convinced that all these things are as stated, I do not
wish to deny that monopolism of a violent kind may and does occur in
love which is merely sensual. In fact, I have expressly classed
monopolism among those seven ingredients of love which occur in its
sensual as well as its sentimental phases. For a correct diagnosis of
love it is indeed of great importance to bear this in mind, as we
might otherwise be led astray by specious passages, especially in
Greek and Roman literature, in which sensual love sometimes reaches a
degree of subtility, delicacy, and refinement, which approximate it to
sentimental love, though a critical analysis always reveals the
difference. The two best instances I know of occur in Tibullus and
Terence. Tibullus, in one of his finest poems (IV., 13), expresses the
monopolistic wish that his favorite might seem beautiful to him only,
displeasing all others, for then he would be safe from all rivalry;
then he might live happy in forest solitudes, and she alone would be
to him a multitude:

Atque utinam posses uni mihi bella videri;
Displiceas aliis: sic ego tutus ero.

Sic ego secretis possum bene vivere silvis
Qua nulla humano sit via trita pede.
Tu mihi curarum requies, tu nocte vel atra
Lumen, et in solis tu mihi turba locis.

Unfortunately, the opening line of this poem:

Nulla tuum nobis subducet femina lectum,

and what is known otherwise of the dissolute character of the poet and
of all the women to whom he addressed his verses, make it only too
obvious that there is here no question of purity, of respect, of
adoration, of any of the qualities which distinguish supersensual love
from lust.

More interesting still is a passage in the _Eunuchus_ of Terence (I.,
2) which has doubtless misled many careless readers into accepting it
as evidence of genuine romantic love, existing two thousand years ago:

"What more do I wish?" asks Phaedria of his girl Thais:
"That while at the soldier's side you are not his, that
you love me day and night, desire me, dream of me,
expect me, think of me, hope for me, take delight in
me, finally, be my soul as I am yours."

Here, too, there is no trace of supersensual, self-sacrificing
affection (the only sure test of love); but it might be argued that
the monopolism, at any rate, is absolute. But when we read the whole
play, even that is seen to be mere verbiage and
affectation--sentimentality,[15] not sentiment. The girl in question
is a common harlot "never satisfied with one lover," as Parmeno tells
her, and she answers: "Quite true, but do not bother me"--and her
Phaedria, though he talks monopolism, does not _feel_ it, for in the
first act she easily persuades him to retire to the country for a few
days, while she offers herself to a soldier. And again, at the end of
the play, when he seems at last to have ousted his military rival, the
latter's parasite Gnatho persuades him, without the slightest
difficulty, to continue sharing the girl with the soldier, because the
latter is old and harmless, but has plenty of money, while Phaedria is
poor.

Thus a passage which at first sight seemed sentimental and romantic,
resolves itself into flabby sensualism, with no more moral fibre than
the "love" of the typical Turk, as revealed, for instance, in a love
song, communicated by Eugene Schuyler (I., 135):

"Nightingale! I am sad! As passionately as thou lovest the
rose, so loudly sing that my loved one awake. Let me die in
the embrace of my dear one, for I envy no one. I know that
thou hast many lovers; but what affair of mine is that?"

One of the most characteristic literary curiosities relating to
monopolism that I have found occurs in the Hindoo drama, _Malavika and
Agnimitra_ (Act V.). While intended very seriously, to us it reads for
all the world like a polygamous parody by Artemus Ward of Byron's
lines just cited ("She was his life, The ocean to the river of his
thoughts, Which terminated all"). An Indian queen having generously
bestowed on her husband a rival to be his second wife, Kausiki, a
Buddhist nun, commends her action in these words:

"I am not surprised at your magnanimity. If wives are kind
and devoted to their husbands they even serve them by
bringing them new wives, like the streams which become
channels for conveying the water of the rivers to the
ocean."

Monopolism has a watch-dog, a savage Cerberus, whose duty it is to
ward off intruders. He goes by the name of Jealousy, and claims our
attention next.


III. JEALOUSY

For love, thou know'st, is full of jealousy.
--_Shakspere_.

Jealousy may exist apart from sexual love, but there can be no such
love without jealousy, potential at any rate, for in the absence of
provocation it need never manifest itself. Of all the ingredients of
love it is the most savage and selfish, as commonly witnessed, and we
should therefore expect it to be present at all stages of this
passion, including the lowest. Is this the case? The answer depends
entirely upon what we mean by jealousy. Giraud-Teulon and Le Bon have
held--as did Rousseau long before them--that this passion is unknown
among almost all uncivilized peoples, whereas the latest writer on the
subject, Westermarck, tries to prove (117) that "jealousy is
universally prevalent in the human race at the present day" and that
"it is impossible to believe that there ever was a time when man was
devoid of that powerful feeling." It seems strange that doctors should
disagree so radically on what seems so simple a question; but we shall
see that the question is far from being simple, and that the dispute
arose from that old source of confusion, the use of one word for
several entirely different things.


RAGE AT RIVALS

It is among fishes, in the scale of animal life, that jealousy first
makes its appearance, according to Romanes. But in animals "jealousy,"
be it that of a fish or a stag, is little more than a transient rage
at a rival who comes in presence of the female he himself covets or
has appropriated. This murderous wrath at a rival is a feeling which,
as a matter of course a human savage may share with a wolf or an
alligator; and in its ferocious indulgence primitive man places
himself on a level with brutes--nay, below them, for in the struggle
he often kills the female, which an animal never does. This wrath is
not jealousy as we know it; it lacks a number of essential moral,
intellectual, imaginative elements as we shall presently see; some of
these are found in the amorous relations of birds, but not of savages,
who are now under discussion. If it is true that, as some authorities
believe, there was a time when human beings had, like animals, regular
and limited annual mating periods, this rage at rivals must have often
assumed the most ferocious aspect, to be followed, as with animals, by
long periods of indifference.[16]


WOMEN AS PRIVATE PROPERTY

It is obvious, however, that since the human infant needs parental
care much longer than young animals need it, natural selection must
have favored the survival of the offspring of couples who did not
separate after a mating period but remained together some years. This
tendency would be further favored by the warrior's desire to have a
private drudge or conjugal slave. Having stolen or bought such a
"wife" and protected her against wild beasts and men, he would come to
feel a sense of _ownership_ in her--as in his private weapons. Should
anyone steal his weapons, or, at a higher stage, his cattle or other
property, he would be animated by a _fierce desire for revenge_; and
the same would be the case if any man stole his wife--or her favors.
This savage desire for revenge is the second phase of "jealousy," when
women are guarded like other property, encroachment on which impels
the owner to angry retaliation either on the thief or on the wife who
has become his accomplice. Even among the lowest races, such as the
Fuegians and Australians, great precautions are taken to guard women
from "robbers." From the nature of the case, women are more difficult
to guard than any other kind of "movable" property, as they are apt to
move of their own accord. Being often married against their will, to
men several times their age, they are only too apt to make common
cause with the gallant. Powers relates that among the California
Indians, a woman was severely punished or even killed by her husband
if seen in company with another man in the woods; and an Australian
takes it for granted, says Curr, "that his wife has been unfaithful to
him whenever there has been an opportunity for criminality." The
poacher may be simply flogged or fined, but he is apt to be mutilated
or killed. The "injured husband" reserves the right to intrigue with
as many women as he pleases, but his wife, being his absolute
property, has no rights of her own, and if she follows his bad example
he mutilates or kills her too.


HORRIBLE PUNISHMENTS

Strangling, stoning, burning, impaling, flaying alive, tearing limb
from limb, throwing from a tower, burying alive, disemboweling,
enslaving, drowning, mutilating, are some of the punishments inflicted
by savages and barbarians in all parts of the world on adulterous men
or women. Specifications would be superfluous. Let one case stand for
a hundred. Maximilian Prinz zu Wied relates (I., 531, 572), that the
Indians (Blackfeet),

"severely punished infidelity on the part of their
wives by cutting off their noses. At Fort Mackenzie we
saw a number of women defaced in this hideous manner.
In about a dozen tents we saw at least half a dozen
females thus disfigured."

Must we not look upon the state of mind which leads to such terrible
actions as genuine jealousy? Is there any difference between it and
the feeling we ourselves know under that name? There is--a world-wide
difference. Take Othello, who though a Moor, acts and feels more like
an Englishman. The desire for revenge animates him too: "I'll tear her
to pieces," he exclaimed when Iago slanders Desdemona--"will chop her
into messes," and as for Cassio,

Oh, that the slave had forty thousand lives!
One is too poor, too weak for my revenge.

*       *       *       *       *

Arise, black vengeance from the hollow hell.


ESSENCE OF TRUE JEALOUSY

But this eagerness for revenge is only one phase of his passion.
Though it leads him, in a frenzy of despair, to smother his wife, it
is yet, even in his violent soul, subordinate to those feelings of
_wounded honor and outraged affection_ which constitute the essence of
true jealousy. When he supposes himself betrayed by his wife and his
friend he clutches, as Ulrici remarks (I., 404), with the blind
despair of a shipwrecked man to his sole remaining property--_honor_:

"His honor, as he thinks, demands the sacrifice of the
lives of Desdemona and Cassio. The idea of honor in
those days, especially in Italy, inevitably required
the death of the faithless wife as well as that of the
adulterer. Othello therefore regards it as his duty to
comply with this requirement, and, accordingly it is no
lie when he calls himself 'an honorable murderer,'
doing 'naught in hate, but all in honor,'.... Common
thirst for revenge would have thought only of
increasing the sufferings of its victim, of adding to
its own satisfaction. But how touching, on the other
hand, is Othello's appeal to Desdemona to pray and to
confess her sins to Heaven, that he may not kill her
soul with her body! Here, at the moment of the most
intense excitement, in the desperate mood of a
murderer, his love still breaks forth, and we again see
the indestructible nobility of his soul."

Schlegel erred, therefore, when he maintained that Othello's jealousy
was of the sensual, Oriental sort. So far as it led to the murder, it
was; but Shakspere gave it touches which allied it to the true
jealousy of the heart of which Schlegel himself has aptly said that it
is "compatible with the tenderest feeling and adoration of the beloved
object." Of such tender feeling and adoration there is not a trace in
the passion of the Indian who bites off his wife's nose or lower lip
to disfigure her, or who ruthlessly slays her for doing once what he
does at will. Such expressions as "outraged affection," or "alienated
affection," do not apply to him, as there is no affection in the case
at all; no more than in that of the old Persian or Turk who sews up
one of his hundred wives in a sack and throws her into the river
because she was starving and would eat of the fruits of the tree of
knowledge. This Oriental jealousy is often a "dog-in-the-manger"
feeling. The Iroquois were the most intelligent of North American
Indians, yet in cases of adultery they punished the woman solely, "who
was supposed to be the only offender" (Morgan, 331). Affection is out
of the question in such cases, anger at a slave's disobedience, and
vengeance, being the predominant feelings. In countries where woman is
degraded and enslaved, as Verplanck remarks (III., 61),

"the jealous revenge of the master husband, for real or
imagined evil, is but the angry chastisement of an
offending slave, not the _terrible sacrifice of his own
happiness involved in the victim's punishment._ When
woman is a slave, a property, a thing, all that
jealousy may prompt is done, to use Othello's own
distinction, 'in hate' and 'not in love.'"

Another equally vital distinction between the jealousy of savagery and
civilization is indicated in these lines from _Othello_:

I had rather be a toad,
And live upon the vapor of a dungeon,
Than keep a corner in the thing I love
For other's uses.

And again:

I had been happy, if the general camp,
Pioners and all, had tasted her sweet body,
So I had nothing known.


ABSENCE OF MASCULINE JEALOUSY

It is the knowledge, or suspicion, that he has not a monopoly of his
wife that tortures Shakspere's Othello, and constitutes the essence of
his jealousy, whereas a savage is his exact antipode in that respect;
he cares not a straw if the whole camp shares the embraces of his
wife--_provided he knows it and is rewarded for it_. Wounded pride,
violated chastity, and broken conjugal vows--pangs which goad us into
jealousy--are considerations unknown to him. In other words, his
"jealousy" is not a solicitude for marital honor, for wifely purity
and affection, but simply a question of lending his property and being
paid for it. Thus, in the case of the Blackfeet Indians referred to a
moment ago, the author declares that while they mutilated erring wives
by cutting off their noses (the Comanches and other tribes, down to
the Brazilian Botocudos, did the same thing), they eagerly offered
their wives and daughters in exchange for a bottle of whiskey. In this
respect, too, this case is typical. Sutherland found (I., 184) that in
regard to twenty-one tribes of Indians out of thirty-eight there was
express record of unlimited intercourse before marriage and the
loaning or exchanging of wives. In seventeen he could not get express
information, and in only four was it stated that a chaste girl was
more esteemed than an unchaste one. In the chapter on Indifference to
Chastity I cited testimony showing that in Australia, the Pacific
Islands, and among aborigines in general, chastity is not valued as a
virtue. There are plenty of tribes that attempt to enforce it, but for
commercial, sensual, or at best, genealogical reasons, not from a
regard for personal purity; so that among all these lower races
jealousy in our sense of the word is out of the question.

Care must be taken not to be imposed on by deceptive facts and
inaccurate testimony. Thus Westermarck says (119) that

"in the Pelew Islands it is forbidden even to speak
about another man's wife or mention her name. In short,
the South Sea Islanders are, as Mr. Macdonald remarks,
generally jealous of the chastity of their wives."

Nothing could be more misleading than these two sentences. The men are
_not_ jealous of the women's _chastity_, for they unhesitatingly lend
them to other men; they are "jealous" of them simply as they are of
their other movable property. As for the Pelew Islanders in
particular, what Westermarck cites from Ymer is quite true; it is also
true that if a man beats or insults a woman he must pay a fine or
suffer the death penalty; and that if he approaches a place where
women are bathing he must put them on their guard by shouting. But all
these things are mere whimsicalities of barbarian custom, for the
Pelew Islanders are notoriously unchaste even for Polynesians. They
have no real family life; they have club-houses in which men consort
promiscuously with women; and no moral restraint of any sort is put
upon boys and girls, nor have they any idea of modesty or decency.[17]
(Ploss, II., 416; Kotzebue, III., 215.)

A century ago Alexander Mackenzie wrote (66) regarding the Knistenaux
or Cree Indians of the Northwest:

"It does not appear ... that chastity is considered by
them as a virtue; or that fidelity is believed to be
essential to the happiness of wedded life; though it
sometimes happens that the infidelity of a wife is
punished by the husband with the loss of her hair,
nose, and perhaps life; such severity proceeds from its
having been practised without his permission; for a
temporary exchange of wives is not uncommon; and the
offer of their persons is considered as a necessary
part of the hospitality due to strangers."

Of the Natchez Indians Charlevoix wrote (267): "There is no such thing
as jealousy in these marriages; on the contrary the Natchez, without
any ceremony, lend one another their wives." Concerning the Eskimos we
read in Bancroft:

"They have no idea of morality, and the marriage
relation sits so loosely as to hardly excite jealousy
in its abuse. Female chastity is held a thing of value
only as men hold property in it." "A stranger is always
provided with a female companion for the night, and
during the husband's absence he gets another man to
take his place" (I., 81, 80).

The evidence collected by him also shows that the Thlinkeets and
Aleuts freely exchanged or lent their wives. Of the coast Indians of
Southern Alaska and British Columbia, A.P. Niblack says (_Smithson.
Rep_., 1888, 347):

"Jealousy being unknown amongst the Indians, and
sanctioned prostitution a common evil, the woman who
can earn the greatest number of blankets or the largest
sum of money wins the admiration of others for herself
and a high position for her husband by her wealth."

In the same government reports (1886, Pt. I.) C. Willoughby writes of
the Quinault Agency Washington Indians: "In their domestic relations
chastity seems to be almost unknown." Of the Chippewayans Hearne
relates (129) that it is a very common custom among the men to
exchange a night's lodging with each other's wives. But this is so far
from being considered as an act which is criminal, that it is esteemed
by them as one of the strongest ties of friendship between two
families.[18] The Hurons and many other tribes from north to south had
licentious festivals at which promiscuous intercourse prevailed
betraying the absence of jealousy. Of the Tupis of Brazil Southey says
(I., 241): "The wives who found themselves neglected, consoled
themselves by initiating the boys in debauchery. The husbands seem to
have known nothing of jealousy." The ancient inhabitants of Venezuela
lived in houses big enough to hold one hundred and sixty persons, and
Herrera says of them:

"They observed no law or rule in matrimony, but took as
many wives as they would, and they as many husbands,
quitting one another at pleasure, without reckoning any
harm done on either part. There was no such thing as
jealousy among them, all living as best pleased them,
without taking offence at one another."

The most painstaking research has failed to reveal to me a single
Indian tribe in North or South America that showed a capacity for real
jealousy, that is, anguish based on a sense of violated wifely
chastity and alienated affection. The actions represented as due to
jealousy are always inspired by the desire for revenge, never by the
anguish of disappointed affection; they are done in hate, not in love.
A chief who kills or mutilates one of his ten wives for consorting
with another man without his consent, acts no more from jealousy,
properly so called, than does a father who shoots the seducer of his
daughter, or a Western mob that lynches a horse-thief. Among the
Australian aborigines killing an intriguing wife is an every-day
occurrence, though "chastity as a virtue is absolutely unknown amongst
all the tribes of which there are records," as one of the best
informed authorities, J.D. Wood, tells us (403). Detailed evidence
that the same is true of the aborigines of all the continents will be
given in later chapters. The natives usually share their females both
before and after marriage; monopoly of body and soul--of which true
jealousy is the guardian--is a conception beyond their moral horizon.
A few more illustrations may be added.

Burton (_T.T.G.L._, II., 27) cites a writer who says that the natives
of São Paulo had a habit of changing wives for a time, "alleging, in
case of reproof, that they are not able to eat always of the same
dish." Holub testifies (II., 83) that in South Africa jealousy "rarely
shows itself very prominently;" and he uses the word in the widest
sense. The fierce Masai lend their wives to guests. The Mpongwe of the
Gaboon River send out their wives--with a club if necessary--to earn
the wages of shame (Campiègne, 192). In Madagascar Ellis (137) found
sensuality gross and universal, though concealed. Unchastity in either
sex was not regarded as a vice, and on the birth of the king's
daughter "the whole capital was given up to promiscuous debauchery."
According to Mrs. French Sheldon (_Anth. Inst._, XXL, 360), all along
the east coast of Africa no shame attaches to unchastity before
marriage. It is needless to add that in all such cases punishment of a
wife cannot be prompted by real jealousy for her "chastity." It is
always a question of proprietorship. Cameron relates _(Across Africa_,
II., Chap. IV.) that in Urua the chief boasted that he exercised a
right to any woman who might please his fancy, when on his journeys
about the country.

"Morals are very lax throughout the country, and wives
are not thought badly of for being unfaithful; the
worst they may expect being severe chastisement from
the injured husband. But he never uses excessive
violence for fear of injuring a valuable piece of
household furniture."

When Du Chaillu travelled through Ashango Land King Quenqueza rose to
receive him.

"With the figurative politeness of a negro chief, he
assured me that his town, his forests, his slaves, his
wives, were mine (he was quite sincere with regard to
the last") (19).

Asia affords many instances of the absence of jealousy. Marco Polo
already noted that in Thibet, when travellers arrived at a place, it
was customary to distribute them in the houses, making them temporary
masters of all they contained, including the women, while their
husbands meanwhile lodged elsewhere. In Kamtschatka it was considered
a great insult if a guest refused a woman thus offered him. Most
astounding of all is what G.E. Robertson relates of the Kaffirs of
Hindu-Kush (553):

"When a woman is discovered in an intrigue, a great
outcry is made, and the neighbors rush to the scene
with much laughter. A goat is sent for on the spot for
a peace-making feast between the gallant and the
husband. Of course the neighbors also partake of the
feast; _the husband and wife both look very happy_, and
so does every one else except the lover, who has to pay
for the goat, and in addition will have to pay six cows
later on."

Here we see a great value attached apparently to conjugal fidelity,
but in reality an utter and ludicrous indifference to it.

Asia is also the chief home of polyandry, though, as we saw in the
preceding chapter, this custom has prevailed on other continents too.
The cases there cited to show the absence of monopoly also prove the
absence of jealousy. The effect of polyandry is thus referred to by
Colonel King (23):

"A Toda woman often has three or four husbands, who are
all brothers, and with each of whom she cohabits a
month at a time. What is more singular, such men as, by
the paucity of women among the tribe, are prevented
from obtaining a share in a wife, are allowed, with the
permission of the fraternal husbands, to become
temporary partners with them. Notwithstanding these
singular family arrangements, the greatest harmony
appears to prevail among all parties--husbands, wives,
and lovers."

Whatever may have been the causes leading to the strange custom of
marrying one woman to several men--poverty, the desire to reduce the
population in mountainous regions, scarcity of women due to female
infanticide, the need of protection of a woman during the absence of
one husband--the fact stares us in the face that a race of men who
calmly submit to such a disgusting practice cannot know jealousy. So,
too, in the cases of _jus primae noctis_ (referred to in the chapter
on Indifference to Chastity), where the men not only submitted to an
outrage so damnable to our sense of honor, affection, and monopoly,
but actually coveted it as a privilege or a religious blessing and
paid for it accordingly. Note once more how the sentiments associated
with women and love change and grow.

Petherick says (151) that among the Hassangeh Arabs, marriages are
valid only three or four days, the wives being free the rest of the
time to make other alliances. The married men, far from feeling this a
grievance,

"felt themselves highly flattered by any attentions
paid to their better halves during their free-and-easy
days. They seem to take such attentions as evidence
that their wives are attractive."

A readiness to forgive trespasses for a consideration is widely