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
prevalent. Powers says that with the California Indians "no adultery
is so flagrant but the husband can be placated with money, at about
the same rate that would be paid for murder." The Tasmanians
illustrate the fact that the same tribes that are the most ferocious
in the punishment of secret amours--that is, infringements on their
property rights--are often the most liberal in lending their wives. As
Bonwick tells us (72), they felt honored if white men paid attention
to them. A circumstance which seems to have puzzled some naïve
writers: that Australians and Africans have been known to show less
"jealousy" of whites than of their own countrymen, finds an easy
explanation in the greater ability of the white man to pay for the
husband's complaisance. In some cases, in the absence of a fine, the
husband takes his revenge in other ways, subjecting the culprit's wife
to the same outrage (as among natives of Guiana and New Caledonia) or
delivering his own guilty (or rather disobedient) wife to young men
(as among the Omahas) and then abandoning her. The custom of accepting
compensation for adultery prevailed also among Dyaks, Mandingoes,
Kaffirs, Mongolians, Pahari and other tribes of India, etc. Falkner
says (126) that among the Patagonians in cases of adultery the wife is
not blamed, but the gallant is punished
"unless he atones for the injury by some valuable
present. They have so little decency in this respect,
that oftentimes, at the command of the wizards, they
superstitiously send their wives to the woods to
prostitute themselves to the first person they meet."