Part 9 (1/2)
Another equally vital distinction between the jealousy of savagery and civilization is indicated in these lines from _Oth.e.l.lo_:
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 Oth.e.l.lo, and const.i.tutes 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 chast.i.ty, 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 Chast.i.ty I cited testimony showing that in Australia, the Pacific Islands, and among aborigines in general, chast.i.ty 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 chast.i.ty of their wives.”
Nothing could be more misleading than these two sentences. The men are _not_ jealous of the women's _chast.i.ty_, 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 chast.i.ty 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 chast.i.ty 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 prost.i.tution 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 Was.h.i.+ngton Indians: ”In their domestic relations chast.i.ty 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 friends.h.i.+p 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 chast.i.ty 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 ”chast.i.ty 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 ill.u.s.trations may be added.
Burton (_T.T.G.L._, II., 27) cites a writer who says that the natives of So 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 (Campiegne, 192). In Madagascar Ellis (137) found sensuality gross and universal, though concealed. Unchast.i.ty in either s.e.x 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 unchast.i.ty before marriage. It is needless to add that in all such cases punishment of a wife cannot be prompted by real jealousy for her ”chast.i.ty.” It is always a question of proprietors.h.i.+p. 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 chastis.e.m.e.nt 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 a.s.sured me that his town, his forests, his slaves, his wives, were mine (he was quite sincere with regard to the last”) (19).