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 naive 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.”

PERSIAN AND GREEK JEALOUSY

Enough has been said to prove the incorrectness of Westermarck’s assertion (515) that the lack of jealousy is “a rare exception in the human race.”  Real jealousy, as a matter of fact, is unknown to the lower races, and even the feeling of revenge that passes by that name is commonly so feeble as to be obliterated by compensations of a more or less trifling kind.  When we come to a stage of civilization like that represented by Persians and other Orientals, or by the ancient Greeks, we find that men are indeed no longer willing to lend their wives.  They seem to have a regard for chastity and a desire for conjugal monopoly.  Other important traits of modern jealousy are, however, still lacking, notably affection.  The punishments are hideously cruel; they are still inflicted “in hate, not in love.”  In other words, the jealousy is not yet of the kind which may form an ingredient of love.  Its essence is still “bloody thoughts and revenge.”

Reich cites (256) a typical instance of Oriental ferocity toward an erring wife, from a book by J.J.  Strauss, who relates that on June 9, 1671, a Persian avenged himself on his wife for a trespass by flaying her alive, and then, as a warning to other women, hanging up her skin in the house.  Strauss saw with his own eyes how the flayed body was thrown into the street and dragged out into a field.  Drowning in sacks, throwing from towers, and other fiendish modes of vengeance have prevailed in Persia as far back as historic records go; and the women, when they got a chance, were no better than the men.  Herodotus relates how the wife of Xerxes, having found her husband’s cloak in the house of Masista, cut off his wife’s breasts and gave them to the dogs, besides mutilating her otherwise, as well as her daughter.