on this point.  “The atrocities inflicted upon an Apache woman taken in adultery baffle all description,” he writes, “and the females whom they capture from their enemies are invariably doomed to the most infamous treatment.”  Thus they are like other Indians—­the Comanches, for instance, concerning whom we read in Schoolcraft (V., 683) that “the men are grossly licentious, treating female captives in a most cruel and barbarous manner; but they enforce rigid chastity upon their women.”

Among the Modocs a wife who violated her husband’s property rights in her “chastity,” was disembowelled in public, as Bancroft informs us (I., 350).  No wonder, that, as he adds, “adultery, being attended with so much danger, is comparatively rare, but among the unmarried, who have nothing to fear, a gross licentiousness prevails.”

The Peruvian sun virgins are often supposed to indicate a regard for purity; but in reality the temples in which these girls were reared and guarded were nothing but nurseries for providing a choice assortment of concubines for the licentious Incas and their friends.  (Torquemada, IX., 16.)[207]

“In the earlier times of Peru the union of the sexes was voluntary, unregulated, and accompanied by barbarous usages:  many of which even at the present day exist among the uncivilized nations of South America.” (Tschudi’s Antiquities, 184; McCulloh, 379.)

Of the Mexicans, too, it has been erroneously said that they valued purity; but Bandelier has collected facts from the old Spanish writers, in summing which up he says:  “This almost establishes promiscuity among the ancient Mexicans, as a preliminary to formal marriage.”  Oddly enough, the crime of adultery with a married woman was considered one against a cluster of kindred, and not against the husband; for if he caught the culprits in flagrante delictu and killed the wife, he lost his own life!

Another source of error regarding exceptional virtue in an Indian tribe lies in the fact that in some few cases female captives were spared.  This was due, however, not to a chivalrous regard for female virtue, but to superstition.  James Adair relates of the Choktah (164) that even a certain chief noted for his cruelty

“did not attempt the virtue of his female captives lest (as he told one of them) ’it should offend the Indian’s god;’ though at the same time his pleasures were heightened in proportion to the shrieks and groans from prisoners of both sexes while they were under his torture.  Although the Choktah are libidinous, yet I have known them to take several female prisoners without offering the least violence to their virtue, till the time of purgation was expired; then some of them forced their captives, notwithstanding their pressing entreaties and tears.”

Parkman, too, was convinced (Jes. in Can., XXXIV.) that the remarkable forbearance observed by some tribes was the result of superstition; and he adds:  “To make the Indian a hero of romance is mere nonsense.”