that “the refined passion of love is unknown to any of them, although they apply the word love to rum or anything else they wish to be possessed of.”  A capital definition of Indian love!  I have already quoted the opinion of the eminent expert George Gibbs that the attachment existing among the Indians of Oregon and Washington, though it is sometimes so strong as to lead to suicide, is too sensual to deserve the name of love.  Another eminent traveller, Keating, says (II., 158) concerning the Chippewas: 

“We are not disposed to believe that there is frequently among the Chippewas an inclination entirely destitute of sensual considerations and partaking of the nature of a sentiment; such may exist in a few instances, but in their state of society it appears almost impossible that it should be a common occurrence.”

M’Lean, after living for twenty-five years among Indians, says, in writing of the Nascopies (II., 127): 

“Considering the manner in which their women are treated it can scarcely be supposed that their courtships are much influenced by sentiments of love; in fact, the tender passion seems unknown to the savage breast.”

From his observations of Canadian Indians Heriot came to the conclusion (324) that “The passion of love is of too delicate a nature to admit of divided affections, and its real influence can scarcely be felt in a society where polygamy is tolerated.”  And again (331):  “The passion of love, feeble unless aided by imagination, is of a nature too refined to acquire a great degree of influence over the mind of savages.”  He thinks that their mode of life deadens even the physical ardor for the sex, but adds that the females appear to be “much more sensible of tender impressions.”  Even Schoolcraft admits implicitly that Indian love cannot have been sentimental and esthetic, but only sensual, when he says (Travels, etc., 231) that Indian women are “without either mental resources or personal beauty.”

But the most valuable and weighty evidence on this point is supplied by Lewis A. Morgan in his classical book, The League of the Iroquois (320-35).  He was an adopted member of the Senecas, among whom he spent nearly forty years of his life, thus having unequalled opportunities for observation and study.  He was moreover a man of scientific training and a thinker, whose contributions to some branches of anthropology are of exceptional value.  His bias, moreover, is rather in favor of the Indians than against them, which doubles the weight of his testimony.  This testimony has already been cited in part, but in summing up the subject I will repeat it with more detail.  He tells us that marriage among these Indians “was not founded on the affections ... but was regulated exclusively as a matter of physical necessity.”  The match was made by the mothers, and