It is among fishes, in the scale of animal life, that jealousy first makes its appearance, according to Romanes.  But in animals “jealousy,” be it that of a fish or a stag, is little more than a transient rage at a rival who comes in presence of the female he himself covets or has appropriated.  This murderous wrath at a rival is a feeling which, as a matter of course a human savage may share with a wolf or an alligator; and in its ferocious indulgence primitive man places himself on a level with brutes—­nay, below them, for in the struggle he often kills the female, which an animal never does.  This wrath is not jealousy as we know it; it lacks a number of essential moral, intellectual, imaginative elements as we shall presently see; some of these are found in the amorous relations of birds, but not of savages, who are now under discussion.  If it is true that, as some authorities believe, there was a time when human beings had, like animals, regular and limited annual mating periods, this rage at rivals must have often assumed the most ferocious aspect, to be followed, as with animals, by long periods of indifference.[16]

WOMEN AS PRIVATE PROPERTY

It is obvious, however, that since the human infant needs parental care much longer than young animals need it, natural selection must have favored the survival of the offspring of couples who did not separate after a mating period but remained together some years.  This tendency would be further favored by the warrior’s desire to have a private drudge or conjugal slave.  Having stolen or bought such a “wife” and protected her against wild beasts and men, he would come to feel a sense of ownership in her—­as in his private weapons.  Should anyone steal his weapons, or, at a higher stage, his cattle or other property, he would be animated by a fierce desire for revenge; and the same would be the case if any man stole his wife—­or her favors.  This savage desire for revenge is the second phase of “jealousy,” when women are guarded like other property, encroachment on which impels the owner to angry retaliation either on the thief or on the wife who has become his accomplice.  Even among the lowest races, such as the Fuegians and Australians, great precautions are taken to guard women from “robbers.”  From the nature of the case, women are more difficult to guard than any other kind of “movable” property, as they are apt to move of their own accord.  Being often married against their will, to men several times their age, they are only too apt to make common cause with the gallant.  Powers relates that among the California Indians, a woman was severely punished or even killed by her husband if seen in company with another man in the woods; and an Australian takes it for granted, says Curr, “that his wife has been unfaithful to him whenever there has been an opportunity for criminality.”  The poacher may be simply flogged or fined, but he is apt to be mutilated or killed.  The “injured husband” reserves the right to intrigue with as many women as he pleases, but his wife, being his absolute property, has no rights of her own, and if she follows his bad example he mutilates or kills her too.