To make clear the difference between such ebullitions of temper and the passion properly called jealousy, let us briefly sum up the contents of this chapter.  In its first stage it is a mere masculine rage in presence of a rival.  An Australian female in such a case calmly goes off with the victor.  A savage looks upon his wife, not as a person having rights and feelings of her own, but as a piece of property which he has stolen or bought, and may therefore do with whatever he pleases.  In the second stage, accordingly, women are guarded like other movable property, infringement on which is fiercely resented and avenged, though not from any jealous regard for chastity, for the same husband who savagely punishes his wife for secret adultery, willingly lends her to guests as a matter of hospitality, or to others for a compensation.  In some cases the husband’s “wounded feelings” may be cured by the payment of a fine, or subjecting the culprit’s wife to indignities.  At a higher stage, where some regard is paid to chastity—­at least in the women reserved for genealogical purposes—­masculine jealousy is still of the sensual type, which leads to the life-long imprisonment of women in order to enforce a fidelity which in the absence of true love could not be secured otherwise.  As for the wives in primitive households, they often indulge in “jealous” squabbles, but their passion, though it may lead to manifestations of rage and to fierce and cruel fights, is after all only skin deep, for it is easily overcome with soft words, presents, or the desire for the social position and comfort which can be secured in the house of a man who is wealthy enough to marry several women—­especially if the husband is rich and wise enough to keep the women in separate lodges; though even that is often unnecessary.

There is no difficulty in understanding why primitive feminine “jealousy,” despite seeming exceptions, should have been so shallow and transient a feeling.  Everything conspired to make it so.  From the earliest times the men made systematic efforts to prevent the growth of that passion in women because it interfered with their own selfish desires.  Hearne says of the women of the Northern Indians that “they are kept so much in awe of their husbands, that the liberty of thinking is the greatest privilege they enjoy” (310); and A.H.  Keane (Journ. of Anthrop.  Inst., 1883) remarks that while the Botocudos often indulge in fierce outbreaks of jealousy, “the women have not yet acquired the right to be jealous, a sentiment implying a certain degree of equality between the sexes.”  Everywhere the women were taught to subordinate themselves to the men, and among the Hindoos as among the Greeks, by the ancient Hebrews as well as by the mediaeval Arabs freedom from jealousy was inculcated as a supreme virtue.  Rachel actually fancied she was doing a noble thing in giving her handmaids to Jacob as concubines.  Lane (246) quotes the Arab historian El-Jabartee, who said of his first wife: