Chapter IV: Sexual Aspect of Marriage (2)

3. From the foregoing, it results that the husband still retains some over-right and control over his wife. And that is a very important point. For in the light of this fact, the waiving of sexual privileges connected with the _Pirrauru_ custom does not appear to encroach any more on the husband's right to his wife than the custom of wife-exchange or wife-lending. This fact of the necessity of the husband's consent is confirmed by Howitt's explicit statement. We read[324] that a man has right of access to his _Pirrauru_ only during the absence of her husband or, if the latter were present in camp, only with his consent. It is evident, therefore, that the husband's rights are by no means annihilated or superseded by the _Pirrauru's_ rights. He waives his rights voluntarily, and his consent is essential.

[324] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56; _Nat. Tr._, p. 184; _Smith.
Rep._, p. 807, under 5.

4. Another point of importance is that this relationship does not constitute a permanent status, and that it may be actualized only at intervals. In the first place, the sexual licence involved in this custom is exercised during the tribal gathering, for the night in which the assignation of _Pirraurus_ took place; the licence lasts for about four hours.[325] This relation is probably renewed during some of the next gatherings; during the husband's absence; when a man is sent on an embassy with his _Pirraurus_; in some cases where the husband gives his consent. But although none of our sources say so expressly, we may safely deny the assertion that the _Pirrauru_ relation had a permanent status. For, if it were actually valid and exercised permanently, we would not be informed, as we are, as to the special occasions on which it takes place, and of the conditions under which it may be exercised. Again, if the _Pirrauru_ involved a permanent status or, more explicitly, if groups of men and women who are _Pirraurus_ to each other respectively, normally and permanently live in marital relations, no one of our authorities, who plead so strongly for the character of group marriage in the relation in question, would omit to emphasize such an important feature, which would support their views in the highest degree. For this is a crucial question indeed: if the _Pirrauru_ right entitles, in the first place, only to a short licence and establishes permanently merely a facultative right, then, even in its sexual aspect, it does not approach the rights established by Tippa Malku marriage in these tribes. And, although the evidence on this point is not quite decisive, we are, as we saw, entitled to suppose that the sexual licence connected with the _Pirrauru_ is only an occasional one.

[325] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.

Besides the facts and reasons enumerated above, I may adduce a very important passage from Howitt's last work, which may be considered the ultimate opinion of this eminent ethnographer concerning the problem of group marriage in Australia--a hypothesis of which he always has been a most ardent supporter. "A study of the evidence which has been detailed in the last chapter has led me to the conclusion that the state of society among the early Australians was that of an Undivided Commune. Taking this as a postulate, the influence on marriage and descent of the class division, the sub-classes and the totems may be considered on the assumption that there was once an Undivided Commune. It is, however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from one spot to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or more communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear, after a long acquaintance with the Australian savage, that in the past, as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed; so that, admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings, such as Bunya-bunya harvest in Queensland, or on great ceremonial occasions, all the segments of the original community would reunite. In short, so far as the evidence goes at present, I think that the probable condition of the Undivided Commune may be considered to be represented by what occurs on certain occasions when the modified Communes of the Lake Eyre tribes reunite."[326]

[326] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 173, 174, beginning of chap. v.

This shows that after a long and mature consideration of the problems in question, Howitt came to the conclusion that "group marriage" never could have existed as a permanent status, and that it could have been established only in connection with large tribal gatherings. In such a light the hypothesis of former or even actual "group marriage" becomes very plausible, or rather it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes one of the best established facts of the Australian ethnology.

But at the same time, although we may accord the term "group marriage" (if any one wishes at any price to retain it), we must note that such a state of things is radically different from marriage in the usual sense of the word, and in particular from marriage as found in actual existence in the Australian aboriginal society, and described in this study. It will be sufficient to point out that such an occasional sexual licence lasting several hours during an initiation gathering could not create any bonds of family, such as may result from community of daily life and community of interests, common inhabiting of the same dwelling, common eating, especially common rearing of children--all factors which, as will be shown below, act only in the individual family and tend to make out of the individual family a well-established and well-defined unit.

We must adduce one fact which stands in opposition to what is just said. I mean the statement of Spencer and Gillen, that amongst the Urabunna the Piraungarus are "generally found living grouped together." This statement might possibly point first to a permanent state of marital relations, secondly to a common mode of living. Now it may be remarked that such an offhand statement on such a crucial point shows undoubtedly that the authors were insufficiently informed themselves on this point, and that, therefore, we must accept this statement with the utmost caution.[327]

[327] Compare above, p. 108, note 2.

The problem of the mode of living of the _Pirrauru_ groups involves two questions--first, what persons constituted the local group (temporary or permanent); and second, how the members of a _Pirrauru_ group lived within it. The statement of Spencer and Gillen may mean that a group of _Pirraurus_ constituted a given temporary local group. But within this group husband and wife must have formed a distinct unit. Now as to the question of how far such a grouping of _Pirraurus_ (if we accept the above statement as correct) would imply a permanent marital status between the _Pirraurus_, it is impossible to answer. On this point, too, the information about the Urabunna is vague and defective, and it is safer to base our conclusions on the more explicit and reliable material given by Howitt in the case of the Dieri.

5. Did the _Pirrauru_ union last for the whole life, or could it be dissolved? In one place we read that the relation in question lasts for life; in another place we are told[328] that the old men watch over the _Pirraurus_ in order that there may result no trouble from mutual jealousy; and if a man has too many _Pirraurus_ they compel or advise him to limit himself to one or two. No answer can be given, therefore, to this question.

[328] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 182.

6. We mentioned above that if the _Pirrauru_ relation, according to Howitt's supposition there quoted, only involved sexual licence during big tribal gatherings, this relation would be absolutely deprived of any of the characters that are the chief constituents of marriage and family. But here we must indicate that such an assumption is not quite justifiable. In fact, in some of the facts related about the _Pirraurus_, there are hints pointing to the existence of economic bonds and of community in daily life between _Pirraurus_. We read[329] that if in the absence of her husband a woman lives with one or two of her _Pirraurus_, she occupies with them one hut and shares with them the food. Therefore, in the absence of her husband, a _Pirrauru_ actually took his place, and in this case the _Pirrauru_ relationship is not merely a sexual connection, but it assumes the real form of marriage. In another place[330] we read that a man possessing several _Pirraurus_ may lend one of them to some one who is deprived of this advantage. Thus it seems that the _Pirraurus_ acquire a kind of real right over their _Pirrauru_ wives; and that it goes as far as the faculty of disposing of them. And again we are informed that if a woman has a young man for a _Pirrauru_ she is often jealous of him and looks strictly after him, and if he does not obey her readily enough, tries even to compel him by punishment.[331] All these instances, which could perhaps be further multiplied, show that under certain circumstances, which we unfortunately do not know with sufficient precision, the _Pirrauru_ relationship assumes a much more serious character than a mere sexual licence exercised during a few hours.

[329] _Idem_, J.A.I., xx. p. 57.

[330] _Ibid._, p. 58.

[331] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 183.

7. There remains still to examine what form the relationship of children to parents assumes in the tribes where the _Pirrauru_ relationship exists. Here we are quite well informed that the individual relation between the children of a woman and both their parents (their mother and her Tippa Malku husband) is fully recognized by the aborigines. It is true that Spencer and Gillen say that there is only a "closer tie" between the married couple and their children, and that the children acknowledge the _Pirraurus_ of their parents as parents.[332] But this statement is very unsatisfactory; such a complicated question cannot be answered by a short phrase; for we are by no means aware what the words "closer tie" mean. As unsatisfactory is Howitt's remark, that owing to the promiscuous sexual intercourse, no woman can know if the children are the offspring of her husband or of the _Pirraurus_, and, therefore, the children must be considered as possessing group fathers and not individual fathers.[333] Apart from the objection that this applies merely to paternity and not to motherhood, which would remain at any rate individual, we must point to our subsequent investigations, which will show that the physiological question of actual procreation does not play a very important part in the determination of relationship. Probably it does not play in these tribes any part at all, as they (at least the Urabunna) seem not to have any knowledge of the actual physiological process of procreation. So we see that although both Howitt and Spencer and Gillen try to prove the existence of group relationship between the _Pirraurus_ and their children, their conclusions appear to be ill founded in facts, and to be rather the fruits of speculation than of observation. Our suspicions are strengthened by the unsophisticated remark of Gason, to which we must ascribe much weight, as he knows the Dieri tribe better than any one else, and as he has no theory of his own to prove or to demolish. He says: "The offspring of the _pirraoora_ are affectionately looked after and recognized as if they were the natural offspring of the real husband and wife." Although this phrase is not very happily formulated, its meaning appears to be that the married couple recognize all the children of the woman and treat them with kindness and affection, without making any distinction. If, according to the views just mentioned, the children were accepted by all the men cohabiting with a given woman, _i. e._ by her husband and all the _Pirraurus_, the phrase quoted above would be obviously quite meaningless; for why should the offspring be recognized as if they were the husband's own children in order to be treated well? It may also be pointed out that the Dieri father is very affectionate to his children.[334] And in all the statements referring to this subject we clearly see that it is a question merely of the individual father and by no means of a group of fathers.

[332] See below, p. 243.

[333] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 58.

[334] See below, pp. 195, 238 and 243.

After this survey of what appear to me to be the most important points referring to the _Pirrauru_ custom, we see that nearly each one of them is involved in contradictions and obscurities. To draw any general conclusion we must proceed with the utmost care and precaution. Our information about _Piraungaru_ of the Urabunna is nearly worthless. And we may safely repeat with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew more facts and knew them better than we can do from their description, then perhaps their conclusions, drawn from these unknown facts, may be correct; but if they draw their general conclusions only from the facts they communicate to us, then we are justified in rejecting them.

Our chief aim in discussing the features of the _Pirrauru_ relationship was to ascertain how far this relation possesses the character of marriage. That it is a "group relation" is beyond doubt.[335] That it is a form of marriage has been accepted by Howitt, Fison, and Spencer and Gillen without much discussion.[336] Mr. Thomas has shown already how unsatisfactory the reasons are, on the strength of which _Pirrauru_ is considered to be a form of group marriage, or even a survival of the previous stage of group marriage. He has shown how insufficient, in the light of an exact definition, the information is, how many essential points we still want to know to be able to make any more conclusive assertion. Mr. Thomas' criticism bears especially on the lack of a strict use of the term "group marriage." He gives a correct definition (page 128 of the work quoted) of this term, and consistently puts to its test the views propounded by the previously mentioned writers. From this discussion he concludes that in the _Pirrauru_ relationship we can find neither the features of an actual group marriage nor the traces of such a previous state of things.[337] This criticism and conclusion appear to me so convincing and final, that I would have simply referred to them without entering again upon this rather perplexing question, were it not a good opportunity for pointing out again by means of this example, that the sexual aspects of marriage and the family cannot be discussed separately, detached from each other; and for showing how incorrect it is to represent the sexual side of marital life as the complete and unique content of marriage. On the contrary, marriage may not be, as so often repeated here, detached from family life; it is defined in all its aspects by the problems of the economic unity of the family, of the bonds created by common life in one wurley, through the common rearing of, and affection towards, the offspring. In the above points I tried to show that in nearly all these respects the _Pirrauru_ relationship essentially differs from marriage and cannot, therefore, seriously encroach upon the individual family. This will appear still more clearly when all these points are exhaustively discussed in their bearing upon the individual family.

[335] Compare, however, the definition given by N. W. Thomas,
_loc. cit._, p. 128, who shows also how misleading an
indiscriminate use of such terms may be.

[336] And some others. For instance, Prof. Frazer in
his new work, _loc. cit._, i. pp. 363 _sqq._, where the
theories and views of these authorities on _Pirrauru_ are
accepted without any criticism.

[337] _Loc. cit._, p. 136.

Now I would like to show that Howitt, as well as Spencer and Gillen, based his assertions as to the group marriage character of the _Pirrauru_ relation upon a misleading exaggeration of the importance of the sexual side of marriage. Spencer and Gillen say that every man has one or two individual wives or _Nupa_ "allotted to him as wives, and to whom he has the first but not the exclusive right of access."[338] But besides these there is the _Pirrauru_ institution in which "a group of women actually have marital relations with a group of men." And as a conclusion, it follows simply, that in Australia there exists a group marriage, and that not a "pretended" one (Spencer and Gillen criticize here Dr. Westermarck's expression), but a "real" one. This reasoning would inspire some mistrust by its summary and laconic character alone.[339] But it is also evident that in the passage quoted the authors speak exclusively of the sexual side of marriage, and that they actually mean to imply that this sexual side is everything which requires attention, if marriage in a given case should be described. And this is obviously false. The incorrect reasoning is repeated by the same authors in their later work.[340] From the fact that sexual access is open to the _Pirraurus_, and that there are no special names for the individual parents and children (which does not seem to hold good for the Dieri, however), the inference is drawn that group marriage exists instead of individual marriage. Not even the conditions under which a man has access to his _Pirrauru_ are discussed! Our discussion (from Howitt's detailed data) has shown that even in sexual matters the _Pirrauru_ are far behind the Tippa Malku; indeed, that there is no comparison between the sexual rights of an individual husband and of a _Pirrauru_.

[338] _Nat. Tr._, p. 109.

[339] Mr. Thomas has also remarked (_loc. cit._, p. 128)
that Spencer and Gillen, who speak on page 109 of the real
and not pretended group marriage among the Urabunna, say
on the next page, that in the same tribe group marriage
preceded the present state of things--and so contradict
themselves. Such a carelessness is remarkable in a work,
which in all other respects is a masterpiece; and all these
reasons induce us to suspect that the subject in question
must have been in theory as well as in facts not very
familiar to our authors.

[340] _Nor. Tr._, p. 140.

The same insufficiency of reasoning is shown by Howitt. He says in one place[341] that there is individual as well as group marriage among the Australian aborigines. But under the word marriage he understands the right of sexual access. And on this ground he asserts that among the Kurnai there existed individual marriages exclusively; and among the Dieri there was also group marriage. It is characteristic that no one of these writers tried to give any explicit definition of marriage; but from what I have quoted it appears quite clearly how one-sidedly and narrowly they conceived marriage.[342] And this conception was not only fatal to the theories and views held by them on the question, but it vitiated to a certain extent also the information they gave us about these facts. For they did not try to ascertain and to inform us about the most important particulars, which were perhaps not quite out of the reach of their investigation.[343]

[341] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115.

[342] In order to appreciate my argument, the reader is
requested to peruse the passages referred to from the works
of Howitt, and from Spencer and Gillen, and judge from
their full text whether I am not right. The full quotations
of these passages would have encumbered the present work.
As polemics are always rather barren, I preferred to
abstain from them.

[343] This is an instance of the general truth that
descriptive ethnography is highly dependent on the
theories known and accepted by the investigator, and that
information may be useful or useless according to whether
the theoretical principles are correct or not. It is
impossible for an observer to go below the surface if he
does not discuss the phenomena and theorize on them. On
the other hand such speculations, if carried on by the
untrained faculties and unaided efforts of the writers, or
under the influence of a theoretical prepossession, may be
entirely misleading.

We have based our discussion of the _Pirrauru_ relation on a broad conception of marriage, determined by factors of the daily life, the household, the relation to children, etc. In our systematic and objective description of facts relating to the _Pirrauru_ relation we found in the first place that individual marriage exists besides the custom in question; that it has its radically distinctive features--a different form of betrothal or allotment of a wife to a man; an entirely different kind of sexual rights and privileges; and, what is perhaps the most important fact, an absolutely different aspect of the child question, connected with the fact that only a man and his wife form a real household, live in the same wurley, and share their food supply together and in common with their children. All these points constitute a real and radical difference between the individual marriage connected with the individual family, and the purely sexual connections involved in the _Pirrauru_ relation in its usual form, _i. e._ when the husband is present in camp. It is only during the latter's absence or during diplomatic missions that the _Pirrauru_ relation assumes at all the character of marriage: then both _Pirraurus_ occupy the same camp, the woman provides food for her _Pirrauru_, etc. But these occasions are only temporary and exceptional ones, and we are, unfortunately, not informed, even with the smallest degree of approximation, how often they may on the average occur, whether they are very rarely realized exceptions, or whether they are facts that take place fairly often. At any rate, it is certain that these essential features of the _Pirrauru_ relationship never take place simultaneously with the individual marriage. In other words, the individual marital relations are in force when the real husband is in camp and all rights (even the sexual ones) of the _Pirraurus_ cease. So that although the _Pirrauru_ relation, on exceptional and probably rarely recurring occasions, assumes a few more of the characteristics of marriage, it never becomes anything like actual marriage. And this is to be noted, too: the full actuality of _Pirrauru_ relations may come into force only under the condition that the husband be absent. It is only by an incorrect and superficial exaggeration of the sexual side of marriage, that the custom in question has been baptized group marriage.[344] And still less acceptable is the assertion that this "group marriage" is "the only form of marriage in existence" among the South Central tribes.

[344] Unless we give to the word marriage a new meaning,
which would be hardly useful.

We may remark about the sexual features of social life in Australia in general, that far from bearing any character of indiscriminate promiscuity on the whole, they are, on the contrary, subject to strict regulations, restrictions, and rules. Every form of licence must be subject to customary rules. The principle of class exogamy is maintained in the majority of cases: so the _Pirrauru_ relation is subject to class rule, as is also wife-lending, wife-exchange, and the rare cases of licence among unmarried girls and widows. But the licence occurring during religious, totemic, and other ceremonies is, as we have seen above, not subject to the class rule. Even the most prohibited and tabooed degree--that between a man and his mother-in-law--is violated by custom.

This fact is also noteworthy for the criticism of theories which see both in class exogamy and in sexual licence survivals of former group marriage. At some ceremonies of a magical and religious character sexual licence occurs, in agreement with the principle that survivals are always connected with religious facts. But if class exogamy is also a survival of group marriage, why should _this_ fall in abeyance on such occasions? For if these two principles were so deeply connected, why should one of them (class exogamy) be entirely neglected on the very occasion when the other (ceremonial licence) is most conspicuous? Is that not again one of the serious difficulties in the way of the hypothesis of a previous group marriage, a difficulty which at least must be accounted for, and which is always completely ignored by the authors concerned?

There is justification for saying that the notion of adultery and the reprobation thereof is well known to the aborigines, and that they punish and condemn unlawful unions of all kinds. As W. E. Roth says, "morality in a broad sense" is well known to the Australian aborigines. It could be even said that sexual morality does exist, only according to a special code, which is obviously different from ours, if we understand by "morality" the fact that there exists a series of determined norms and that these norms are followed.

Closely connected with this question is the more psychological problem of sexual jealousy. The existence of sexual jealousy, especially on the part of the males, has been often referred to by various authors in order to criticize the theories of primitive promiscuity and group marriage. On the other hand, it was pointed out that motives of jealousy are much less strong among some primitive peoples; and many instances have been adduced to prove this assumption. So _e. g._ about the Australians, Spencer and Gillen say: "Amongst the Australian natives with whom we have come in contact, the feeling of sexual jealousy is not developed to anything like the extent to which it would appear to be in many other savage tribes." ... "It is indeed a factor which need not be taken into serious account in regard to the question of sexual relations amongst the Central Australian tribes."[345]

[345] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 99, 100.

It seems to be beyond any doubt that sexual jealousy, as _we_ conceive it, is completely absent from the aboriginal mind. It has always been a serious defect in ethnological reasoning that such ideas and feelings as those connected with our meaning of "jealousy" have usually not been analyzed, nor the question asked whether they had any meaning and place in a given society, or whether we must assume other corresponding elements to give a new content to the word. Our sexual jealousy--the ideas as well as the feelings involved therein--is moulded by innumerable social factors; it is connected with the notion of honour; it is the result of ideals of pure love, individual sexual rights, sacredness of monogamy, etc. One of the strongest motives is the care for the certainty of physiological fatherhood: paternal affection is strongly enhanced by the idea of blood connection between a man and his offspring. All these factors are obviously either absent or deeply modified in the Australian aboriginal society. It is, therefore, quite wrong to use the word jealousy and ask if it is present among them, without trying to give to it its proper content.

In the first place, we may assume in this society, as in the whole of mankind and in the majority of higher animals, a physiological basis for jealousy in the form of an innate instinct;[346] a natural aversion of an individual towards an encroachment on his sexual rights and a natural tendency to expand these rights as far as possible--within certain variable limits. That among the Australian aborigines such instincts of jealousy are not absent, that they are, on the contrary, very strongly developed, is evident from nearly all the facts quoted and all general considerations. It is proved by the high esteem in which in some tribes chastity is held; by the fact that fidelity is required in all other tribes, and that it yields only to custom. The demand for fidelity in all tribes has been discussed above. There is a whole series of statements that emphatically affirm a very strong feeling of jealousy; and connected with it is the fact that the majority of fights and quarrels are about women (Curr, Dawson, Mrs. Parker, Schürmann, Wilhelmi, Wilkes, Turnbull, Phillipps, Tench, Spencer and Gillen). Now, that these instincts of jealousy do not assume the delicate and refined form they possess in our society, results merely from the difference in the corresponding collective ideas which influence and mould the elementary instinct.

[346] This expression is perhaps inexact. But this is not
the place for psychological and biological analyses. The
reader may be referred to Dr. Westermarck's conclusion
that there is a strong instinct of sexual jealousy among
primitive races of men, both in males (_H.H.M._,
pp. 117-132) and in females (_ibid._, pp. 495-500). This
instinct is inherited from our animal ancestors (compare
Darwin, _Descent of Man_, ii. p. 395). Important for us are
the examples of female jealousy, quoted by Westermarck from
the Australian material; Narrinyeri, Taplin, p. 11; Palmer,
p. 282; Lumholtz, p. 213; Waitz Gerland, pp. 758, 781.

With our few data available we can attempt only a sketch of the psychology of the feelings of jealousy among the aborigines. It may be observed that although the sentiment of sexual love might be postulated in all human hearts, it seems to be, to a certain extent, banished from the majority of the Australian matrimonial matches by the very way in which they were brought about.[347]

[347] Compare above, p. 83.

This must also to a great extent deprive jealousy of its violent character. On the other hand, social opinion, which in our society works through ideas of honour and ridicule, strengthening the feelings of jealousy and giving to them a certain outer prestige, even in cases when they may not be actually felt--in the Australian Aboriginal Society uses these factors with a directly contrary effect. As a matter of fact, in many cases, public opinion compels a man to give his wife away; it is considered an incident of hospitality, a virtue. In other cases it is an honourable duty, as _e. g._ in cases of wife offering during a ceremony in order to express gratitude. We read that in cases where a man begrudges his wife to a _Pirrauru_ he is regarded as churlish. Obviously, these social factors act here to modify and moderate the feeling of sexual jealousy. We find no instance or statement which would point to a contrary influence of these factors in the Australian aboriginal society.[348] But, as pointed out above, the idea of individual sexual over-right and control over his wife is strongly present in the aboriginal mind. This right is undoubtedly realized as a privilege, and the natural tendency to keep his privileges for himself, or dispose of them according to his wish or interest, must create a strong opposition to any encroachment. In other words, the sexual act has its intrinsic value, and it is considered as an unquestionable advantage. And the right to this advantage constitutes a kind of private property. The feeling of jealousy exists here in its economic sense: the proprietor of a certain object begrudges the use of it to any one whom he does not invite to it, or who is not otherwise entitled to the privilege. And this seems to me one of the strongest probable sources of jealousy, besides the natural physiological impulse of aversion, mentioned above. I think it is corroborated by the facts enumerated, which show that the husband vigilantly watches over and keeps his over-right.

[348] Custom referring to a certain point--here _e. g._
to the question whether it is honourable or ignominious
to waive one's marital rights--stands in the relation of
correspondence to the collective ideas and collective
feelings on this point. The expression of Spencer and
Gillen that the feeling of jealousy is "subservient to
that of the influence of tribal custom" is therefore
incorrect (_Nat. Tr._, p. 99). It would be obviously quite
erroneous to assert that there is any collective feeling
which would not be subservient to the tribal custom. It
is consequently meaningless to affirm that the given
feeling here is subservient. We may, therefore, discard
also the logical conclusion at which Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen arrive from these premisses: viz. that jealousy is
a matter of no importance when dealing with the Central
Australians (_ibid._, p. 100). A certain tribal or national
custom expresses or formulates public feelings, and, on
the other hand, if there is a certain type of collective
feelings or ideas, they must have their legal or customary
forms wherein to express themselves. We should say: the
Australian customs show that there is no such collective
feeling as jealousy in our sense, which would obviously
object to such customs as theirs. The collective feelings
in Australia which correspond to our jealousy do not imply,
therefore, the idea of absolute exclusiveness; the idea of
inviolable personal access of a man to a woman does not
exist there; that is proved by the custom in question. But
outside the limits prescribed by tribal custom there is
little adultery; jealousy seems to be exceedingly strong,
and the same tribal law, which in some cases compels the
man to give up his marital rights, in other cases justifies
him in the utmost brutalities, and allows him even to
inflict death with impunity upon his wife. Owing to the
scantiness of our information we can hardly say whether
sexual jealousy is stronger or weaker in Australian than in
other societies; we can safely affirm that it is different.

In regard to the motive of jealousy as connected with the question of progeny--the care to be sure of a man's own real paternity of his children, we may remark that this motive must be absent in many tribes, viz. in those tribes where the physiological rôle of the father in procreation is not known. We know with all certainty that this is the case in the Central and North Central tribes, as well as in the North-east part of the continent.[349] But it appears to be the case in the South Central tribes. It is stated that the Urabunna have quite analogous beliefs in reincarnation of ancestors, in their dwelling-places, and other totemic matters.[350] Spencer and Gillen do not say anything definite about the appreciation or want of knowledge of physiological paternity, but that is perhaps because they were less well acquainted with the Urabunna, who were also probably in a more advanced stage of decay. By analogy it may be inferred that the Urabunna, like all the other neighbouring tribes, had with the whole apparatus of analogous beliefs, also the lack of the knowledge in question. We might infer the same about the Dieri and kindred tribes, who seem to be almost identical in all respects with the Urabunna, but of whose religious and totemic ideas we are by no means so well informed as of their social organization; in fact, for these psychological data it is undoubtedly to Spencer and Gillen that we owe the major part of our knowledge about Australia.

[349] See below, pp. 209 _sqq._ and 226.

[350] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 146 _sqq._

Certainly the ignorance of physiological fatherhood in the South Central tribes is of a hypothetical character. But provided it is a fact, we see that the area occupied by tribes which believe in the supernatural begetting of children extends over the whole Central and North-east area. There is no evidence on this point in the case of the Western tribes. We find only in the South-eastern tribes a knowledge of the real process of procreation. It is interesting to note that thus the area of greater sexual promiscuity and less pronounced jealousy is conterminous with the area where natural paternity is unknown. Whether there be any real dependence between these two series of facts it is impossible to assert, as our knowledge of the natives' psychology is too scanty. But if our information on this point be reliable, and if these limits be correct, then the coincidence just noted is rather suggestive.

To return to the question of jealousy, we have, after having stated the general problems, discussed the influence exercised on it by social pressure or custom and other psychical factors. Finally we have shown that the sexual act is not in all tribes conceived as leading to childbirth, and that this bears upon the problem of jealousy. But it must be remembered that they have ideas of the sexual act which are entirely foreign to us, and which may account also for some differences in their views of, and feelings about, jealousy. Here come in ideas of the magic influences and virtues attributed to the sexual act. In Australia there are unmistakable signs of it.

The ceremonial act of defloration, in connection with the initiation of females, is undoubtedly connected with some mystic ideas of its magical character. This is shown especially clearly in the fact that this ceremonial act is employed for medicinal or hygienic purposes, as stated in Roth and in Beveridge.[351] We saw that the only instance of the exchange of wives in the Kurnai tribe was when it was ordered by the old men, to avert impending evil. The same is reported by Cameron of some of the Darling River tribes. This shows clearly how feelings of jealousy, which seem to have been fairly strong in this tribe, may be subservient to a belief in the magical, beneficial influence of sexual intercourse, performed in a certain prescribed way. The many instances in which sexual intercourse, usually not between husband and wife, takes place during certain religious ceremonies, as well as the fact of sexual abstinence, which is often to be observed on such occasions, shows that it has its magical side. From this conception of the sexual act as endowed with some magic properties, there would result differences in the ideas and feelings connected with jealousy. On the one hand, such magic properties would require in some cases the waiving of individual sexual rights, as we saw in some of the instances just mentioned. And in these cases the instincts of jealousy would be suppressed by the more powerful feelings inspired by supernatural apprehensions. On the other hand, it is possible--although there are no examples of it--that the very magical aspect of the sexual act would make it especially subject to jealous watchfulness and exclusiveness. Apart from any speculations, it appears certain that all these different ideas and conceptions are in intimate interdependence, and that we can only safely speak about jealousy (or any other such compounded psychical complex) in a given society, when we know all such connections.[352]

[351] Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 174. Beveridge, p. 53,
Latin note.

[352] The idea of a radical difference in the psychological
aspect of jealousy among lower races of men is set forth by
Dr. Westermarck: "Jealousy ... is far from being the same
feeling in the mind of a savage as in that of a civilized
man."--_H.H.M._, p. 30.

To sum up our results in this survey of jealousy in the Australian aboriginal society. _Negatively_: _A priori_ it may be said that nothing like sexual jealousy in our sense of this word--save the broad and uncertain physiological instinct--can exist. As a matter of fact, a whole series of customs, duties, and tribal regulations absolutely contradict the existence of jealousy in our sense. _Positively_: The existence of strong instincts of jealousy in many cases must be acknowledged. To understand the more definite forms which these instincts assume, it is necessary to note the presence or absence of motives which would influence, check, or develop these instincts. The unquestionable physiological instinct of jealousy and the natural tendency to keep up one's private exclusive rights, are two sources from which jealousy seems to be derived. It is deeply influenced by the ideas on the magical character of the sexual act which the Australian aborigines undoubtedly possess; and in the majority of tribes by the absence of the knowledge of physical paternity. The tribal customs show that it does not amount to the idea of exclusive inviolable personal rights which essentially characterize our conception and feelings of jealousy. But within its narrower limits it seems to be very strong and important.