There are many evidences of weak sexuality in savages. Love plays a very small part in their lives. They make use of few endearments, know little if anything about kissing, or the many other warm and more intimate manifestations of sexual affection; have few love-songs, and give a very subordinate place to the literature of passion. Parental love is stronger than sexual love; and as a most convincing proof of their deficiency in the latter, jealousy, though by no means entirely absent, is far rarer and feebler than among civilized races. Spencer and Gillen record the comparative absence of jealousy in men of the Central Australian tribes f and negresses are stated, by a French army surgeon, to be so exempt from the passion that he has known a first wife to earn money to help buy a second wife for her husband.*
Among higher races, the Korean women seem to live happily together as wives of a common husband; the Mormons, possibly, not so happily, notwithstanding their contrary claim; and the women of Turkey and Persia take so kindly to the institution of polygyny that their most obtrusive sentiment seems to be one of rivalry for the favor of their husband, rather than of jealousy. But even where polygyny is permitted by law, it is by no means so generally practised as is commonly supposed. Almost everywhere, it is confined to the smaller part of the people, the majority being monogamous. I am credibly informed such is the case even among the Mormons; and Mr. Phillips remarks, in his "Sociological Study," that "it is a mistaken opinion that in a polygamous society most men have more than one wife." The relative proportion of the sexes forbids such an arrangement; the poverty of a certain class alwayB precludes polygyny; and Proyart says1 only the rich men of Loango, whose means permit the enjoyment of such a luxury, indulge the sexual privilege of polygyny. It is so also in Mohammedan countries, even the late Khedive of Egypt, Tewfik Pasha, having had only one wife, the faithful and devoted Emineh Hanem.1
"In India," says Seyed Amir Ali, "more than ninety-five per cent, of the Mohammedans are at the present moment, either by conviction or necessity, monogamists."* The educated classes, versed in the history of their ancestors, and competent to compare it with that of other nations, almost universally view polygyny with disgust; and in Persia, Col. Mac-gregor tells us, only about two per cent, indulge the questionable luxury. In China, no laboring man thinks of more than one wife; and Dr. Gray is of opinion that, originally, concubinage itself was a privilege restricted to the wealthy.' In the Indian Archipelago concubinage exists only among the higher ranks, while polygyny is regarded as a sort of vicious luxury which it would be absurd to regard as an institution affecting the whole mass of the people.5 The truth of this statement is confirmed by Raffles, for the Javanese;6 Low7 and Bayle', for the Malays; Marsden for the Sumatrans, and by my own personal observation as to the Tagals, Visa-yans, and other native tribes in the Philippines.
Speaking of the Hebrews, Dr. Scheppig says that the expenses connected with polygyny were so great that none but the rich could afford them; and in Egypt, although, as I have remarked, polygyny was common among the wealthy classes, as was also concubinage, it would appear from the numerous ancient paintings descriptive of domestic life in that country that among the poor, monogamy was the rule.* It is thought by some that the ancient Persians also were monogamous;10 and Dr. Schräder makes a similar statement as to the early Indo-European races in general." Among the West Germans, only persons of noble birth were polygnynous;1 and in India, Dutt thinks, only the same class availed itself of the privilege.1