Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.101

v1.c6.101

¹ Perhaps few so true and fruitful sentences—always presuming that our modern scientific method is justified—are to be found in the literature of the subject as this one in Starcke, *Primitive Family* (1889), p. 241 : “We must therefore regard marriage as a legal institution, and the sexual intercourse between husband and wife as only one of the matters with which this institution has to do ; it is by no means its central point and *raison d'être*.” Cp. p. 255 f., where, however, the view that the man is afraid of losing his wife, if she have intercourse with another man without his consent, is a very extraordinary one. The words on p. 260 there are just as excellently said : “Marriage is sharply distinguished from the mere relations of passion . . . His (the husband's) ownership (of the children) does not depend on the fact they were begotten by him, but upon the fact that he owns and supports their mother” (cp. p. 106). As a matter of fact “supports” should here be deleted ; for among savages it is so often far rather the duty of the wife to support the man ; indeed, the main reason for his marrying is this, that he wants a beast of burden. Jealousy in our meaning primitive man does not know, or only very seldom indeed, or, anyhow, not where his mate is concerned. It is only the unauthorized use of his property that angers him. Not any Tom, Dick, and Harry may use his tools without more ado, ride his horse, and so on. But to the owner belongs whatever his field—the wife—brings forth, as, for instance, the Australians, celebrated though they are as mother-right people, also hold (Finck, 175, after Cunow, *Die Verwandtschaftsverhältn. d. Australneger* ; cp. Henne am Rhyn, pp. 16-17 ; Starcke, 284 (Amerinds) ; Osman Bey, *Die Frau in der Türkei*, p. 7 (Mohammed) ).