them, and chooses the common wife.[1] However, if we may believe other accounts, a certain liberty is allowed to younger brothers. The pressure on them is chiefly economic. When the eldest son marries, the property is transmitted to him in advance of his inheritance, with the charge of maintaining his parents, who, however, can live in a separate house. The youngest brother takes orders, and becomes a lama. The others, if they choose, become inferior husbands of the wife, who with us would be their sister-in-law, and they are almost forced to do this, since their eldest brother is sole inheritor. Once within the polyandric régime, the younger brothers have a subordinate position. The eldest, the husband-in-chief, considers them as his servants, and has even the right to send them away without any resource, if he pleases. If the principal husband dies, then his widow, his property, and his authority pass to the younger brother next in age. In the case of the brother not being one of the co-husbands, he cannot inherit the property without the wife, nor the wife without the property. We have here, then, a sort of polyandrian levirate.[2]
The children springing from these unions give the name of father sometimes to the eldest of the husbands, and sometimes to all.[3] Travellers tell us that these polyandrous households are not more troubled than our monogamous ones. Some Thibetans, living thus in conjugal association, could not understand V. Jacquemont when he asked them if the preference of their single wife for one or other of them did not cause quarrels between the husbands. But if jealousy is unknown to the husbands, it is, on the contrary, frequent with the wife. "A Thibetan woman," says Turner, "united to several husbands, is as jealous of her conjugal rights as an Indian despot could be of the beauties who people his zenana or harem."[4]
As to the manner in which the intimate relations between
