Conflict between Matriarchate and Patriarchate.
1.--Rise of the Patriarchate.
With the increase in population a number of sister gentes arose
that again brought forth several daughter gentes. The mother gens
was distinguished from these as the phratry. A number of phratries
constituted the tribe. So strong was this social organization that
it still constituted the unit of military organization in the states
of antiquity, when the old gentile constitution had already been
abandoned. The tribe was subdivided into several branches, all having
a common constitution and in each of which the old gens could be
recognized. But as the gentile constitution prohibited intermarriage
among remote relatives even on the mother’s side, it undermined its
own existence. A social and economic development made the relation
of the various gentes to one another more and more complicated, the
interdict of marriage between certain groups became untenable and
ceased to be observed. While production of the necessities of life was
at its lowest stage of development, and destined to satisfy only the
simplest demands, the activities of men and women were essentially
the same. But with increasing division of labor there resulted not
only a diversity of occupations, but a diversity of possessions as
well. Fishing, hunting, cattle-breeding and agriculture, and the
manufacture of tools and implements, necessitated special knowledge,
and these became the special province of the men. Man took the lead
along these lines of development and accordingly became master and
owner of these new sources of wealth.
Increasing population and the desire for an extensive ownership of
land for agricultural and pastoral purposes, led to struggles and
battles over the possession of such land; it also led to a demand
for labor-power. An increase in labor-power meant greater wealth in
produce and flock. To procure such labor-power the rape of women was
at first resorted to, and then the enslavement of vanquished men,
who had formerly been killed. Thus two new elements were introduced
into the old gentile constitution that were incompatible with its
very nature.
Still another factor came into play. The division of labor and
the growing demand for tools, implements, weapons, etc., led to a
development of handicraft along distinct lines apart from agriculture.
A special class of craftsmen arose, whose interests in regard to the
ownership and inheritance of property diverged considerably from
those of the agricultural class.
As long as descent was traced from female lineage, members of the gens
became heirs to their deceased relatives on the mother’s side. All
property remained within the gens. Under the changed conditions the
father had become owner of flocks and slaves, weapons and produce, but
being a member of his mother’s gens he could not will his property
to his children, but had to leave same to his brothers and sisters
or to his sisters’ children. His own children were disinherited. A
strong desire for changing this state of affairs therefore began
to manifest itself, and it was changed accordingly. Polygamy and
polyandry gave way to the pairing family. A certain man lived with
a certain woman, and the children born from this relation were
their children. These pairing families developed gradually, being
hampered by the marriage interdicts of the gentile constitution, but
favored by the above enumerated economic causes. The old household
communities were not in keeping with the idea of private property.
Class and occupation became determining factors in the choice of a
place of residence. An increased production of commodities gave rise
to commerce among neighboring and more widely separated nations and
necessitated the development of finance. Man was the one to conduct
and control this development. His private interests, therefore,
were no longer harmonious to the old gentile organization; on the
contrary, they were frequently diametrically opposed to it. Therefore
this organization became of less and less importance, and finally
all that remained of the gens was the conducting of a number of
religious rites within the family group. The economic significance
was lost and the final dissolution of the gentile constitution only
remained a question of time.
With the breaking up of the old gentile organization the power and
influence of woman rapidly declined. The matriarchate disappeared
and the patriarchate took its place. Man, being an owner of private
property, had an interest in having legitimate children to whom he
could will his property, and ~he, therefore, forced upon woman the
prohibition of intercourse with other men~.
But for himself he reserved the right of maintaining as many concubines
as his means would permit beside his legitimate wife or wives, and
their offspring were regarded as legitimate children. The Bible
furnishes important evidence on this subject in two instances. In
the first book of Moses, 16, 1 and 2, it says: “Sarai, Abram’s wife,
bore him no children; and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose
name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram: Behold now, the Lord
hath restrained me from bearing; I pray thee, go in unto my maid;
it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to
the voice of Sarai.” The second noteworthy evidence is found in the
first book of Moses, 30, 1; it reads as follows: “And when Rachel
saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister, and
said unto Jacob: Give me children or else I die. And Jacob’s anger
was kindled against Rachel and he said: Am I in God’s stead who
has withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? And she said: Behold
my maid, Billah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees
that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Billah, her
handmaid, to wife, and Jacob went in unto her.”
Thus Jacob was not only married to two sisters, the daughters of
Laban, but both also gave him their handmaids to wives, a custom
that was not immoral according to the moral conceptions of the time.
His two chief wives he had married by purchase, having served their
father Laban seven years for each of them. At that time it was the
general custom among the Jews to purchase wives, but besides they
carried on a widespread robbery of women from nations conquered by
them. Thus, for instance, the Benjamites robbed the daughters of
Shiloh. The captured woman became a slave, a concubine. But she could
be raised to the position of a legitimate wife, upon fulfillment of
the following command: She had to cut her hair and nails and exchange
the garments in which she was captured with others given to her by
her captors. Thereupon she had to mourn for her father and mother
during an entire month, her mourning being destined to signify that
her people were dead to her. These regulations having been complied
with, she could enter into wedlock. The greatest number of women were
owned by King Solomon, who, according to the first book of Kings,
chapter 11, had no less than 700 wives and 300 concubines.
As soon as the patriarchate, that is, paternal descent, was established
in the gentile organization of the Jews, the daughters were excluded
from inheritance. Later this rule was modified in cases when a father
left no sons. This is shown in the fourth book of Moses, 27, 2–8.
There it is told that when Zelophehad died without leaving sons,
his daughters complained bitterly that they should be excluded from
their father’s inheritance that was to pass to the tribe of Joseph.
Moses decides that in this case the daughters should be heirs to
their father. But when, according to an old custom, they decide to
choose husbands from another tribe, the tribe of Joseph complain that
thereby they are losing an heritage. Thereupon Moses decides that the
heiresses may choose freely, but that they must make their choice
from among the men in their father’s tribe. So it was in behalf of
property that the old marriage laws were annulled. As a matter of
fact, in the days of the old Testament, i. e., in historical times,
the patriarchal system was prevalent among the Jews, and the clan
and tribal organization were founded on descent in the male line, as
was the case with the Romans. According to this system the daughters
were excluded from inheritance. Thus we read in the first book of
Moses, 31, 14 and 15, the complaint of Lea and Rachel, daughters
of Laban: “Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our
father’s house? Are we not counted of him strangers? For he hath
sold us and hath quite devoured also our money.”
Among the ancient Jews, as among all other nations where the
matriarchate was succeeded by the patriarchate, women were utterly
devoid of rights. Marriage was a purchase of the woman. Absolute
chastity was demanded of her; but not so of the man, who moreover
was entitled to have several wives. If the man had cause to believe
that the woman had lost her virginity prior to marriage, he was not
only entitled to cast her off, she might also be stoned to death.
The same punishment was meted out to the adulteress; but the man was
subjected to the same punishment only then when he committed adultery
with a Jewish matron. According to the first book of Moses, 24,
1–4, a man was entitled to cast off a woman he had just married
if she found no favor in his eyes, even though his displeasure be
only a whim. Then he might write her a bill of divorcement, give it
in her hand and send her out of his house. A further proof of the
degraded position of woman among the Jews may be gathered from the
fact that to this day women attend services in the synagogue in a
space separated from the men, and are not included in the prayer.[9]
According to the Jewish conception, woman is not a member of the
congregation; in religion and politics she is a mere cipher. When
ten men are assembled they may hold services, but women are not
permitted to do so, no matter how many of them are assembled.
In Athens, Solon decreed that a widow should marry her nearest
relation on her father’s side, even if both belong to the same gens,
although such marriages were forbidden by an earlier law. Solon
likewise decreed that a person holding property need not will it to
his gens but might, in case he were childless, will it to whomsoever
he pleased. We see, then, that man, instead of ruling his property,
is being ruled by it.
With the established rule of private property the subjugation of
woman by man was accomplished. As a result of this subjugation, woman
came to be regarded as an inferior being and to be despised. ~The
matriarchate implied communism and equality of all. The rise of the
patriarchate implied the rule of private property and the subjugation
and enslavement of woman.~ The conservative Aristophanes recognized
this truth in his comedy, “The Popular Assembly of Women,” for he has
the women introduce communism as soon as they have gained control
of the state, and then proceeds to caricature communism grossly in
order to discredit the women.
It is difficult to show how the details of this great transformation
were accomplished. This ~first great revolution~ that took place
in human society was not accomplished simultaneously among all the
civilized nations of antiquity, and has probably not developed
everywhere along the same lines. Among the tribes of Greece, the
new order of things attained validity primarily in Athens.
Frederick Engels holds the opinion that this great transformation
was brought about peaceably, and that, all preliminary conditions
making such a change desirable being given, a mere vote on the matter
in the gentes sufficed to put the patriarchal system in place of
the matriarchal system. Backofen, on the other hand, believes--his
opinion founded on ancient writers--that the women vehemently opposed
this social transformation. He considers many myths of the Amazon
kingdoms that are met with in the histories of Oriental countries,
in South America and China, proofs of the struggle and opposition
of women against the new order.
With the rise of male supremacy the women were deprived of their
former position in the community. They were excluded from the council
and lost their determining influence. Men compelled women to be
faithful in marriage without recognizing a similar duty on their
part. When a woman is faithless, she commits the worst deception
to which a citizen of the new order can fall a victim; she brings
another man’s children into his house to become the heirs of his
property. That is why among all the ancient peoples adultery, when
committed by a woman, was punishable by death or slavery.
[9] In the oldest quarter of Prague is an old synagogue, built during
the sixth century, the oldest synagogue in Germany. Upon descending
about seven steps into the dusky chamber, the visitor beholds a row
of small loop-holes on the opposite wall leading into an utterly dark
room. Upon inquiry we are told by the guide that this is the woman’s
room, where the women attended services. Modern synagogues are less
gloomy, but the separation of men and women is still maintained.
2.--Traces of the Matriarchate in Greek Myths and Dramas.
Although the women were thus deprived of their former influential
position, the customs connected with the ancient cults continued
to dominate the minds for centuries; only their deeper meaning was
gradually lost, and it remained for the present time to investigate
them. Thus it was customary in Greece that women appealed for
advice and help to the goddesses only. The annual celebration of
the Thesmophoria clearly derived its origin from matriarchal times.
Even in later days Greek women still celebrated this festival in
honor of Demeter, which lasted for five days, and in which no man
was allowed to participate. A festival of the same character was
held annually in Rome in honor of Ceres. Demeter and Ceres were the
goddesses of fecundity. In Germany, similar festivals were observed
up to the Christian middle ages. These were consecrated to Frigga,
the ancient German goddess of fecundity, and here also men were
excluded from participation.
In Athens, the matriarchate had to make way to the patriarchate at
an early period, but apparently not without strong opposition on the
part of the women. The tragedy of the transformation is pathetically
presented in the “Eumenides” by Aeschylus. The following is a synopsis
of the story: Agamemnon, King of Mycenae, husband of Klytaemnestra,
on his expedition to Troy, sacrifices his daughter Iphigeneia, in
obedience to a command of the oracle. The mother is enraged over the
sacrifice of her child that, in accordance with natural law, does not
belong to her husband, and during Agamemnon’s absence she accepts
Aeghistus as her husband, thereby not committing any objectionable act
according to the ancient laws. When Agamemnon returns to Mycenae,
after an absence of many years, he is murdered by Aeghistus, whom
Klytaemnestra has incited to this deed. Orestes, son of Agamemnon and
Klytaemnestra, upon a command from Apollo and Minerva, avenges his
father’s death by killing his mother and Aeghistus. The Eumenides,
representing the old maternal law, prosecute Orestes for the murder
of his mother. Apollo and Minerva--the latter, according to the
myth, not having been born by a mother, since she sprang from the
head of Zeus in full armor--defend Orestes, for they represent the
new paternal law. The case is brought before the areopagus and the
following dialogue ensues in which the two conflicting views are
expressed:
Eumenides: The prophet (Apollo) bade thee then become a matricide?
Orestes: Aye; and I never yet my destiny regretted.
Eumenides: When judgment will be given thou wilt not speak thus.
Orestes: Perhaps. But from his grave my father will send aid.
Eumenides: What hopest from the dead thou, who hast killed thy
_mother_?
Orestes: She had been guilty of a double, bloody crime.
Eumenides: How so? Explain unto the judges what you mean.
Orestes: She killed her husband and she thereby killed my father.
Eumenides: Her crime she expiated now, but you still live.
Orestes: Why did you fail to prosecute her while she lived?
Eumenides: _She was no blood relation to the man she killed._
Orestes: But I, so you assert, am of my mother’s blood.
Eumenides: Did she, thou bloody one, not bear thee ’neath her
heart? Wouldst thou thy mother’s sacred blood deny?
The Eumenides accordingly do not recognize the right of the father
and husband. They proclaim maternal law. That Klytaemnestra caused
the murder of her husband seems unimportant to them, for he was a
stranger to her. But they demand punishment of the matricide, for by
killing his mother, Orestes committed the most unpardonable crime that
could be committed under the dominance of the gentile organization.
Apollo, on the other hand, holds the opposite point of view. Upon a
command from Zeus he has induced Orestes to murder his own mother
to avenge the patricide, and before the judges he thus defends the
deed:
Then say I, listen ye unto my word of justice:
The mother is not procreatrix to her child;
She only the awakened life doth keep and bear.
The father is the procreator; she but keeps
The forfeit for her friend, unless a god destroy it
I will submit a proof that cannot be denied.
For one can have a father, yet no mother have.
Minerva, daughter of the great Olympian Zeus,
Within the darkness of a mother’s womb ne’er rested,
And yet no goddess e’er gave birth to fairer offspring.
According to Apollo, then, procreation gives the father a superior
right, while the view that had prevailed until then proclaimed the
mother, who gives life to the child by her own blood, the child’s
sole possessor, and deemed the child’s father a mere stranger to
her. Therefore, the Eumenides reply to the views of Apollo:
Thou overthrowest forces of remotest days....
Thou, the young god, wouldst us, the ancient ones, dethrone.
The judges prepare to pronounce their verdict; half of them favor
the old law and the other half favor the new, giving an equal number
of votes to both sides. There Minerva seizes a ballot from the altar
and casting it into the urn she exclaims:
Mine is the right to utter final judgment here,
And for Orestes I cast in the urn this stone;
For unto me no mother was who gave me birth,
Therefore with all my heart all manly things I praise
Excepting marriage. For I am my father’s quite.
Less criminal I deem the murder of this woman,
Because her husband she has killed, the home’s maintainer.
Though even be the vote, Orestes is victorious.
Another myth depicts the fall of the matriarchate in the following
manner: During the rule of Cecrops, a double miracle occurred.
Simultaneously an olive-tree sprang from the earth at one place, and
a well at another. The frightened king sent a messenger to Delphi to
question the oracle concerning the meaning of these miracles. The reply
was: The olive-tree represents Minerva, the water represents Neptune,
and the citizens may decide after whom of the two deities they choose
to name their city. Cecrops summoned the popular assembly, in which
both men and women were entitled to vote. The men voted for Neptune,
and the women for Minerva, and since the women had a majority of one
vote, Minerva was victorious. Thereupon Neptune became infuriated
and let the sea flood the lands of the Athenians. To appease the
fury of the god, the Athenians then inflicted threefold punishment
upon their women. They were to be disfranchised, their children were
no longer to bear their mother’s name, and they themselves should
no longer be called Athenians.[10]
Thus the new order was established. The father became the head of
the family. The patriarchate conquered the matriarchate.
[10] Backofen: “The Matriarchate.”
3.--Legitimate Wives and Courtesans in Athens.
Just as the transition from the matriarchate to the patriarchate was
accomplished in Athens, it was accomplished elsewhere as soon as a
similar degree of development had been attained. Woman was restricted
to her home and isolated in special rooms, known as “gynacontis,” in
which she dwelt. She even was excluded from social intercourse with
the men who visited the house; in fact, this was the special object
of her isolation. In the Odyssee we find this change in customs
expressed. Thus Telemachus forbids his mother to be present among
her suitors, and utters this command:
But go now to the home, and attend to thy household affairs;
To the spinning wheel and the loom, and bid thy maids be assiduous
At the task that to them were allotted. To speak is the privilege of men,
And mine is especially this privilege, for I am the lord of the
house![11]
This was the prevailing conception in Greece at the time. Even widows
were subjected to the rulership of their nearest male relatives, and
were not even free to choose a husband. Weary of the long waiting
imposed upon them by the clever Penelope, the suitors send to
Telemachus their spokesman, Antonioos, who thus voices their demand:
See now, the suitors inform thee that thou in thy heart mayest know it
And that all the Achæans may of the fact be informed.
Send thy mother hence, and command her to take as her husband
Whom she chooses to take, and whom her father selects.[12]
At this period woman’s freedom has come to an end. When she leaves
the house she must veil her face--not to waken the desires of some
other man. In the Oriental countries where sexual passions are
stronger, as a result of the hot climate, this method of isolation
is still carried to the extreme. Among the ancients, Athens served
as a pattern of the new order. The woman shares the man’s bed, but
not his table. She does not address him by his name, but calls him
master; she is his servant. She was not allowed to appear in public
anywhere, and when walking upon the streets was always veiled and
plainly dressed. When she committed adultery she was, according to
Solon’s law, condemned to pay for her sin either with her life, or
with her liberty. Her husband was entitled to sell her as a slave.
The position of Greek women of those days is powerfully expressed
in Medea’s lamentation:
“Of all creatures that have soul and life
_We women are indeed the very poorest_.
By our dowery we’re obliged to purchase
A husband--and what then is far worse still,
_Henceforward our body is his own_.
Great is the danger; will his nature be
Evil or good? Divorce is to the woman
A deep disgrace. _Yet she may not say nay_
Unto the man who was betrothed to her.
And when she comes to lands with unknown customs,
She has to learn--for no one teaches her--
To understand the nature of her husband.
And when we have succeeded in all this,
And our loved one gladly with us dwells,
Then our lot is fair. But otherwise
I’d rather far be dead.--Not so the man.
If in his home he is not satisfied,
He finds _outside the home_ what pleases him,
With friends and with companions of his age;
But we must always seek to please but _one_.
They say that we in peace and safety dwell,
While they must go forth to the battlefield.
Mistaken thought! _I rather thrice would fight,
Than only once give birth unto a child!_”
Very different was the man’s lot. While the man compelled the woman
to abstain absolutely from relations with other men, for the purpose
of insuring the legitimacy of his heirs, he was not inclined to
abstain from relations with other women. Courtesanship developed.
Women noted for their beauty and intellect, usually foreigners,
preferred a free life in the most intimate association with men to
the slavery of marriage. Nor was their life deemed a loathsome one.
The name and the fame of these courtesans who associated with the
foremost men of Greece and took part in their intellectual discussions
and in their banquets, have come down to us through history, while
the names of the legitimate wives are lost and forgotten. One of
these was Aspasia, the friend of the famous Pericles, who later
made her his wife. Phryne had intimate relations with Hyperides,
and served Praxiteles, one of the foremost sculptors of Greece, as
a model for his statue of Venus. Danae was the mistress of Epicure,
Archæanassa was Plato’s. Lais of Corynth, Gnethanea and others
were equally famous courtesans. Every one of the famous Greeks had
intercourse with these courtesans. It was part and parcel of their
life. The great orator Demosthenes in his oration against Neaera thus
characterized the sexual relations of Athenian men: “We marry women
to have legitimate children and to have faithful guardians of our
homes, we maintain concubines for our daily service and comfort, and
courtesans for the enjoyment of love.” The wife was only destined
to bear offspring and, like a faithful dog, to guard her master’s
house. But the master himself lived to suit his pleasure. In many
cases it is so still.
To satisfy the demand for mercenary women, especially among the younger
men, prostitution developed, an institution that had not been known
during the dominance of the matriarchate. Prostitution differs from
free sexual intercourse by the fact that the woman yields her body
in return for material gain, be it to one man or to a number of men.
Prostitution exists wherever a woman makes the selling of her charms
a trade. Solon, who formulated the new laws for Athens and is famed
as the founder of these laws, introduced the public brothel, the
“deikterion.” He decreed that the price should be the same to all
visitors. According to Philemon this was one obolus, about 6 cents
in American money. The “deikterion” was a place of absolute safety,
like the temples in Greece and Rome and the Christian churches in
the middle ages. It was under the immediate protection of the public
authorities. Until about 150 B. C. the temple in Jerusalem was the
general rallying-point of the prostitutes.
For the boon bestowed upon Athenian men by his founding of the
“deikterion,” one of Solon’s contemporaries thus sings his praise:
“Solon, be praised! For thou didst purchase public women for the
welfare of the city, to preserve the morals of the city that is
full of strong, young men, who, without thy wise institution, would
indulge in the annoying pursuit of the better class women.” We will
see that in our own day exactly the same arguments are being advanced
to justify the existence of prostitution and its maintenance as an
institution sanctioned by the state. Thus the state laws approved
of deeds committed by men as being their natural right, while the
same deeds were branded as criminal and despicable when committed by
women. It is a well-known fact that even to-day there are a great
many men who prefer the company of a pretty offendress to the company
of their wife and who, nevertheless, enjoy the reputation of being
“pillars of society” and guardians of those sacred institutions, the
family and the home. To be sure, the Greek women frequently seem to
have taken vengeance upon their husbands for their oppression. If
prostitution is the complement of monogamic marriage on the one hand,
adultery of wives and cuckoldom of husbands are its complements on
the other. Among the Greek dramatists, Euripides seems to have been
the most pronounced woman-hater, since in his dramas he preferably
holds up the women to ridicule and scorn. What accusations he hurls
at them can best be seen from a passage in “The Thesmophoria” by
Aristophanes,[13] where a Greek woman assails him in the following
manner:
With what calumny doth he (Euripides) not vilify us women?
When e’er hath silent been the slanderer’s tongue?
Where there’s an audience, tragedy and chorus,
We are described as man-mad traitoresses,
Fond of the cup, deceitful, talkative.
We’re wholly bad, to men a tribulation.
Therefore, when from the play our husbands come,[14]
They look distrustfully at us and search about
If somewhere not a lover is concealed,
And henceforth we no longer are permitted
To do what harmlessly we did before.
Such wicked things he tells the men about us,
That when a woman only makes a garland,
They think she is in love; or when at home
She works about and dropping something, breaks it,
The husband promptly asks: “For whom this broken glass?
Quite evidently for the guest from Corinth.”
It is not surprising that the eloquent Greek woman thus serves
the defamer of her sex. But Euripides could hardly have made such
accusations nor would they have found belief among the men, had it
not been well known that they were justified. Judging by the final
sentences of the above quoted harangue it seems that the custom,
well known in Germany and other countries, whereby the master of
the house honors his guest by placing his own wife or daughter at
the guest’s disposal, did not prevail in Greece. Of this custom,
that was still observed in Holland in the fifteenth century, Murner
says: “It is the custom in the Netherlands that whosoever hath a
dear guest, unto him he giveth his wife in good faith.”[15]
The increasing class struggle in the Greek states and the deplorable
conditions that existed in many of these small communities led Plato
to an investigation of the best constitution of the state and its
institutions. In his “State,” that he conceives as an ideal one, he
demands that among the highest class of citizens, the guardians,
women should hold a position of absolute equality. Like the men,
they should take part in military exercises and should perform all
civic duties, only should the lighter tasks be alloted to them on
account of the weakness of their sex. He holds that the natural
abilities are the same with both sexes, that woman is only weaker
than man. He further demands that the women should belong to all the
men in common as should also the children, so that no father might
know his child nor a child its father.[16]
The views of Aristoteles are more in keeping with the bourgeois
conceptions. According to his “Politics,” every woman should have
the right of freely choosing her husband. She should be subservient
to him, yet she should have the privilege of giving him good advice.
Thucydides expresses a view that meets with the approval of all
Philistines. He says: “To that wife is due the highest praise of
whom one speaks neither well nor ill outside of her home.”
While such views prevailed women were bound to sink lower and lower
in the esteem of men. A fear of excess of population even led men
to avoid intimate intercourse with women. An unnatural satisfaction
of sexual desires was the result. The Greek states consisted mainly
of cities having very limited landed property, and it therefore was
impossible to maintain the population at their accustomed nourishment
beyond a given number. This fear of excess of population caused
Aristotle to advice the men to shun their wives and to indulge in
sodomy instead. Before him Socrates had already extolled sodomy
as a mark of superior culture. Finally the foremost men of Greece
indulged in this unnatural passion. The esteem of woman sank to
its lowest level. Bawdy houses containing male prostitutes were
maintained, beside those containing female prostitutes. It was in
such a social atmosphere that Thucydides could say of woman that
she was worse than the sea raging in storm, worse than the fire’s
fierce glow and the mountain torrent’s rushing stream. “If it is a
god who invented woman, whoever he be, let him know that he is the
nefarious originator of the greatest evil.”
While the men of Greece practiced sodomy, the women drifted into the
opposite extreme, indulging in the love of their own sex. This was
especially the case among the inhabitants of the island of Lesbos,
wherefore this aberration was called Lesbian love and is still called
so, since it is by no means extinct but continues to exist among us.
The chief representative of this “love” was the celebrated poetess
Sapho, “the Lesbian nightinggale,” who lived about 600 B. C. Her
passion is fervently expressed in her Ode to Venus:
“Thou who rulest all, upon flowers enthroned,
Daughter of Zeus born of foam, o thou artful one,
Hark to my call!
Not in anguish and bitter suffering, O goddess,
Let me perish!--”
Still more passionate is the sensuality expressed in the ode to the
beautiful Athis.
While in Athens and other Greek states the patriarchal system
prevailed, in Sparta, Athens’ greatest rival, we still find the
matriarchate, a condition which had become entirely foreign to most
Greeks. Tradition has it that one day a Greek asked a Spartan how
the crime of adultery was punished in Sparta; whereupon the Spartan
replied: “Stranger, there are no adulterers in our midst.” “But if
there should be one?” quoth the stranger. “Then,” said the Spartan
mockingly, “his penalty would be to give an ox, so tall that he could
stretch his neck across the Taygetus and drink from the Eurotas.”
Upon the astonished query of the stranger how an ox could be so
tall, the Spartan laughingly replied: “How can there be an adulterer
in Sparta?!” The dignified self-consciousness of the Spartan women
finds expression in the reply given to a stranger by the wife of
Leonidas. The stranger said to her: “You Lacedemonian women are the
only ones who rule over men.” To this she replied: “And we are the
only women who bring forth men.”
The freedom enjoyed by women during the matriarchate heightened
their beauty and increased their pride, their dignity and their
self-reliance. There is a uniformity of opinion among ancient
writers that these attributes were highly developed in women during
the matriarchal period. The condition of servitude that followed
naturally had a deteriorating influence. The change is manifested
even in the difference of dress that marks the two periods. The dress
of the Doric woman hung loosely from her shoulders, leaving her arms
and the lower part of her legs uncovered. It is the dress worn by
Diana as she is represented in our museums, a free and daring figure.
But the Ionic dress covers the figure completely and restrains the
motions. The manner in which women dress was and is to this day a
proof of their dependence and a cause of their helplessness to a far
greater extent than is generally assumed. The style of dress worn
by women to this day makes them clumsy and gives them a feeling of
weakness that is expressed in their carriage and their character.
The Spartan custom of permitting girls to go about naked until
maturity--a custom that was made possible by the climate of the
country--had the effect, so an ancient writer tells us, of teaching
them simplicity of taste and regard for the care of their bodies.
According to the views of the time, this custom did not shock the
sense of decency or arouse physical passions. The girls also took
part in all physical exercises just like the boys. Thus a strong,
self-respecting race was reared, conscious of their worth, as is
shown in the reply given to the stranger by the wife of Leonidas.
[11] Homer’s “Odyssee.”
[12] Homer’s “Odyssee.”
[13] “Comedies by Aristophanes.”
[14] The theatre, to which Greek women were not admitted.
[15] “German History of Manners and Civilization,” by Johann Scherr.
Sudermann deals with the same subject in his drama, “Honor.”
[16] Plato: “The State.”
4.--Remnants of the Matriarchate in the Customs of Various Nations.
Certain customs are closely linked with the vanished matriarchate
that modern writers have erroneously termed “prostitution.” In
Babylon, for instance, it was a religious duty for young girls
upon reaching maturity to go to the temple of Mylitta and there
yield to some man, making a sacrifice of their virginity. Similar
customs were observed in the Serapis of Memphis, in honor of the
goddess Anaitis in Armenia, in Tyrus and Sydon in honor of Astarte
or Venus. The Egyptian festivals of Isis were accompanied by the
same religious rites. This sacrifice of virginity was deemed an
atonement to the goddess for the exclusiveness of surrender to one
man in marriage. “For woman is not endowed with all the beauties
nature has bestowed upon her, to fade in the arms of a single man.
The law of substance condemns all restrictions, hates all fetters,
and considers exclusiveness a crime against its divinity.”[17] The
continued good will of the goddess must be purchased by this sacrifice
of virginity to a stranger. In conformity with this conception the
Libyan maidens earned their dowery by their surrender. According
to the matriarchate they enjoyed sexual liberty before marriage,
and the men, far from taking offense at this pursuit, in choosing
a wife gave preference to the girl who had been most desired. The
same condition existed among the Thracians at the time of Herodotus.
“They do not guard the maidens, but give them complete freedom to
have relations with whomever they choose. But the married women
are closely guarded. They buy them from their parents for a large
portion.” The Hierodules in the temple of Venus in Corynth were far
famed. There more than a thousand girls were assembled, constituting
the chief attraction for Greek men. Of the daughter of King Cheops
of Egypt the legend relates, that she had a pyramid built from the
proceeds obtained by the abandonment of her charms.
We still find similar conditions in existence in the Marquesas
Islands, in the Philippines and Polynesia, and, according to Waitz,
among various African tribes. Another custom, which was maintained
on the Balearic Islands up to recent times and that expressed the
right of all men to every woman, was that in the bridal night all
the men related to the bride, were admitted to her successively in
accordance with their ages. The groom came last. Among other peoples
this custom has been changed to that effect, that one man representing
the others, the high priest or chieftain of the tribe, exercises this
privilege with the bride. The Claimars in Malabar engage putamares
(priests) to deflour their wives. It is the duty of the chief priest
(namburi) to render this service to the king (zamorin) upon his
marriage, and the king pays for it with fifty pieces of gold.[18]
In India and on various islands of the Pacific either the priests or
the tribal chiefs (kings) perform this office.[19] It is the same
in Senegambia, where the tribal chief practices the defloration
of virgins as one of his official duties and receives presents in
return. Among other peoples the defloration of the virgin--sometimes
even of female babies--is accomplished by idols constructed for
this purpose. We may assume that the “jus primae noctis” (right of
the first night), which was in practice in Europe until far into
the middle ages, derived its origin from the same tradition. The
landlord, considering himself master over his serfs, practiced the
right of the tribal chief that had come down to him. We will return
to this subject later on.
Remnants of the matriarchate are also seen in a peculiar custom
of South American tribes, that has likewise been met with among
the Basques, a people that have preserved many ancient customs and
practices. Here the father takes to his bed, instead of the mother,
after the birth of a child, feigns being in labor-pain, and lets the
woman care for him. The custom designates that the father recognizes
the newly born child as his own. The same custom is said to exist
among several tribes of mountaineers in China, and it existed until
a recent date in Corsica.
In the records of German colonies submitted to parliament (during
its session 1904–05) there is a report of the South-West-African
region that contains the following passage: “The tribal chief in a
Herero village cannot decide upon the slightest matter without the
advice of his council, and not only the men but generally ~the women
also~ give their advice.” In the report of the Marshall Islands it
says: “Rulership over all the islands of the Marshall groups was
never concentrated upon a single chief.... ~but as there is no female
member of this class (The Irody) living, and the child inherits
nobility and station from the mother only, The Irodies will become
extinct with the death of their chiefs~.” The manner of expression
and description used by the informants shows how utterly foreign the
conditions they describe are to them and that they fail to understand
them.[20]
Dr. Henry Weislocky, who for many years lived among the Gypsies
of Transylvania and finally was adopted into one of their tribes,
reports,[21] that two of the four tribes in whose midst he lived,
the Ashani and the Ishale, observed maternal law. If the migratory
Gipsy marries, he enters the clan of his wife, and to her belong
all the furnishings of the Gipsy household. Whatever wealth she has
belongs to her and to her clan, the man is a stranger. In accordance
with maternal law the children also remain in their mother’s clan.
Even in modern Germany remnants of the matriarchate survive. The
“Westdeutsche Rundschau” (published in Westphalia) reports in the
issue of June 10, 1902, that in the parish of Haltern the laws of
inheritance were still subject to the old maternal law of the gentes.
The children inherit from their mother. Until now all attempts at
reforming this antiquated custom had failed.
How little the present family form and monogamic marriage can be
regarded as eternal or exceedingly ancient, can furthermore be gathered
from the wide-spread existence of marriage by purchase, marriage by
rape, polygamy and polyandry. In Greece, too, woman became an article
of purchase. As soon as she entered the house of her lord and master
she ceased to exist for her family. This was symbolically expressed
by burning before her husband’s house the gaily decorated carriage
that had brought her there. Among the Ostiaks in Siberia the father
still sells his daughter and bargains with the envoys of the groom
over the sum that is to be paid. Among several African tribes the
custom still exists--as in Jacob’s day--that a man wooing a maiden
enters the service of his prospective mother-in-law. Marriage by
purchase still exists in our very midst, in fact, in bourgeois society
it is more generally established than at any other time. The money
marriages, so prevalent among our propertied classes, are nothing
more than marriage by purchase. As a symbol of the purchase whereby
the woman becomes the man’s property, the bridal gift, which it is
customary for the man to give his fiancee, may also be regarded.
Beside marriage by purchase we find marriage by rape. Robbery of
women was practiced not only by the ancient Jews, but practically
by all nations of antiquity. The best-known historical example is
the rape of the Sabines, by the Romans. Robbery of women became the
custom quite naturally wherever women were scarce or where polygamy
existed, as everywhere in the Orient. There especially this custom
was wide-spread during the duration of the Arabian realm from the
seventh to the twelfth century before Christ.
In a symbolical way marriage by rape is still practised among the
Araucanians in the southern part of Chile. While the would-be
bridegroom’s friends bargain with the girl’s father, the man himself
slinks about the house and tries to catch the girl. As soon as he has
grasped her he lifts her on his horse and carries her away toward
the forest. Thereupon men, women and children set up a loud clamor
and try to prevent the flight. But as soon as the man has succeeded
in reaching the shelter of the forest the woman is considered his
wife. This is the case even if the robbery was perpetrated against
the parents’ will. Similar customs are met with among Australian
tribes.
Among civilized nations the custom of wedding journeys still serves
as a reminder of the ancient rape of women; the bride is abducted
from her paternal hearth. In the same way the exchange of wedding
rings is a symbol of the old submissiveness of woman and her being
chained to the man. This custom originated in Rome. The bride received
an iron ring from her husband to signify that she was chained to
him. Later on this ring was made of gold, and much later still the
exchange of rings was introduced to signify the mutual bond.
Polygamy has existed and still exists among the Orientals; but owing
to the limited number of women that are at a man’s disposal, and
owing to the expense of their maintenance, it is at present practised
only by the privileged and propertied classes. The counter-part of
polygamy is polyandry. This is found especially among the mountaineers
of Thibet, the Garras living at the boundary of India and China,
the Baigas in Godwana, the Nairs in the southernmost part of India,
and also among the Eskimos and Aleuts. Descent is determined on the
mother’s side--as must needs be the case--and the children belong to
her. The woman’s husbands usually are brothers. If an oldest brother
marries, the other brothers thereby become husbands to his wife. But
she has the right to take other husbands beside these. The men also
are entitled to several wives. From what conditions polyandry sprang
is as yet unexplained. As the tribes practising polyandry without
exception live either in mountainous regions of a high altitude or in
the frigid zone, polyandry may perhaps be explained by a phenomenon
that Tarnowsky has pointed out.[22] Tarnowsky was told by reliable
travelers that a lengthy sojourn on high altitudes greatly diminishes
sexual desire, which reawakens with renewed vigor upon descending.
This diminution of sexual desire, so Tarnowsky believes, might
explain the slow increase in population in mountainous regions, and
by becoming hereditary might be one of the symptoms of degeneration
leading to perversity.
Continuous living in high altitudes or in frigid zones might in the
same manner signify that polyandry did not make extraordinary demands
on women. Women themselves are influenced accordingly by their
nature, since among Eskimo girls menstruation, as a rule, does not
set in until the nineteenth year, while in the torrid zone it sets
in with the ninth or tenth year, and in the temperate zone between
the fourteenth and sixteenth year. It is generally known that hot
countries have a stimulating effect upon sexual desire; that is why
polygamy is especially prevalent in hot countries. In the same way
cold lands, and high altitudes having a similar climate, may have
a restrictive influence. It is also a matter of experience that
conception is less frequent when a woman has cohabitation with several
men. The increase in population is, therefore, weak where polyandry
exists, and is adapted to the difficulty of obtaining food in cold
climes and high altitudes. This goes to show that even in regard to
this strange custom of polyandry, the relations of the sexes are in
the last instance determined by the methods of production. It still
remains to be investigated whether the frequent killing of female
infants is practised among the tribes living in mountainous regions
or in the frigid zone, as has been reported of Mongolian tribes
living in the mountainous regions of China.
[17] Backofen: “The Matriarchate.”
[18] K. Kautsky: “Origin of Marriage and the Family.” Kosmos, 1883.
[19] Mantagazza: “Love in Human Society.”
[20] Similar conditions are still met with in Camerun and in other
parts of Western Africa. A German naval surgeon who studied the
land and people from his own observations sends us the following
information: “Among a great many tribes the right of inheritance is
founded on maternity. Paternity is a matter of indifference, only
children of the same mother consider one another brothers and sisters.
A man does not will his property to his own children, but to his
sisters’ children, his nephews and nieces, who can be shown to be
his nearest blood relations. A chief of the Way tribe explained to
me in broken English: ‘My sister and I surely are blood relations,
for we are children of the same mother. My sister again surely is
the blood relation of her son. So her son is my heir, and when I
die he will be king of my town.’ ‘And your father?’ I asked. ‘I do
not know what that is, my father,’ he replied. When I then went on
to ask him whether he had no children of his own, he was convulsed
with laughter and replied that with them not men but only women had
children. I can assure you,” our informant goes on to say, “that even
the heir of King Bell in Camerun is not his son, but his nephew. The
children of Bell, many of whom are being trained in German cities,
are but the children of his wives, while their fathers are unknown.
One of them I might lay claim to myself.”--How are the people who
deny the existence of maternal law impressed by this description of
present-day conditions?! Our informant is a keen observer who goes
to the bottom of things. But few who live among these savages do
so. Therefore we are given such false descriptions of the alleged
“immorality” of the natives.
[21] H. v. Weislocky: “Sketches of the Life of the Transylvanian
Gypsies.”
[22] Tarnowsky: “Pathological Phenomena of Sexual Desire.”
5.--Rise of the State.--Dissolution of the Gens in Rome.
After the dissolution of the matriarchal gens, the patriarchal gens
took its place with considerably diminished functions. The chief
function of the patriarchal gens was the strict observation of
common religious and funeral rites and mutual aid and protection.
It entailed the right, and sometimes the duty, to marry within
the gens; the latter being the case especially in regard to rich
heiresses and orphans. The gens also controlled all the remaining
common property.
With the rise of private property and the right of inheritance
connected with it, class distinctions and class antagonism came
into existence. In the course of time the propertied members made
common cause against the propertyless ones. The former sought to
gain control of the administrative positions and to make them
hereditary. Finance had become a necessity and entailed conditions
of indebtedness that had previously been unknown. Struggles against
external enemies, internal conflicts of interest, and the varied
interests and relations created by agriculture, industry and trade,
necessitated a complicated system of laws and the formation of public
bodies destined to keep the social machine in orderly motion and
to settle disputes. The same was true concerning the relations of
masters and slaves, debtors and creditors. Thus a power was needed
to control all these relations, to conduct, regulate, arbitrate,
protect and punish. ~The state came into existence as a necessary
product of the new social order based on conflicting interests.~
Its direction naturally was assumed by those who had the greatest
interest in its founding and who, thanks to their social power,
were most influential: ~the propertied classes~. Thus aristocracy
of wealth and democracy opposed one another, even where complete
equality of political rights was maintained.
During the old matriarchal system no written law existed. Conditions
were simple and custom was hallowed. In the new, far more complicated
order, written law became one of the urgent necessities and special
officials were needed for its administration. But as the legal
relations became more and more complicated, a special class of
persons arose, devoted exclusively to the study of law and having a
special interest in still further complicating them. The jurists,
the lawyers, came into existence, and owing to the importance of the
law to the body social, they soon became one of the most influential
estates. The new civic jurisprudence in the course of time found
its most classic expression in the Roman state, that explains the
influence exerted by Roman law down to the present time.
We see then that the state organization is the natural outcome of a
society divided into a great variety of occupations and having varied,
frequently opposing and contending, interests. An inevitable result
was oppression of the weaker members. This truth was recognized by
the Nabataeans, an Arabian tribe, who, according to Diodorus, issued
the command neither to sow nor to plant, to drink no wine, and to
build no houses, but to live in tents, for if they did all these
things they might be ~compelled to obey by a superior power~ (the
state). Among the Rechabites, the descendants of the father-in-law
of Moses, we find similar decrees.[23] In fact, Mosaic law is framed
in a manner destined to prevent ~the Jews from developing beyond
the stage of an agricultural society, because their lawmakers
feared that it might bring about the downfall of their democratic,
communistic organization~. For the same reasons the “holy land”
was selected in a territory that was bounded on the one side by a
mountain range which was difficult of access, the Libanon, and on
the other, especially in the East and South, by barren lands and a
desert, making isolation possible. For the same reasons, moreover,
the Jews were kept at a distance from the sea, which is favorable to
commerce, colonization and the acquirement of wealth. For the same
reasons there were strict laws forbidding mingling and intermarriage
with other nations; and the poor laws, the agrarian laws, the year of
jubilee, all were institutions destined to prevent the acquirement
of great fortunes by individuals. The Jews were to be prevented
from becoming a state-forming nation. That is why the old gentile
constitution founded on tribal organization was maintained by them
until their dissolution, and has left its traces among them even
to-day.
Apparently the Latin tribes who participated in the foundation of Rome
had already superseded the matriarchal development. As previously
stated, they robbed the women who were wanting among them from the
tribe of the Sabines and called themselves Quirites after these. At a
much later date the Roman citizens in the popular assembly were still
addressed as Quirites. “Populus Romanus” designated the free population
of Rome generally; but “populus Romanus quiritium” designated Roman
citizenship by descent. The Roman gens was patriarchal; the children
inherited from their natural parent. In case there were no children
the property fell to relatives on the man’s side, and if these were
wanting, it fell to the gens. By marriage the woman lost all rights
of inheritance to her father’s property and that of her father’s
brothers. She withdrew from her gens, and thus neither she nor her
children could inherit from her father or his brothers. Otherwise
the hereditary portion would have been lost to the paternal gens.
The division into gentes and phratries for centuries remained the
foundation of military organization and the enactment of civic
rights. But with the decay of the patriarchal gentes and the decline
of their significance, conditions became more favorable to Roman
women. They not only obtained the right of inheritance, they also
obtained the right to control their own fortunes; they accordingly
held a far more favorable position than their Greek sisters. This
freer position gradually won by them, gave the elder Cato--born
234 B. C.--cause for the following complaint: “If the head of each
family, following the example of his ancestors, would seek to
maintain his wife in proper submissiveness, the entire sex would
not give so much trouble publicly.” When a few tribunes in the year
195 B. C., moved to repeal a law enacted previously, for the purpose
of restricting the luxury of women in dress and personal adornment,
he stormed: “If each of us had maintained his manly authority with
his own wife, we would have less bother here with all the women.
Our power that has been shattered in the home, now is being broken
and trampled upon in the forum too by the unruliness of women, and
because we are incapable of resisting them individually, we fear
them all together. Our ancestors decided that women should not even
attend to their private affairs without the control of a guardian,
that they should be subject to their fathers, brothers, husbands.
But we submit to it that they take possession of the republic and
interfere with the popular assembly. If you give free reign to the
imperious natures of these unruly creatures, do not imagine that
they will recognize any limits of their tyranny. The truth is that
they desire freedom, nay, dissoluteness, in all things, and when
they have begun to be our equals, they will soon be our superiors.”
At the time Cato delivered this speech the father was guardian to
his daughter during his lifetime, even when she was married, unless
he appointed another guardian. When the father died the nearest
male relative assumed the guardianship. The guardian had the right
to transfer this guardianship to whomever and whenever he pleased.
Originally then the Roman woman had no will of her own before the law.
The forms of marriage ceremonies were varied and underwent many
changes in the course of the centuries. The most ceremonious marriage
ceremony was performed by the high priest in the presence of at
least ten witnesses, whereupon the bridal pair ate a cake made of
flour, salt and water as a symbol of their union. This ceremony has
a strong resemblance to the eating of the sacramental wafer at the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A second form of marriage was
merely by taking possession. If a woman had lived with her chosen
husband under the same roof for one year, with the consent of her
father or guardian, the marriage was legalized. A third form was
a sort of mutual purchase. The man and woman exchanged some coins
and promised to be husband and wife. At the time of Cicero[24]
free divorce to both partners in the marriage contract was already
established, and it was even denied that an announcement of the
divorce was necessary. But the “lex Julia de adulteriis” prescribed
that a divorce must be solemnly announced. This law was caused by
the frequent occurrence that women, having committed adultery and
then having been called to account, claimed to have divorced their
husbands. Justinian (The Christian)[25] prohibited divorce, except
when both parties wished to enter a monastery. But his successor,
Justinian II., found it necessary to introduce it again.
As Rome grew in wealth and power, vice and licentiousness of the
worst kind replaced the moral austerity of its early days. Rome
became the center from which lewdness, debauchery and sensual finesse
spread over the entire civilized world of that period. Especially
during the time of the emperors, and frequently encouraged by the
emperors themselves, the debauchery assumed forms that could only
have been inspired by insanity. Men and women vied with each other
in immorality. The number of public brothels increased rapidly, and
besides the “Greek love” (sodomy) was practised more and more by the
men. At one time the number of male prostitutes in Rome was greater
than the number of female prostitutes.
The courtesans appeared in great pomp, surrounded by their admirers,
on the streets and the promenade, in the circus and theater, sometimes
reclining on couches carried by Negroes, holding a mirror in their
hand, decked with jewels, partly nude, fanned by slaves, surrounded
by a swarm of boys, eunuchs and flute-players, with grotesque dwarfs
bringing up the rear.
These debaucheries assumed such dimensions in the Roman empire, that
they threatened its very existence. The bad example set by men, was
followed by women. There were women, so Seneca[26] reports, who did
not count years by the consuls, as was customary, but by the number
of their husbands. Adultery was general, and in order to escape the
severe penalties attached to it, women had themselves registered as
prostitutes. Even some of the most aristocratic ladies of Rome were
among these.
Besides these debaucheries, civil wars and the system of the latifundia
caused such a marked decline of the marriage and birth-rate, that
the number of Roman citizens and patricians was greatly diminished.
In the year 16 B. C. Augustus enacted the so-called Julian law;[27]
that placed a penalty upon the unmarried state of Roman citizens
and patricians, and rewarded them for having children. Whoever had
children was deemed of higher station than childless or unmarried
persons. Unmarried persons could not inherit property from anyone
except their nearest relatives. People who had no children could
only claim half of an inheritance, the other half was turned over to
the state. Women who had been convicted of adultery, were compelled
to give a part of their dowery to their deceived husbands. This
provision caused some men to marry with a desire for adultery on the
part of their wives. That caused Plutarch to remark: “Romans do not
marry to have heirs, but to become heirs.” Later on the Julian law
was still increased in severity. Tiberius issued an edict that no
woman whose grandfather, father or husband had been or was a Roman
knight, might prostitute herself. Married women, who had their names
entered in the lists of prostitutes, should be banished from Italy.
For the men, of course, no such punishments existed. As Juvenal
reports, husband-murder by poison was a frequent occurrence in Rome
of his day.
[23] “Mosaic Law,” by John David Michaelis.
[24] Born 106 B. C.
[25] From 527 to 565 A. D.
[26] Seneca lived from 2 to 65 A. D.
[27] Augustus, the adopted son of Caesar, was by adoption a member
of the Gens Julia, from which the Julian law derived its name.