Produced by Steven Gibbs, Irma Spehar and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
THE POSITION OF WOMAN IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN
_BOOKS ON ART_
A RECORD OF SPANISH PAINTING
THE PRADO (Spanish Series)
EL GRECO "
VELAZQUEZ "
PICTURES IN THE TATE GALLERY
_BOOKS ON SPAIN_
MOORISH CITIES IN SPAIN
THINGS SEEN IN SPAIN
SPAIN REVISITED: A SUMMER HOLIDAY IN GALICIA
SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA (Mediæval Towns' Series)
CATHEDRALS OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SPAIN
THE
POSITION OF WOMAN
IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY
A
STUDY OF THE MATRIARCHY
BY
C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY
(MRS. WALTER M. GALLICHAN)
AUTHOR OF "THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN."
LONDON
EVELEIGH NASH
1914
DEDICATION
TO ALL WOMEN
"Be not ashamed, women, your privilege includes the rest....
You are the gates of the body, you are the gates of the soul....
And I say it is as great to be a woman as to be a man.
And I say there is nothing greater than the mother of men."
WALT WHITMAN.
_7 Carlton Terrace,
Child's Hill._
1914.
CONTENTS
PART I
THE PRIMITIVE FAMILY
CHAP. PAGE
I INTRODUCTORY 11
II AN EXPOSITION OF BACHOFEN'S THEORY OF THE MATRIARCHATE 26
III DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS: AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE
MOTHER-RIGHT WITH THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY 45
IV DEVELOPMENT IN THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY AND THE RISE
OF MOTHER-POWER 67
PART II
THE MOTHER AGE CIVILISATION
V THE MATRIARCHAL FAMILY AMONG THE AMERICAN INDIANS 95
VI THE MATERNAL FAMILY AMONG THE KHASIS 132
VII FURTHER EXAMPLES OF THE MATERNAL FAMILY 147
VIII MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS AND THE TRANSITION TO FATHER-RIGHT 166
IX WOMEN AND PRIMITIVE INDUSTRY 192
X TRACES OF MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN
CIVILISATION 209
XI THE SURVIVALS OF MOTHER-RIGHT IN FOLK-LORE, IN HEROIC
LEGENDS, AND IN FAIRY STORIES 235
XII CONCLUDING REMARKS 253
PART I
THE PRIMITIVE FAMILY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
The twentieth century is the age of Woman; some day, it may be that it
will be looked back upon as the golden age, the dawn, some say, of
feminine civilisation. We cannot estimate as yet; and no man can tell
what forces these new conditions may not release in the soul of woman.
The modern change is that the will of woman is asserting itself. Women
are looking for a satisfactory life, which is to be determined from
within themselves, not from without by others. The result is a
discontent that may well prove to be the seed or spring of further
changes in a society which has yet to find its normal organisation.
Yes, women are finding themselves, and men are discovering what women
mean.
In the present time we are passing through a difficult period of
transition. There are conditions of change that have to be met, the
outcome of which it is very difficult to appreciate. A transformation
in the thought and conduct of women, for which the term "revolution"
is not too strong, is taking place around us; doubtless many
experimental phases will be tried before we reach a new position of
equilibrium.
This must be. There can be no life without movement.
The expression, "a transition period," is, of course, only relative.
We often say: This or that is a sign of the present era; and, nine
times out of ten, the thing we believe to be new is in reality as old
as the world itself. In one sense the whole of history is a vast
transition. No period stands alone; the present is in every age merely
the shifting point at which the past and the future meet. All things
move onwards. But the movement sometimes takes the form of a cataract,
at others of an even and almost imperceptible current. This is really
another way of saying that the usually slow and gradual course of
change is, at certain stages, interrupted by a more or less prolonged
period of revolution. The process of growth, from being gradual and
imperceptible, becomes violent and conscious.
There can be little doubt that what is called the "Woman's Movement,"
with its disintegrating influences on social opinion and practice, is
bringing vast and momentous changes in women's attitude towards the
universe and towards themselves. A great motive and an enlarging
ideal, a quickening of the woman's spirit, a stirring dream of a new
order--these are what we have gained. We are carried on, though as yet
we know not whither, and there is, of necessity, a little stumbling of
our feet as we seek for a way. Hence the fear, always tending to arise
in periods of social reconstruction, which is felt by many to-day as
women pass out far beyond the established boundaries prescribed for
their sex.
Whoever reflects soberly on the past history of women will not be
surprised at their present movement towards emancipation. Women are
reclaiming a position that is theirs by natural right--a position
which once they held. It may be all very well for those who accept the
authority and headship of the man as the foundation of the family and
of society, to be filled with bewildered fear at what seems to them to
be a quite new assertion of rights on the part of the mothers of the
race. But has the family at all stages of growth been founded on the
authority of the father? Our decision on this question will affect our
outlook on the whole question of Woman's Rights and the relationships
of the two sexes. There are civilisations, older and, as I believe,
wiser than ours that have accepted the predominant position of the
mother as the great central fact on which the family has been
established.
The view that the family, much as it existed among the Hebrew
patriarchs, and as it exists to-day, was primeval and universal is
very deeply rooted. This is not surprising. To reverse the gaze of men
from themselves is no easy task. The predominance of the male over the
female, of the man over the woman and of the father over the mother,
has been accepted, almost without question, in a civilisation built up
on the recognition of male values and male standards of opinion. Thus
the institutions, habits, prejudices, and superstitions of the
patriarchal authority rest like an incubus upon us. The women of
to-day carry the dead load upon their backs, and literally stagger
beneath the accumulating burden of the ages.
The "Woman's Movement" is pressing us forward towards a recasting of
the patriarchal view of the relative position and duties of the two
sexes. It must be regarded as an extremely great and comprehensive
movement affecting the whole of life. From this wider standpoint, the
fight for the parliamentary suffrage is but as the vestibule to
progress; the possession of the vote being no more than a necessary
condition for attaining far larger and more fundamental ends.
It is, however, very necessary to remark that the recognition of this
imposes a great responsibility upon women. For one thing the practical
difficulties of the present must be faced. It is far from easy to
readjust existing conditions to meet the new demands. Present social
and economic conditions are to a great extent chaotic. We cannot
safely cast aside, in any haste for reform, those laws, customs and
opinions which it has been the slow task of our civilisation to
establish, not for men only, but for women. We women have to work out
many questions far more thoroughly than hitherto we have done. We owe
this to our movement and to the world of men. It will serve nothing to
pull down, unless we are ready also to build up. Freedom can be
granted only to the self-disciplined.
"Thou that does know the Self and the not-Self, expert in
every work: endowed with self-restraint and perfect
same-sightedness towards every creature free from the sense
of I and my--thy power and energy are equal to my own, and
thou hast practised the most severe discipline."[1]
* * * * *
[1] The _Mahabharata_. The Great God thus addresses Shakti,
when he asks her to describe the duties of women. I quote
from a pamphlet by Dr. Ananda Coomaraswamy: _Sati: A
Vindication of the Hindu Woman_.
This little book is an attempt to establish the position of the mother
in the family. It sets out to investigate those early states of
society, when, through the widespread prevalence of descent through
the mother, the survival of the family clan and, in some cases, the
property rights were dependent on women and not on men. I start from
the belief that the mother was at one period the dominant partner in
the sexual relationships. This does not, however, at all necessarily
involve "rule by women." We must be very clear here. What I claim is
this. The system by which the family was built up and grouped around
the mother conferred special rights on women. The form of marriage
favourable to this influence was that by which the husband entered the
wife's family and clan, and lived there as a "consort-guest." The wife
and mother was director in the home, the owner of the meagre property,
the distributor of food, and the controller of the children.[2] Hence
arises what is known as mother-right.
[2] McGee: "The Beginning of Marriage," _American
Anthropologist_, Vol. IV, p. 378.
I am prompted to this inquiry by two reasons: in the first place, the
origin of the maternal-system and the subsequent association of the
mother and the father appear to me to afford evidence of the working
of a natural law of the two sexes, which, both for social and other
reasons, is of great interest in the present stage of women's history.
The establishing of the mother's position is of great importance. If
we can prove that women have exercised unquestioned and direct
authority in the past history of human societies, we shall be in a
position to answer those who to-day wish to set limits to women's
activities. Then, in the second place, I am compelled to doubt certain
conclusions, both of those who accept mother-right, and also of the
greater number who now deny its occurrence. If I am right, and the
importance of the maternal family has been unduly neglected and the
true explanation of its origin overlooked, I feel that, whatever
errors I may fall into, I am justified in undertaking this task. My
mistakes will be corrected by others with more knowledge than I can
claim; and if my theory of mother-right has any merit, it will be
established in more competent hands. The vast majority of
investigators on these questions are men. I am driven to believe that
sometimes they are mistaken in their interpretation of habits and
customs which arose among primitive societies in which the influence
of women was marked. In dealing with the family and its origin it has
been usual to consider the male side and to pass over the female
members. This has led, I am sure, to much error.
The custom of tracing descent through the mother, either practised
consciously and completely, or only as a survival, occurs among many
primitive peoples in all parts of the world. Whether, however, it
existed universally and from all time, or whether only in certain
races, among whose institutions it remains or may still be traced, is
a much debated question. Not all barbarous tribes are in the stage of
mother-right; on the contrary many reckon descent through the father.
But even where the latter is the case, vestiges of the former system
are frequently to be found. There seems to be a common tendency to
discredit a system of relationship, which suggests even as a bare
possibility the mother, and not the father, being the head of the
family. Yet, I believe I can assign some, at least plausible, reasons
for believing that descent through women has been a stage, though not,
I think, the first stage, in social growth for all branches of the
human family.
There can be little doubt of the importance of kinship and inheritance
being reckoned through the mother. If the children belong to her, and
if by marriage the husband enters her home, the greater influence,
based on the present possession of property, and the future hope of
the family rests on the female side. Such conditions must have
exercised strong influence on the position of the women members of the
primitive clan and the honour in which they were held. It cannot be
ignored.
Of course, this does not prevent the hardships of savage life weighing
more heavily in many ways upon women than on the stronger men. In
primitive societies women have a position quite as full of anomalies
as they hold among civilised races. Among some tribes their position
is extremely good; among others it is undoubtedly bad, but, speaking
generally, it is much better than usually it is held to be.[3]
Obviously the causes must be sought in the environment and in social
organisation. The differences in the status and power of women, often
occurring in tribes at the same level of progress, would seem to be
dependent largely on economic conditions. The subject is full of
difficulties. Not only is the position of women thus variable, but our
knowledge of the matter is very defective. It is seldom, indeed, that
the question has been considered of sufficient importance to receive
accurate attention.[4] Not infrequently conflicting accounts are given
by different authorities, and even by the same writer.
[3] Westermarck, "The Position of Women in Early
Civilisations," _Sociological Papers_, 1904.
[4] For instance, Maine (_Early Law and Custom_), in speaking
of tribes who still trace their descent from a single
ancestress, says, "The outlines" (_i. e._ of the maternal
family) "may still be marked out, _if it be worth any one's
while to trace it_."
I wish it to be understood that mother-right does not necessarily
imply mother-rule. This system may even be combined with the
patriarchal authority of the male. The unfortunate use of the term
_Matriarchate_ has led to much confusion. My own knowledge and study
of primitive customs and ancient civilisations have made it plain to
me that there has been a constant rise and fall of male and female
dominance, but, I believe, that, on the whole, the superiority of
women has been more frequent and more successful than that of men.
It is this that I shall attempt to prove.
The theory of mother-right has been subjected to so much criticism
that a re-examination of the position is very necessary. To show its
prevalence, to establish some leading points in its history, to make
out its connection with the patriarchal family, and to trace the
transition by which one system passed into the other, appear to me to
be matters primarily important. The limited compass of this little
book will prevent my substantiating my own views as I should wish,
with a full and systematic survey of all authentic accounts of the
peoples among whom mother-descent may be studied. I have considered,
however, that I could summarise the position in a comprehensive
picture, that will, I hope, suggest a point of view that seems to me
to have been very generally neglected.
It is necessary to enter into such an inquiry with caution; the
difficulties before me are very great. Nothing would be easier than
from the mass of material available to pile up facts in furnishing a
picture of the high status of women among many tribes under the
favourable influence of mother-descent, that would unnerve any
upholders of the patriarchal view of the subordination of women. It is
just possible, on the other hand, to interpret these facts from a
fixed point of thought of the father's authority as the one support of
the family, and then to argue that, in spite of the mother's control
over her children and over property, she still remained the inferior
partner. I wish to do neither. It is my purpose to examine the
evidence, and so to discover to what extent the system of tracing
descent through the female side conferred any special claim for
consideration upon women. I shall try to avoid mistakes. I put forward
my own opinions with great diffidence. It is so easy, as I realise
full well, to interpret facts by the bias of one's own wishes. I know
that the habits and customs of primitive peoples that I have studied
closely are probably few in comparison with those I have missed; yet
to me they appear of such importance in the light they throw on the
whole question of the relationships of the two sexes, that it seems
well to bring them forward.
Since my attention, now many years ago, was first directed to this
question, I have felt that a clear and concise account of the
mother-age was indispensable for women. Such an account, with a
criticism of the patriarchal theory, is here offered. Throughout I
have attempted to clear up and bring into uniformity the two opposing
theories of the origin of the human family. I have tried to gather the
facts, very numerous and falling into several classes, by which the
theory of the mother-age could be supported. And first it was
necessary to clear out of the way a body of opinion, the prevalence of
which has opposed an obstacle to the acceptance of the rights of
mothers in the family relationship. The whole question turns upon
which you start with; the man--the woman, or the woman--the man.
Here it should be explained that this little book is an expansion of
the historical section which treats of "the Mother-age civilisation"
in my former book, _The Truth About Woman_. I wish to take this
opportunity of expressing my gratitude for the generous interest and
sympathy with which my work has been received. Such kindness is very
imperfectly repaid by an author's thanks; it is certainly the best
incentive to further work.
This little volume was suggested to me by a review in one of the
Suffrage papers. The writer, after speaking of the interest to women
of the mother-age and the difficulty there was in gaining information
on the subject, said that "a small and cheaper book on the
matriarchate would be useful to women in all countries." I was
grateful for this suggestion. I at once felt that I wanted to write
such a book. For one thing, this particular section on the mother-age
in _The Truth About Woman_, and my belief in the favourable influence
of mother-descent on the status of women, has been much questioned. I
have been told that I "had quite deliberately gone back to our
uncivilised ancestors to 'fish up' the precedent of the matriarchate;"
that I "had allowed my prejudices to dictate my choice of material,
and had thus brought forward examples explanatory of my own opinions;"
that I "had fastened eagerly on these, without inquiring too carefully
about other facts having a contrary tendency." I was reminded of what
I well knew, that the matriarchate and promiscuity with which it is
usually connected were not universally accepted by anthropologists;
the tendency to-day being to discredit both as being among the early
phases of society. It was suggested that I "had unprofitably spent my
time on the historical section of my book, and had built up my theory
on a curiously uncertain foundation;" that I "had relied too much on
the certain working of mother-right, and had been by no means clear in
showing how, from such a position of power, women had sunk into
subservience to patriarchal rule." In fact, it has seemed to be the
opinion of my critics that I had allowed what I "would have liked to
have happened to affect my account of what did happen in the infancy
of man's social life."
Now, I want to say quite frankly, that I feel much of this criticism
is just. The inquiry on the mother-age civilisation was only one small
section of my book on Woman. I realise that very much was hurried
over. There is on this subject of the origin of the family a
literature so extensive, and such a variety of opinions, that the
work of the student is far from easy. The whole question is too
extensive to allow anything like adequate treatment within the space
of a brief, and necessarily insufficient, summary. My earlier
investigation may well be objected to as not being in certain points
supported by sufficient proofs. I know this. It is not easy to
condense the marriage customs and social habits of many different
peoples into a few dozen pages. Of course, I selected my examples. But
this I may say; I chose those which had brought me to accept
mother-right. I was driven to this belief by my own study and reading
long before the time of writing my book. What I really tried to do was
to present to others the facts that had convinced me. But my stacks of
unused notes, collected for my own pleasure during many years of work,
are witness to how much I had to leave out.
I know that many objections that have been raised to the theory of
mother-right were left unanswered. I dismissed much too lightly the
patriarchal theory of the origin of the family, which during late
years has gained such advocacy. I failed to carry my inquiry far
enough back. I accepted with too little caution an early period of
promiscuous sexual relationships. I did not make clear the stages in
the advance of the family to the clan and the tribe; nor examine with
sufficient care the later transition period in which mother-right gave
place to father-right.
I have been sent back to examine again my own position. And to do
this, it was necessary first to take up the question from the
position of those whose views are in opposition to my own. I have made
a much more extensive study of those authorities who, rejecting
mother-right, accept a modification of the patriarchal theory as the
origin of the family. This has led to some considerable recasting of
my views. Not at all, however, to a change in my belief in
mother-right, which, indeed, has now been strengthened, and, as I
trust, built up on surer foundations.
By a fortunate chance, I was advised to read Mr. Andrew Lang's _Social
Origins_,[5] which work includes Mr. Atkinson's _Primal Law_. I am
greatly indebted to the assistance I have gained from these writers.
It is, perhaps, curious that a very careful study of the patriarchal
family as it is presented by Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Lang, has brought me
to a conclusion fundamentally at variance from what might have been
expected. I have gained invaluable support for my own belief in
mother-right, and have found fresh proofs from the method of
difference. I have cleared up many points that previously puzzled me.
I am able now to accept the patriarchal theory, without at all shaking
my faith in a subsequent period of mother-descent and mother-power.
[5] This book was mentioned to me in a letter from Mr. H. G.
Wells.
The discussion on this question is now half a century old. Yet in
spite of the opposition of many investigators, and the support of
others, the main problems are still unsettled. What form did the
family take in its earliest stage? Did it start as a small group or
with the clan or horde? What were the earliest conditions of the
sexual relationships? Was promiscuity at one period the rule? Was the
foundation of the family based on the authority of the father, or of
the mother? If on that of the father, how is mother-kin and
mother-right to be explained? These are among the questions that must
be answered. Not till this is done, can we establish any theory of
mother-descent, or estimate its effect on the status of women.
The whole subject is a very wide and complicated one. If I differ on
several important points from learned authorities, whose knowledge and
research far exceed my own, I do so only after great hesitation, and
because I must. The facts they have collected from their personal
knowledge of primitive peoples (facts which I have gratefully used)
often suggest quite opposite conclusions to my thoughts than to
theirs--the view-point is different, that is all. They were seeking
for one thing; I for another: they were men; I am a woman. It would be
foolishness for me to attempt any special pleadings for my own
opinions. How far I shall succeed, or fail, to make clear to others a
period of mother-right that is certain to me, I do not know. I offer
my little book with all humility, and yet without any apology. We may
read and learn and gather knowledge from many sources; but the
opinions of others we cannot take on credit; we must re-think them out
for ourselves, and make them our own.
CHAPTER II
AN EXPOSITION OF BACHOFEN'S THEORY OF THE MATRIARCHATE
Fifty-three years ago in his great work, _Das Mutterrecht_,[6] the
Swiss writer, Bachofen, drew the attention of the world to the fact
that a system of kinship through mothers only prevailed among many
primitive peoples, while survivals of the custom could be widely, if
but faintly, traced among civilised races. Drawing his evidence from
the actual statements of old writers, but more from legends and the
mythologies of antiquity, he came to the conclusion that a system of
descent through women had, in all cases, preceded the rise of kinship
through males. Almost at the same time Dr. J. F. McLennan,[7] ignorant
of the work of Bachofen, came to the same opinion. This led to a
reconsideration of the patriarchal theory; and for a time it was
widely held that in the early stages of society a matriarchate
prevailed, in which women held the supreme power. Further support
came from Morgan, with his knowledge of the maternal family among
American aborigines, and he was followed by Professor Tylor, McGee,
and many other investigators.
[6] _Das Mutterrecht_ was published in Stuttgart in 1861.
[7] _Primitive Marriage_, published 1865. _Studies in Ancient
History_, which includes a reprint of _Primitive Marriage_;
1st ed. 1876, 2nd ed. 1886. _The Patriarchal Theory_, a
criticism of this theory is based on the papers of Mr.
McLennan and edited by his brother.
Obviously this gynæcocratic view, which placed woman in a new relation
to man, was unlikely to be permanently accepted. Thus a reaction to
the earlier theory of the patriarchal family has set in, especially in
recent years. Many writers, while acknowledging the existence of
mother descent, deny that such a system carries with it, except in a
few exceptional cases, mother-rights of special advantage to women;
even when these seem to be present they believe such rights to be more
apparent than real.
In bringing forward any theory of mother-right, it thus becomes
necessary to show the causes that have led to this reversal in
opinion. To do this, the first step will be to examine, with
considerable detail, the evidence for the matriarchal theory as it is
given by its two great supporters. Now, an interesting point arises,
if we compare the view of Bachofen with that held by McLennan. No two
ways could well be further apart than those by which these two men
arrived at the same conclusion. Both accept an early period of
promiscuous sexual relationships. But Bachofen found the explanation
of mother-descent in the supremacy of women, and believed a
matriarchate to have been established by them in a moral revolt
against such _hetaïrism_. Mr. McLennan, on the other hand, regarded
the custom as due to uncertainty of paternity--the children were
called after the mother because the father was unknown.
Let us concentrate our attention on the _Das Mutterrecht_ of Bachofen,
whose work as the great champion of matriarchy claims our most careful
consideration. And it is necessary to say at once that there can be no
doubt his view of women's supremacy is greatly exaggerated. Such a
rule of women, at the very early stage of society when mother-kin is
supposed to have arisen, is not proved, and does not seem probable.
Even if it existed, _it could not have originated in the way and for
the reasons_ that are credited by the Swiss writer. I wish to
emphasise this point. Much of the discredit that has fallen on the
matriarchate has arisen, I am certain, through the impossibility of
accepting Bachofen's mythical account of its origin. This great
supporter of women was a dreamer, rather than a calm and impartial
investigator. Founding his main theory on assumptions, he asks us to
accept these as historical facts. Much of his work and his belief in
women must be regarded as the rhapsodies of a poet. And yet, it is the
poet who finds the truth. The poetic spirit is, in one sense, the most
practical of all. Bachofen saw the fact of mother-power, though not
_why_ it was the fact, and he enfolded his arguments in a garment of
pure fiction.
To disengage from his learned book, _Das Mutterrecht_,[8] his theory
of the origin of the Matriarchate is no easy task. There is, for one
thing, such bewildering contradiction and confusion in the material
used. Then the interpretation of the mythical tales, so freely
intermingled everywhere, is often strained--prompted by a poetic
imagination which snatches at every kind of allegory. Often the views
expressed are inconsistent with each other, the arguments and proofs
are disconnected, while many of the details are hopelessly obscure and
confused. Yet it seems to me possible to recognise the idea which
brings into unity the mass of his work--the spirit, as it were, that
breathes into it its life. It may be found in the clear appreciation
of the superstitious and mystical element in primitive man, and their
close interweaving with the sexual life. As I understand Herr
Bachofen, the sex-act was the means which first opened up ways to
great heights, but also to great depths.
[8] Prof. Giraud-Teulon's _La Mère chez certains Peuples de
l'Antiquité_ is founded on the introduction to _Das
Mutterrecht_. This little book of fascinating reading is the
best and easiest way of studying Bachofen's theory.
Bachofen strongly insists on the religious element in all early human
thought. He believes that the development of the primitive community
only advanced by means of religious ideas.
"Religion," he says, "is the only efficient lever of all
civilisation. Each elevation and depression of human life
has its origin in a movement which begins in this supreme
department."[9]
[9] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. xiii.
The authority for this belief is sought in religious myths.
"Mythical tradition appears to be the faithful
interpretation of the progress of the law of life, at a time
when the foundations of the historical development of the
ancient world were laid; it reveals the original mode of
thought, and we may accept this direct revelation as true
from our complete confidence in this source of history."[10]
[10] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. vii.
This mystical religious element, which is the essential part of _Das
Mutterrecht_, is closely connected by Bachofen with the power of
women. As it is his belief that, even at this early period, the
religious impulse was more developed among women than men, he bases on
this unproved hypothesis his theory of women's supremacy. "Wherever
gynæcocracy meets us," he says, "the mystery of religion is bound up
with it, and lends to motherhood an incorporation in some
divinity."[11]
[11] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xv.
Doubtless this theory of a higher feminine spirituality is a pleasing
one for women--but is it true? The insuperable difficulty to its
acceptance arises, in the first place, from the fact that we can know
nothing at all of the spiritual condition of the human beings among
whom mother-kin was held first to have been practised. But we must go
further than this in our doubt. Can we accept for any period a
spiritual superiority in the character of woman over man? To me, at
least, it is clear that a knowledge of the two sexes among all races
both primitive and civilised--yes, and among ourselves, is sufficient
to discredit such a supposition.
Bachofen would have us believe that[12] the mother-right of the
ancient world, was due to a revolt of women against the degraded
condition of promiscuity, which previously had been universal among
mankind, a condition in which men had a community of wives, and
_openly lived together like gregarious animals_.
[12] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. xxiv. and p. 10.
"Women, by their nature nobler and more spiritual than men,
became disgusted with this lawless _hetaïrism_, and, under
the influence of a powerful religious impulse, combined in a
revolt (the first Amazonian movement) to put an end to
promiscuity and established marriage."
Over and over again Bachofen affirms this spiritual quality in women.
"The woman's religious attitude, in particular, the tendency
of her mind towards the supernatural and the divine,
influenced the man and robbed him of the position which
nature disposed him to take in virtue of his physical
superiority. In this way women's position was transformed by
religious considerations, until they became in civil life
what religion had caused them to be."[13] And again: "We
cannot fail to see that of the two forms of gynæcocracy in
question--religious and civil--the former was the basis of
the latter. Ideas connected with worship came first, and the
civil forms of life were then the result and
expression."[14]
[13] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xiv.
[14] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xv.
We may note in passing, the greater affectability of woman's nature,
which would seem always to have had a tendency to expression in
religio-erotic manifestations. But to build up a theory of matriarchy
on this foundation is strangely wide of the facts. Bachofen adduces
the spirituality of women as the cause of their power. But on what
grounds can such a claim be supported?
It is on the evidence of licentious customs of all kinds and on
polyandry, that he bases his belief in a period of promiscuity. He
regards this early condition of _hetaïrism_ as a law of nature, and
believes that after its infraction by the introduction of individual
marriage, expiation was required to be made to the Earth Goddess,
Demeter, in temporary prostitution. Hence he explains the widespread
custom of religious prostitution. This fanciful idea may be taken to
represent Bachofen's method of interpretation. There is an
intermediate stage between _hetaïrism_ and marriage, such as the
group-marriage, held by him to have been practised among barbarous
peoples. "Each man has a wife, but they are all permitted to have
intercourse with the wives of others."[15]
[15] _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 18.
Great stress is laid on the acquisition by women of the benefits of a
marriage law. In the families founded upon individual marriage, which
grew up after the Amazonian revolt, the women, and not the men, held
the first place. Bachofen does not tell us whether they assigned this
place to themselves, or had it conceded to them. Women were the heads
of the families, the children were named after the mother, and not
the father, and all the relations to which rights of succession
attached were traced through women only. All property was held by
women. Moreover, from this headship, women assigned to themselves, or
had conceded to them, the social and political power as well as the
domestic supremacy.[16]
[16] I have taken much of this passage from Mr. McLennan's
criticism of Bachofen's theory, _Studies in Ancient History_,
pp. 319-325.
The authority for this remarkable theory is sought, with great
ingenuity and patience, in the fragmentary accounts of barbarous
people, and in an exhaustive study of heroic stories and religious
myths. Bachofen argues powerfully for the acceptance of these myths.
"Every age unconsciously obeys, even in its poetry, the laws
of its individual life. A patriarchal age could not,
therefore, have invented the matriarchate, and the myths
which describe the latter may be regarded as trustworthy
witnesses of its historical existence. It may be taken for
granted that the myths did not refer to special persons and
occurrences, but only tell us of the social customs and
ideas which prevailed, or were endeavouring to prevail, in
several communities."[17]
[17] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., pp. vii.-viii.
This is true. It is the interpretation given to many of these myths
that one is compelled to question. Bachofen's way of applying mythical
tales has no scientific method; for one thing, abstract ideas are
added to primitive legends which could only arise from the thought of
civilised peoples. For instance, he accepts, without any doubt, the
existence of the Amazons; and believes that the myths which refer to
them record "a revolt for the elevation of the feminine sex, and
through them of mankind." It is on such insecure foundations he builds
up his matriarchal theory.
There is, however, an aspect of truth in Bachofen's position, which
becomes plain on a closer examination. To prove this, I must quote a
passage from _Das Mutterrecht_, as representing, or at least
suggesting, the opinions of those who have argued most strongly
against his theory. When recapitulating the facts and arguments in
favour of accepting the supremacy of women, he makes this suggestive
statement--
"The first state in all cases was that of _hetaïrism_. The
rule is based upon the right of procreation: since there is
no individual fatherhood, _all have only one father--the
tyrant whose sons and daughters they all are, and to whom
all the property belongs. From this condition in which the
man rules by means of his rude sexual needs, we rise to that
of gynæcocracy_, in which there is the dawn of marriage, of
which the strict observance is at first observed by the
woman, not by the man. Weary of always ministering to the
lusts of man, _the woman raises herself by the recognition
of her motherhood_. Just as a child is first disciplined by
its mother, so are people by their women. It is only the
wife who can control the man's essentially unbridled
desires, and lead him into the paths of well-doing....
_While man went abroad on distant forays, the woman stayed
at home, and was undisputed mistress of the household._ She
took arms against her foe, and was gradually transformed
into an Amazon."[18]
[18] _Das Mutterrecht_, pp. 18-19.
The italics in the passage are mine, for they bear directly on what I
shall afterwards have to prove: (1) that mother-right was not the
first stage in the history of the human family; (2) that its existence
is not inconsistent with the patriarchal theory. Bachofen here
suggests a pre-matriarchal period in which the elementary family-group
was founded on and held together by a common subjection to the oldest
and strongest male. This is the primordial patriarchal family.
Then come the questions: Can we accept mother-right? Are there any
reasonable causes to explain the rise of female dominance?
Westermarck, in criticising the matriarchal theory, has said: "The
inference that 'kinship through females only' has everywhere preceded
the rise of 'kinship through males,' would be warranted only on
condition that the cause, or the causes, to which the maternal system
is owing, could be proved to have operated universally in the past
life of mankind."[19] Now, this is what I believe I am able to do.
Hence it has been necessary first to clear the way of the old errors.
Bachofen's interpretation is too fanciful to find acceptance. Will any
one hold it as true that the change came because _women willed it_?
Surely it is a pure dream of the imagination to credit women, at this
supposed early stage of society, with rising up to establish marriage,
in a revolt of purity against sexual licence, and moreover effecting
the change by force of arms! Bachofen would seem to have been touched
with the Puritan spirit. I am convinced also that he understood very
little of the nature of woman. Conventional morality has always acted
on the side of the man, not the woman. The clue is, indeed, given in
the woman's closer connection with the home, and in the idea that "she
raises herself by the recognition of her motherhood." But the facts
are capable of an entirely different interpretation. It will be my aim
to give a quite simple, and even commonplace, explanation of the rise
of mother-descent and mother-right in place of the spiritual
hypothesis of Bachofen.
[19] _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 105.
It will be well, however, to examine further Bachofen's own theory. It
is his opinion that the first Amazonian revolt and period of women's
rule was followed by a second movement--
"Woman took arms against her foe [_i. e._ man], and was gradually
transformed into an Amazon. _As a rival to the man the Amazon became
hostile to him, and began to withdraw from marriage and from
motherhood. This set limits to the rule of women, and provoked the
punishment of heaven and men._"[20]
[20] _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 85.
There is a splendid imaginative appeal in this remarkable passage.
Again the italics are mine. It is, of course, impossible to accept
this statement, as Bachofen does, as an historical account of what
happened through the agency of women at the time of which he is
treating. Yet, we can find a suggestion of truth that is eternal. Is
there not here a kind of prophetic foretelling of every struggle
towards readjustment in the relationships of the two sexes, through
all the periods of civilisation, from the beginning until now? You
will see what I mean. The essential fact for woman--and also for
man--is the sense of community with the race. Neither sex can keep a
position apart from parenthood. Just in so far as the mother and the
father attain to consciousness and responsibility in their relations
to the race do they reach development and power. Bachofen, as a poet,
understood this; to me, at least, it is the something real that
underlies all the delusion of his work. But I diverge a little in
making these comments.
Again the origin of the change from the first period of matriarchy is
sought by Bachofen in religion.
"Each stage of development was marked by its peculiar
religious ideas, produced by the dissatisfaction with which
the dominating idea of the previous stage was regarded; a
dissatisfaction which led to a disappearance of this
condition." "What was gained by religion, fostering the
cause of women, by assigning a mystical and almost divine
character to motherhood was now lost through the same cause.
The loss came in the Greek era. Dionysus started the idea of
the divinity of fatherhood; holding the father to be the
child's true parent, and the mother merely the nurse." In
this way, we are asked to believe, the rights of men arose,
the father came to be the chief parent, the head of the
mother and the owner of the children, and, therefore, the
parent through whom kinship was traced. We learn that, at
first, "women opposed this new gospel of fatherhood, and
fresh Amazonian risings were the common feature of their
opposition." But the resistance was fruitless. "Jason put an
end to the rule of the Amazons in Lemnos. Dionysus and
Bellerophon strove together passionately, yet without
gaining a decisive victory, until Apollo, with calm
superiority, finally became the conqueror, and the father
gained the power that before had belonged to the
mother."[21]
[21] _Das Mutterrecht_, pp. 73, 85. Compare also McLennan,
_Studies_, p. 322, and Starcke, _The Primitive Family in its
Origin and Development_.
But before this took place, Bachofen relates yet another movement,
which for a time restored the early matriarchate. The women, at first
opposing, presently became converts to the Dionysusian gospel, and
were afterwards its warmest supporters. Motherhood became degraded.
Bacchanalian excesses followed, which led to a return to the ancient
_hetaïrism_. Bachofen believes that this formed a fresh basis for a
second gynæcocracy. He compares the Amazonian period of these later
days with that in which marriage was first introduced, and finds that
"the deep religious impulse being absent, it was destined to fail, and
give place to the spiritual Apollonic conception of fatherhood."[22]
[22] _Ibid._, p. 85.
In Bachofen's opinion this triumph of fatherhood was the final
salvation. This is what he says--
"It was the assertion of fatherhood which delivered the mind
from natural appearances, and when this was successfully
achieved, human existence was raised above the laws of
natural life. The principal of motherhood is common to all
the spheres of animal life, but man goes beyond this tie in
gaining pre-eminence in the process of procreation, and thus
becomes conscious of his higher vocation. In the paternal
and spiritual principle he breaks through the bonds of
tellurism, and looks upwards to the higher regions of the
cosmos. Victorious fatherhood thus becomes as distinctly
connected with the heavenly light as prolific motherhood is
with the teeming earth."[23]
[23] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. xxvii.
Here, Bachofen, as is his custom, turns to point an analogy with the
process of nature.
"All the stages of sexual life from Aphrodistic _hetaïrism_
to the Apollonistic purity of fatherhood, have their
corresponding type in the stages of natural life, from the
wild vegetation of the morass, the prototype of conjugal
motherhood, to the harmonic law of the Uranian world, to the
heavenly light which, as the _flamma non urens_, corresponds
to the eternal youth of fatherhood. The connection is so
completely in accordance with law, that the form taken by
the sexual relation in any period may be inferred from the
predominance of one or other of these universal ideas in the
worship of a people."[24]
[24] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xxix.
Such, in outline, is Bachofen's famous matriarchal theory. The
passages I have quoted, with the comments I have ventured to give,
make plain the poetic exaggeration of his view, and sufficiently prove
why his theory no longer gains any considerable support. To build up a
dream-picture of mother-rule on such foundations was, of necessity, to
let it perish in the dust of scepticism. But is the downthrow
complete? I believe not. A new structure has to be built up on a new
and surer foundation, and it may yet appear that the prophetic vision
of the dreamer enabled Bachofen to see much that has escaped the sight
of those who have criticised and rejected his assumption that power
was once in the hands of women.
One great source of confusion has arisen through the acceptance by the
supporters of the matriarchate of the view that men and women lived
originally in a state of promiscuity. This is the opinion of Bachofen,
of McLennan, of Morgan, and also of many other authorities, who have
believed maternal descent to be dependent on the uncertainty of
fatherhood. It will be remembered that Mr. McLennan brought forward
his theory almost simultaneously with that of Bachofen. The basis of
his view is a belief in an ancient communism in women. He holds that
the earliest form of human societies was the group or horde, and not
the family. He affirms that these groups can have had no idea of
kinship, and that the men would hold their women, like their other
goods, in common, which is, of course, equal to a general promiscuity.
There he agrees with Bachofen's belief in unbridled _hetaïrism_, but
a very different explanation is given of the change which led to
regulation, and the establishment of the maternal family.
According to Mr. McLennan, the primitive group or horde, though
originally without explicit consciousness of relationships, were yet
held together by a _feeling_ of kin. Such feeling would become
conscious first between the mother and her children, and, in this way,
mother-kin must have been realised at a very early period. Mr.
McLennan then shows the stages by which the savage would gradually, by
reflection, reach a knowledge of the other relationships through the
mother, sister and brother relationships, mother's brother and
mother's sister, and all the degrees of mother-kin, at a time before
the father's relation to his children had been established. The
children, though belonging at first to the group, would remain
attached to the mothers, and the blood-tie established between them
would, as promiscuity gave place to more regulated sexual
relationships, become developed into a system. All inheritance would
pass through women only, and, in this way, mother-right would tend to
be more or less strongly developed. The mother would live alone with
her children, the only permanent male members of the family being the
sons, who would be subordinate to her. The husband would visit the
wife, as is the custom under polyandry, which form of the sexual
relationship Mr. McLennan believes was developed from promiscuity--a
first step towards individual marriage. Even after the next step was
taken, and the husband came to live with his wife, his position was
that of a visitor in her home, where she would have the protection of
her own kindred. She would still be the owner of her children, who
would bear her name, and not the father's; and the inheritance of all
property would still be in the female line.[25]
[25] _Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 83, _et seq._
We have here what appears to be a much more reasonable explanation of
mother-kin and mother-right than that of Bachofen. Yet many have
argued powerfully against it. Westermarck especially, has shown that
belief in an early stage of promiscuous relationship is altogether
untenable.[26] It is needless here to enter into proof of this.[27]
What matters now is that with the giving up of promiscuity the whole
structure of McLennan's theory falls to pieces. He takes it for
granted that at one period paternity was unrecognised; but this is
very far from being true. The idea of the father's relationship to the
child is certainly known among the peoples who trace descent through
the mother; the system is found frequently where strict monogamy is
practised. Again, Mr. McLennan connects polyandry with mother-descent,
regarding the custom of plurality of husbands as a development from
promiscuity. Here, too, he has been proved to be in error. Whatever
the causes of the origin of polyandry, it has no direct connection
with mother-kin, although it is sometimes practised by peoples who
observe that system.
[26] _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 51-133. It is on this
question that my own opinion has been changed, compare _The
Truth about Woman_, p. 120.
[27] See next chapter on the Patriarchal Theory.
For myself, I incline to the opinion that the system by which
inheritance passes through the mother needs no explanation. It was
necessarily (and, as I believe, is still) the _natural_ method of
tracing descent. Moreover, it was adopted as a matter of course by
primitive peoples among whom property considerations had not arisen.
Afterwards what had started as a habit was retained as a system. The
reasons for naming children after the mother did not rest on
relationship, the earliest question was not one of kinship, but of
association. Those were counted as related to one another who dwelt
together.[28] The children lived with the mother, and therefore, as a
matter of course, were called after her, and not the father, who did
not live in the same home.
[28] Starcke, _The Primitive Family in its Origin and
Development_, pp. 36, 37.
All these questions will be understood better as we proceed with our
inquiry. The important thing to fix in our minds is that mother-kin
and mother-right (contrary to the opinion of McLennan and others) may
very well have arisen quite independently of dubious fatherhood. It
thus becomes evident that the maternal system offers no evidence for
the hypothesis of promiscuity; we shall find, in point of fact, that
it arose out of the regulation of the sexual relations, and had no
connection with licence. It is necessary to understand this clearly.
Bachofen is much nearer to what is likely to have happened in the
first stage of the family than Mr. McLennan, though he also mistakenly
connects the maternal system with unregulated _hetaïrism_. Still he
suggests (though it would seem quite unconsciously) the patriarchal
hypothesis, which founds the family first on the brute-force of the
male. Mother-right has been discredited chiefly, as far as I have been
able to find, because it is impossible to accept, at this early
period, sexual conditions of the friendly ownership of women, entirely
opposed to what was the probable nature of brute man. At this stage
the eldest male in the family would be the ruler, and he would claim
sexual rights over all the women in the group. Bachofen postulates a
revolt of women to establish marriage. We have seen that such a
supposition, in the form in which he puts it, is without any credible
foundation. Yet, it is part of my theory that there was a revolt of
women, or rather a combination of the mothers of the group, which led
to a change in the direction of sexual regulation and order. But the
causes of such revolt, and the way in which it was accomplished, were,
in my opinion, entirely different from those which Bachofen supposes.
The arguments in support of my view will be given in the next two
chapters.
CHAPTER III
DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS: AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE MOTHER-RIGHT WITH
THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY.
The foundation of the Patriarchal theory is the jealous sexual nature
of the male. This is important; indeed profoundly significant. The
strongest argument against promiscuity is to be gained from what we
know of this factor of jealousy in the sexual relationships.
"The season of love is the season of battle," says Darwin. Such was
the law passed on to man from millions of his ancestral lovers. The
action of this law[29] may be observed at its fiercest intensity among
man's pre-human ancestors. Courtship without combat is rare among all
male quadrupeds, and special offensive and defensive weapons for use
in these love-fights are found; for this is the sex-tragedy of the
natural world, the love-tale red-written in blood.
[29] The reader is referred to _The Truth about Woman_, pp.
87-114. In the courtships and perfect love marriages of many
birds we find jealous combats replaced by the peaceful
charming of the female by the male.
This factor of sexual jealousy--the conflict of the male for
possession of the female--has not been held in sufficient account by
those who regard promiscuity as being the earliest stage in the sexual
relationships. That jealousy is still a powerful agent even in the
most civilised races is a fact on which it is unnecessary to dwell.
This being so, and since the action of jealousy is so strong in the
animal kingdom, it cannot be supposed to have been dormant among
primitive men. Rather, in the infancy of his history this passion must
have acted with very great intensity. Thus it becomes impossible to
accept any theory of the community of women in the earliest stage of
the family. For inevitably such peaceful association would be broken
up by jealous battles among the males, in which the strongest member
would kill or drive away his rivals.
Great stress is laid, by the supporters of promiscuity, on the danger
that such conflicts must have been to the growing community. It is,
therefore, held that in order to prevent this check on their
development, it was necessary for the male members not to give way to
jealousy, but to be content with promiscuous ownership of women. But
this is surely to credit savage man with a control of the driving
jealous instinct that he could not then have had? What we do not find
in the sexual conduct of men, as they now are, cannot be credited as
existing in the infancy of social life. We fall into many mistakes in
judging these questions of sex; we under-estimate the strength of
love-passion--the uncounted ancestral forces dating back to the
remote beginnings of life. Doubtless conflicts over the possession of
women were frequent from the beginning of man's history. But these
disputes would not lead to promiscuous intercourse, only to a change
in the tyrant male, who ruled over the women in the group.
Another fact against a belief in promiscuity is that the lowest
savages known to us are not promiscuous, in so far as there is no
proved case of the sexual relations being absolutely unregulated. They
all recognise sets of women with whom certain sets of men can have no
marital relations. Again these savages are very far removed from the
state of man's first emergence from the brute, as is proved by their
combination into large and friendly tribes. Such peaceful aggregation
could only have arisen at a much later period, and after the males had
learnt by some means to control their brute appetites and jealousy of
rivals in that movement towards companionship, which, first resting in
the sexual needs, broadens out into the social instincts.
For these reasons, then, we conclude that the theory of a friendly
union having existed among males in the primitive group is the very
reverse of the truth. This question has now been sufficiently proved.
I am thus brought into agreement with Dr. Westermarck, Mr. Crawley,
and Mr. Lang, in his examination of Mr. Atkinson's _Primal Law_, as
well as with other writers, all of whom have shown that promiscuity
cannot be accepted as a stage in the early life of the human family.
I have now to show how far this rejection of promiscuity affects our
position with regard to mother-descent and mother-right. It is clearly
of vital importance to any theory that its foundations are secure. One
foundation--that of promiscuity, on which Bachofen and McLennan, the
two upholders of matriarchy, base their hypothesis--has been
overthrown. It thus becomes necessary to approach the question from an
altogether different position. Mother-right must be explained without
any reference to unregulated sexual conduct. I am thus turned back to
examine the opposing theory to matriarchy, which founds the family on
the patriarchal authority of the father. Nor is this all. What we must
expect a true theory to do is to show conditions that are applicable
not only to special cases, but in their main features to mankind in
general. I have to prove that such conditions arose in the primitive
patriarchal family as it advanced towards social aggregation, that
would not only make possible, but, as I believe, would necessitate the
power of the mothers asserting its force in the group-family. Only
when this is done can I hope that a new belief in mother-right may
find acceptance.
The patriarchal theory stated in its simplest form is this: Primeval
man lived in small family groups, composed of an adult male, and of
his wife, or, if he were powerful, several wives, whom he jealously
guarded from the sexual advances of all other males. In such a group
the father is the chief or patriarch as long as he lives, and the
family is held together by their common subjection to him. As for the
children, the daughters as soon as they grow up are added to his
wives, while the sons are driven out from the home at the time they
reach an age to be dangerous as sexual rivals to their father. The
important thing to note is that _in each group there would be only one
adult polygamous male, with many women of different ages and young
children_. I shall return to this later. Such is the marked difference
in the position of the two sexes--the solitary jealously unsocial
father and the united mothers. I can but wonder how its significance
has escaped the attention of the many inquirers, who have sought the
truth in this matter. Probably the explanation is to be found in this:
they have been interested mainly in one side of the family--the male
side; I am interested in the other side--in the women members of the
group. The position of women has seemed of primary importance to very
few. Bachofen is almost alone in placing this question first, and his
mystical far-fetched hypothesis has failed to find acceptance.
Let me now, in order to make the position clearer, continue a rough
grouping of the supposed conditions in this primordial family, with
all its members in subjection to the common father. It may be argued
that we can know nothing at all about the family and the position of
the two sexes at this brute period. This is true. The conditions are,
of course, conjectural, and any suggested conclusions to be drawn from
them must be still more so. Yet some hypothesis must be risked as a
starting-point for any theory that attempts to go so far back in the
stream of time.
We may suppose, then, that mankind aboriginally lived in small
families in much the same way as the great monkeys: we see the same
conditions, for instance, among the families of gorillas, where the
group never becomes large. The male leader will not endure the rivalry
of the young males, and as soon as they grow up a contest takes place,
and the strongest and eldest male, by killing or driving out the
others, maintains his position as the tyrant head of the family.[30]
[30] Darwin, _Descent of Man_. Wallace, _The Malay
Archipelago_, and Brehm, _Thierleben_.
This may be taken as a picture of the human brute-family. It is clear
that the relation of the father to the other group members was not one
of kinship, but of power. "Every female in my crowd is my property,"
says--or feels--Mr. Atkinson's patriarchal anthropoid, "and the
patriarch gives expression to his sentiment with teeth and claws, if
he has not yet learned to double up his fist with a stone in it. These
were early days."[31]
[31] _Social Origins and Primal Law_, pp. 4, 21. Westermarck,
pp. 13, 42. _Primal Law_, pp. 209-212.
We may conclude that there would be many of these groups, each with a
male head, his wives and adult daughters, and children of both sexes.
It is probable that they lived a nomadic life, finding a temporary
home in a cave, rock, or tree-shelter, in some place where the supply
of food was plentiful. The area of their wanderings would be fixed by
the existence of other groups; for such groups would almost certainly
be mutually hostile to each other, watchfully resenting any intrusion
on their own feeding ground. A further, and more powerful, cause of
hostility would arise from the sexual antagonism of the males. Around
each group would be the band of exiled sons, haunting their former
hearth-homes, and forming a constant element of danger to the solitary
paternal tyrant. This I take to be important as we shall presently
see. For, the most urgent necessity of these young men, after the need
for food, must have been to obtain wives. This could be done only by
capturing women from one or other of the groups. The difficulties
attending such captures must have been great. It is, therefore,
probable the young men at first kept together, sharing their wives in
polyandrous union. But this condition would not continue, the group
thus formed would inevitably break up at the adult stage under the
influence of jealousy; the captured wives would be fought for and
carried off by the strongest males to form fresh groups.
In this matter I have given the opinion of Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Lang.
They hold that no permanent peaceful union could have been maintained
among the groups of young men and their captive wives. Mr. Atkinson
gives the reason--
"Their unity could only endure as long as the youthfulness
of the members necessitated union for protection, and their
immaturity prevented the full play of sexual passion." And
again: "The necessary Primal Law which alone could determine
peace within a family circle by recognising a _distinction
between female and male_ (the indispensable antecedent to a
definition of marital rights) could never have arisen in
such a body. It follows if such a law was ever evoked, it
must have been from _within the only other assembly in
existence_, viz. that headed by the solitary polygamous
patriarch."[32]
[32] _Social Origins and Primal Law_, p. 230. Mr. Atkinson
writes this to show that there can be no connection between
these groups of young males and the polyandrous marriages of
Mr. McLennan's theory. The first italics in the passage are
his own; the second are mine. Why I wish to emphasise this
point will soon be seen. I have already mentioned how I was
recommended to read _Social Origins_ to convince me of my
mistake in accepting the mother-age. It has done just the
opposite, and has given me the clue to many difficulties that
I was before unable to clear up. This is why I am following
this book rather than other authorities in my examination of
the patriarchal theory. I take this opportunity of recording
my debt to the authors, and of expressing my thanks to Mr.
Wells, who recommended me to read the book.
Whether Mr. Atkinson is right I shall not attempt to say; the point is
one on which I hesitate a decided opinion; but as this view affords
support to my own theory I shall accept it.
Now, to consider the bearing of this on our present inquiry. So far I
have followed very closely the family group gathered around the
patriarchal tyrant, under the conditions given by Mr. Atkinson and Mr.
Lang, in _Social Origins and Primal Law_. It will not, I think, have
escaped the notice of the reader that very little has been said about
the women and their children. There is no hint at all that the women
must have lived a life of their own, different in its conditions from
that of the men. The female members, it would seem, have been taken
for granted and not considered, except in so far as their presence is
necessary to excite the jealous sexual combats of the males. This
seems to be very instructive. The idea of the subjection of all
females to the solitary male has been accepted without question. But
the group consisted of _many women and only one adult man_. Yet in
spite of this, the man is held to be the essential member; all the
family obey him. His wife (or wives) and his daughters, though
necessary to his pleasure as also to continue the group, are regarded
as otherwise unimportant, in fact, mere property possessions to him.
Now, I am very sure the rights these group-women must have held have
been greatly underrated, and the neglect to recognise this has led, I
think, to many mistakes. I am willing to accept the authority of the
polygamous patriarch--within limits. But it seems probable, as I shall
shortly indicate, that a predominant influence in the domestic life is
to be ascribed to the women, and, therefore, "the movement towards
peace within the group circle" must be looked for as a result from the
feminine side of the family, rather than from the male side. There is
still another point: I maintain that precisely through the
concentration of the male ruler on the sexual subjection of his
females, conditions must have arisen, affecting the conduct and
character of the women: conditions, moreover, that would bring them
inevitably more and more into a position of power.
It remains for me to suggest what I believe these conditions to have
been. Meanwhile let us keep one fact steadily before our minds. The
fierce sexual jealousy of the males had by some means to be
controlled. It is evident that the way towards social progress could
be found only by the peaceful aggregation of these solitary hostile
groups; and this could not be done without breaking down the rule that
strength and seniority in the male conferred upon him marital right
over all the females. In other words, the tyrant patriarch had in some
way to learn to tolerate the presence of other adult males on friendly
terms within his own group. We have to find how this first, but
momentous, step in social progress was taken.
Let us concentrate now our attention on the domestic life of the
women. And first we must examine more carefully the exact conditions
that we may suppose to have existed in these hostile groups. The
father is the tyrant of the band--an egoist. Any protection he affords
the family is in his own interests, he is chief much more than father.
His sons he drives away as soon as they are old enough to give him any
trouble; his daughters he adds to his harem. We may conceive that the
domination of his sexual jealousy must have chiefly occupied his time
and his attention. It is probable that he was fed by his women; at
least it seems certain that he cannot have provided food for them and
for all the children of the group. Sex must have been uninterruptedly
interesting to him. In the first place he had to capture his wife, or
wives, then he had to fight for the right of sole possession.
Afterwards he had to guard his women, especially his daughters, from
being carried off, in their turn, by younger males, his deadly rivals,
who, exiled by sexual jealousy from his own and the other similar
hearth-homes, would come, with each returning year, more and more to
be feared. An ever-recurring and growing terror would dog each step of
the solitary paternal despot, and necessitate an unceasing
watchfulness against danger, and even an anticipation of death. For
when old age, or sickness decreased his power of holding his own, then
the tables would be turned, and the younger men, so hardly oppressed,
would raise their hands against him in parricidal strife.
You will see what all this strife suggests--the unstable and
adventitious relation of the man to the social hearth-group. Such
conditions of antagonism of each male against every other male must
favour the assumption that no advance in peace--on which alone all
future progress depended--could have come from the patriarchs.
Jealousy forced them into unsocial conduct.
But advance by peace to progress was by some means to be made. I
believe that the way was opened up by women.
I hasten to add, however, in case I am mistaken here, that I am very
far from wishing to set up any claim of superiority for savage woman
over savage man. The momentous change was not, indeed, the result of
any higher spiritual quality in the female, nor was it a religious
movement, as is the beautiful dream of Bachofen. I do not think we can
credit "a movement" as having taken place at all, rather the change
arose gradually, inevitably, and quite simply. To postulate a
conscious movement towards progress organised by women is surely
absurd. Human nature does not start on any new line of conduct
voluntarily, rather it is forced into it in connection with the
conditions of life. Just as savage man was driven into unsocial
conduct, so, as I shall try to show, savage woman was led by the same
conditions acting in an opposite direction, into social conduct.
My own thought was drawn first to this conclusion by noting the
behaviour of a band of female turkeys with their young. It was a year
ago. I was staying in a Sussex village, and near by my home was the
meadow of a farm in which families of young turkeys were being reared.
Here I often sat; and one day it chanced that I was reading _Social
Origins and Primal Law_. I had reached the chapter on "Man in the
Brutal Stage," in which Mr. Atkinson gives the supposed facts of brute
man, and the action of his jealousy in the family group. I was very
much impressed; my reason told me that what the author stated so well
was probably right. Such sexually jealous conduct on the part of
savage man was likely to be true; it was much easier to accept this
than the state of promiscuous intercourse, with its friendly
communism in women, in which I had hitherto believed. I really was
very much disturbed. For I was still unshaken in my belief in
mother-right. How were the two theories to be reconciled?
Often it is a small thing that points to the way for which one is
seeking. All at once my little boy, who had been playing in the field,
called out, "Oh, look at the Gobble-gobble,"--the name by which he
called the male-turkey. The cock, his great tail spread, his throat
swelling, was swaggering across the field, making an immense amount of
noisy disturbance. A group of females and young birds, many of them
almost full grown, were near to where we were sitting; they had been
rooting about in the ground getting their food. Their fear at the
approach of the strutting male was manifest. All the band gathered
together, with the young in the centre, led and flanked by the
mothers. As the male continued to advance upon them they retreated
further and further, and finally took harbour in a barn. Here the
swaggerer tried to follow them, but the rear females turned and faced
him and drove him off.
I had found the clue that I was seeking. All I had been reading now
had a clear meaning for me. In my delight, I laughed aloud. I saw the
egoism of the solitary male; I knew the meaning of the females'
retreat; they were guarding the young from the feared attacks of the
father. I realised how the male's unsocial conduct towards his
offspring had forced the females to unite with one another. The cock's
strength, the gorgeous display of sex-charms, were powerless before
this peaceful combination. He was alone, a tyrant--the destroyer of
the family. But I saw, too, that his polygamous jealousy served as a
means to the end of advance in progress. It was the male's non-social
conduct that had forced social conduct upon the females. And I
understood that the patriarchal tyrant was just the one thing I had
been looking for. My belief in mother-power had gained a new and, as I
felt then in the first delight of that discovery, and as I still feel,
a much surer, because a simpler and more natural foundation.
Having now defined my position, and having related how such conviction
came to me, let me proceed to examine the causes that would lead to
the assertion of women's power, in the aboriginal family group. From
what has been said, the following conditions acting on the women, may,
it is submitted, be fairly deduced.
1. In the group, which comprised the mothers, the adult
daughters, and the young of both sexes, the women would live
on terms of association as friendly hearth-mates.
2. The strongest factor in this association would arise from
the dependence of the children upon their mothers; a
dependence that was of much longer duration than among the
animals, on account of the pre-eminent helplessness of the
human child, which entailed a more prolonged infancy.
3. The women and their children would form the group, to
which the father was attached by his sexual needs, but
remained always a member apart--a kind of jealous fighting
specialisation.
4. The temporary hearth-home would be the shelter of the
women; and it was under this shelter that children were born
and the group accumulated its members. Whether cave, or
hollow tree, or some frail shelter, the home must have
belonged to the women.
5. And this state would necessarily attach the mothers to
the home, much more closely than the father, whose desire
lay in the opposite direction of disrupting the home.
Moreover this attachment always would be present and acting
on the female children, who, unless captured, would remain
with the mothers, while it could never arise in the case of
the sons, whose fate was to be driven from the home. Such
conditions must, as time went on, have profoundly modified
the women's outlook, bending their desires to a steady,
settled life, conditions under which alone the germ of
social organisation could develop.
6. Again, the daily search for the daily food must have been
undertaken chiefly by the women. For it is impossible that
one man, however skilful a hunter, could have fed all the
female members and children of the group. We may conceive
that his attention and his time must have been occupied
largely in fighting his rivals; while much of his strength,
as sole progenitor, must have been expended in sex. It is
therefore probable that frequently the patriarch was
dependent on the food activities of his women.
7. The mothers, their inventive faculties quickened by the
stress of child-bearing and child-rearing, would learn to
convert to their own uses the most available portion of
their environment. It would be under the attention of the
women that plants were first utilised for food. Seeds would
be beaten out, roots and tubers dug for, and nuts and fruits
gathered in their season and stored for use. Birds would
have to be snared, shell-fish and fish would be caught;
while, at a later period, animals would be tamed for
service. Primitive domestic vessels to hold and to carry
water, baskets to store the food supplies would have to be
made. Clothes for protection against the cold would come to
be fashioned. All the faculties of the women, in exercises
that would lead to the development of every part of their
bodies, would be called into play by the work of satisfying
the physical needs of the group.
8. This interest and providence for the family would
certainly have its effect on the development of the women.
The formation of character is largely a matter of attention,
and the attention of the mothers being fixed on the supply
of the necessary food, doubtless often difficult to obtain,
their energies would be driven into productive activities,
much more than in the case of the father, whose attention
was fixed upon himself.
9. In all these numerous activities the women of each group
would work together. And through this co-operation must have
resulted the assertion of the women's power, as the
directors and organisers of industrial occupations. As the
group slowly advanced in progress, such power increasing
would raise the women's position; the mothers would
establish themselves permanently as of essential value in
the family, not only as the givers of life, but as the chief
providers of the food essential to the preservation of the
life of its members.
10. And a further result would follow in the treatment by
the male of this new order. The women by obtaining and
preparing food would gain an economic value. Wives would
become to the patriarch a source of riches, indispensable to
him, not only on account of his sex needs, but on account of
the more persistent need of food. Thus the more women he
possessed the greater would be his own comfort, and the
physical prosperity of the group. The women would become of
ever greater importance, and the economic power that they
thus acquired would more and more favourably influence their
position.
11. There is one other matter in this connection. The
greater number of women in the group the stronger would
become their power of combination. I attach great importance
to this. Working together for the welfare of all, the social
motive would grow stronger in women, so that necessarily
they would come to consider the collective interests of the
group. Can it be credited that such conditions could have
acted upon the patriarch, whose conduct would still be
inspired by individual appetite and selfish inclinations? I
maintain such a view to be impossible.
12. Another advantage, I think, would arise for women out of
the male's jealous tyranny in the sexual relationship. Such
an idea may appear strange, if we think only of the
subjection of the females to the brute-appetite of the
patriarch. Yet there is another side. The women must have
gained freedom by being less occupied with sex passions, and
also from being less jealously interested in the man than he
was in them. It may be urged that the women would be jealous
of each other. I do not think this could have been. Jealousy
has its roots in the consciousness of possession, and is
only aroused through fear of loss. This could not have acted
with any great power among the women in the patriarchal
group. Their interest of possession in sex must have been
less acute in consciousness than the interest of the male.
Doubtless the woman would be attracted by the male's
courageous action in fighting his rivals for possession of
her, but when the rival was the woman's son such attraction
would come into strong conflict with the deeper maternal
instinct.
13. From the standpoint of physical strength, the patriarch
was the master, the tyrant ruler of the group, who,
doubtless, often was brutal enough. But the women, leading
an independent life to some extent, and with their mental
ingenuity developed by the conditions of their life, would
learn, I believe, to outwit their master by passive united
resistance. They would come to utilise their sex charms as
an accessory of success. Thus the unceasing sexual
preoccupation of the male, with the emotional dependence it
entailed on the females, must, I would suggest, have given
women an immense advantage. If I am right here, the
patriarch would be in the power of his women, much more
surely than they would be in his power.
14. Again, an antagonism must have arisen between the despot
father and his women, in particular with his daughters,
forced to submit to his brute-passions. I confess I find
grave difficulty in reconciling the view that the
group-daughters would willingly become the wives of their
father. I cannot conceive them without some power to
exercise that choice in love, which is the right of the
female throughout nature. There is great insistence by Mr.
Atkinson, and all who have written on the subject, on the
sexual passions of the males, while the desires of the women
are not considered at all. Apparently they are held to have
had none! This affords yet another instance of the strange
concentration on the male side of the family. It is taken
for granted, for instance, that in every case the young men,
when driven from their home, had to capture their wives from
other groups. I would suggest that often the capture was
aided by the woman herself; she may even have escaped from
the hearth-home in her desire to find a partner, preferring
the rule of a young tyrant to an old one, who moreover was
her father. I believe, too, that the wives and mothers must
frequently have asserted their will in rebellion. I picture,
indeed, these savage women ever striving for more
privileges, and step by step advancing through peaceful
combination to power.
15. I desire also to maintain that all I have here suggested
finds support from what is known of the position of women
among primitive peoples; and I may add also, from the
character of women to-day.
Now I have summarised briefly what seem to me the probable conditions
of the women's daily life in these earliest groups. I have attempted
to show how the sexual jealousy, which acted for the destruction of
the mutually hostile male members, would necessitate for the women
conditions in many ways favourable; conditions of union in which lay
the beginnings of peace and order. What we have to fix in our thoughts
is the significant fact of the sociability of the women's lives in
contrast with the solitude of the jealous sire, watchfully resenting
the intrusion of all other males. Such conditions cannot have failed
to domesticate the women, and urged them forward to the work that was
still to be done in domesticating man. During the development of the
family, we may expect that the patriarch will seek to hold his rights,
and that the women will exert their influence more and more in
breaking these down; and this is precisely what we do find, as I
presently shall show.
One point further. It may, of course, be urged that all I am affirming
for women in this far back beginning is but a process of ingenious
guessing. Such criticism is just. But I am speaking of conditions at a
time when conjecture is necessary. I venture to say that my
suggestions are in accord with what is likely to have happened.
Moreover, many difficulties will be made clearer if these guesses are
accepted. I believe that here in the earliest patriarchal stage we
have already the germs of the maternal family. All the chances for
success in power rested with the united mothers, rather than with the
solitary father. Assuredly the jealous patriarchs paid a heavy price
for their sexual domination.
CHAPTER IV
DEVELOPMENT IN THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY AND THE RISE OF MOTHER-POWER
The essential question, now, is how these small hostile groups were
brought by association to expand into larger groups. In what way was
the sexual monopoly of the male ruler first curbed, and afterwards
broken down, for only by this being done could peace be gained?
However advantageous the habits of the patriarch may have been for
himself, they were directly opposed to progress. Jealousy depends on
the failure to recognise the rights of others. This sexual egoism, by
which one man through his strength and seniority held marital rights
over all the females of his group, had to be struck at its roots. In
other words, the solitary despot had to learn to tolerate the
association of other adult males.
How was this happy change to be brought about? Social qualities are
surely developed in the character by union with one's fellow beings.
From what has been stated, it seems certain that it was in the
interests of the women to consolidate the family, and by means of
association to establish their own power. Jealousy is an absolutely
non-social quality. Regarding its influence, it is certainly absurd
to believe any voluntary association to have been possible among the
males of the hostile patriarchal groups; to credit this is to give the
lie to the entire theory. We are driven, therefore, to seek for the
beginnings of social conduct among the women. I have suggested the
conditions forcing them into combination with one another against the
tyranny of the patriarch. I have now to show how these causes,
continually acting, brought the women step by step into a position of
authority and power. There is, however, no suggestion of a spiritual
revolt on the part of women. I do not wish to set up any claim for,
because I do not believe in, the superiority of one sex over the other
sex. Character is determined by the conditions of living. If, as I
conceive, progress came through savage women, rather than through
savage men, it was because the conditions were really more favourable
to them, and drove them on in the right path. However strange it may
appear, their sexual subjection to the fierce jealousy of the
patriarch acted as a means to an end in advancing peace.
The strongest force of union between the women would grow out of the
consciousness of an ever-threatening and common danger. Not only had
the young to be fed and cared for during infancy and childhood, but,
as they grew in years, they had to be guarded from the father, whose
relation to his offspring was that of an enemy. It has been seen how
the sons were banished at puberty from the family group to maintain
the patriarch's marital rights. Doubtless the strength of maternal
love gained in intensity through the many failures in conflicts, that
must have taken place with the tyrant fathers. Would not this
community of suffering tend to force the women to unite with one
another, at each renewed banishment of their sons? May they not, after
the banishment, have assisted their sons in the capture of their
wives? I think it must be allowed that this is possible. And there is
another point to notice. The exiled sons and their captured wives
would each have a mother in the groups they had left. May it not be
conceived that, as time brought progress in intelligence, some
friendly communication might have been established between group and
group, in defiance of the jealous guardianship of the patriarchs?
Thus, through the danger, ever to be feared in every family, there
might open up a way by sympathy to a possible future union.
It is part of my supposition that every movement towards friendship
must have arisen among the women. This is no fanciful idea of my own.
Mr. Atkinson, one of the strongest supporters of the patriarchal
theory, agrees with this view, though he does not seem to see its
origin, and does not follow up its deep suggestion. By him the
movement in advance is narrowed to a single issue of peace between the
father and his sons, but this great step is credited to the influence
of the mothers. I must quote the passages that refer to this--[33]
[33] _Primal Law_, pp. 231-232.
"At the renewed banishment of each of her male progeny by
the jealous patriarch, the mother's feelings and instincts
would be increasingly lacerated and outraged. Her agonised
efforts to retain at least her last and youngest would be
even stronger than with her first born. It is exceedingly
important to observe that her chances of success in this
case would be much greater. When this last and dearest son
approached adolescence, it is not difficult to perceive that
the patriarch must have reached an age when the fire of
desire may have become somewhat dull, whilst, again, his
harem, from the presence of numerous adult daughters, would
be increased to an extent that might have overtaxed his once
more active powers. Given some such rather exceptional
situation, where a happy opportunity in superlative mother
love wrestled with a for once satiated paternal appetite in
desire, we may here discern a possible key of the
sociological problem which occupies us, and which consisted
in a conjunction within one group of two adult males."
In the next paragraph the author presents the situation which in this
way might have arisen--
"We must conceive that, in the march of the centuries, on
some fateful day, the bloody tragedy in the last act of the
familiar drama was avoided, and the edict of exile or death
left unpronounced. _Pure maternal love triumphed over the
demons of lust and jealousy._ A mother succeeded in keeping
by her side a male child, and thus, by a strange
coincidence, that father and son, who, amongst all mammals,
had been the most deadly enemies, were now the first to join
hands. So portentous an alliance might well bring the world
to their feet. The family would now present for the first
time, the until then unknown spectacle of the inclusion
within a domestic circle, and amidst its component females,
of an adolescent male youth. It must, however, be admitted
that such an event, at such an epoch, demanded imperatively
very exceptional qualities, both physiological and
psychological, in the primitive agents. The new happy ending
to that old-world drama which had run so long through blood
and tears, was an innovation requiring very unusually gifted
actors. How many failures had doubtless taken place in its
rehearsal during the centuries, with less able or happy
interpreters!"
Mr. Atkinson supposes that success in the new experiment "was rendered
possible by the rise of new powers in nascent man." Here I do not
follow him. "The germ of altruism," which he sees as "already having
risen to make its force felt" was, indeed, as he says "an important
factor." But is it credible that this altruism existed in the father?
I can conceive him being won over through his own emotional dependence
on some specially pleasing woman; he may well have had favourites
among his wives. I cannot accept "altruism" as a reason for his
conduct, under conditions acting in an exact opposite way in fostering
and increasing egoism. Much more probable is the supposition that he
"must have reached the age when the fire of desire had become somewhat
dulled."
I must also take exception to a further statement of Mr. Atkinson,
"that with such prolonged infancy there had been opportunity for the
development of paternal philoprogenitiveness." And again: "It is
evident that such long-continued presence of sons could but result in
a certain mutual sympathy, however inevitable the eventual exile." It
is unnecessary for me to labour this question. I may, however, point
out, that the identical conditions of the family among the anthropoid
apes (on whom Mr. Atkinson bases his patriarchy) do not afford any
proof of paternal altruism. The polygamous jealous father never enters
into friendly union with the other males. He is strong and sexually
beautiful, but he is never social in his domestic conduct. He is the
tyrant in the family, and the young are guarded from his attacks by
the mothers. With the mothers there is protection and safety, with the
father ownership. The whole argument of the patriarchal theory is
based on the fact of the jealous conduct of the male. Driven to live
in solitary enmity, the patriarch could not voluntarily tolerate the
presence of a rival, if he was to maintain his position as ruler. It
is impossible to get away from this. Mr. Atkinson comes very near to
this essential truth, when he suggests (though he does not fully
acknowledge) that the first step in social development came through
the mother's love for her child; but at once he turns aside from this,
drawn, I think unconsciously, to the common opinion of the complete
subjection of the females to the male, an opinion always making it
difficult to accept the initiative in reform as coming from the woman.
The exclusive and persisting idea of Mr. Atkinson's theory is to
establish the action of what he calls "the primal law." Only by
limiting and defining the marital rights of the males over the females
could advancement be gained. Until this was done these small hostile
groups could not become larger, and expand into the clan or tribe.
I must follow this question a little although it leads us aside from
the immediate subject of my own inquiry. The first step in progress
has been taken; by the triumph of maternal love, an adult male son is
now included in the group. We must conceive that this victory, having
once been gained by one mother, would be repeated by other mothers.
Afterwards, as time went on, the advantage in strength gained to the
group by this increase in their male members, would tend to encourage
the custom. One may reasonably assume that it became established as a
habit in each group that once had taken the first step. Father and
sons, for so long enemies, now enter on a truce.
It must not, however, be concluded that sexual peace followed this new
order. It is part of Mr. Atkinson's theory that the patriarch's sexual
jealousy would not be broken down by his tolerance of the presence of
his sons. Peace could be maintained only so long as the intruders
respected his marital rights. Under this condition, all the group
women, as they all belonged to the patriarch, would be taboo to the
young men; otherwise there would be a fight, and the offending son
would be driven into exile. Doubtless this frequently happened, but
the advantages gained by union would tend to prevent the danger. Some
means of preserving sexual peace within the group certainly would come
to be established. "For the first time," as Mr. Atkinson points out,
"we encounter the factor which is to be the leading power in future
metamorphosis, i. e. _an explicit distinction between female and
female as such_."
Through this bar placed on the female members within the family
circle, the sons, who remained in peace, would be forced to continue
the practice of capturing their wives, and would bring in women to
live with them from other groups. It is assumed that these captures
were in all cases hostile. I have given my reasons for disagreeing
with this view. I hold that the young women may have been glad to have
been taken by the young men, and most probably assisted them, in a
surely not unnatural desire to escape from their tyrant fathers. I
really cannot credit such continued sexual subjection on the part of
the group-daughters, an opinion which arises, I am certain, from the
curious misconception of the passivity of the human female in love.
I do not wish to conceal that my conjecture of an active part having
been taken by the women, both in their captures and also in all the
relationships of the family, is opposed to the great majority of
learned opinion. The reason for this already has been suggested.
Almost invariably the writers on these questions are men, and there
is, I imagine, a certain blindness in their view. I am convinced that
from the earliest beginnings of the human family women have exercised
a much stronger and more direct influence than is usually believed.
All the movements towards regulation and progress, so ingeniously
worked out by Mr. Atkinson, are easier to credit if we accept the
initiative as having come from the group-mothers. I have an inward
conviction of an unchanging law between the two sexes, and though I
cannot here attempt to give any proof, it seems to me, we can always
trace _the absorption by the male of female ideas_. The man accepts
what the woman brings forward, and then assumes the control, believing
he is the originator of her ideas. Take this case of capture: If, as I
suggest, the young women assisted or even took the initiative in their
own captures, they would very plainly not be willing to allow sexual
relationships with another hoary patriarch. I would urge that here
again it was by the action of the young women, rather than the young
men, that the new order was established. But this is a small matter.
If I am right, the communal living and common danger among the women
would powerfully bind them together in union, and sever them from the
male rulers. Once this is granted, it follows that social
consciousness in the women must have been stronger than in the
solitary males. Then there can be no possible doubt of the part taken
by women in the slow advancement of the group by regulation to social
peace. Moreover, I believe, that confirmation of what is here claimed
for women will be found (as will appear in the later part of my
inquiry) in many social habits among existing primitive peoples, who
still live under the favourable conditions of the maternal family;
habits that suggest a long evolutionary process, and that can be
explained only if they have arisen in a very remote beginning. But
enough on this subject has now been said.
Many interesting questions arise from the action of Mr. Atkinson's
"primal law." His theory offers a solution of the much-debated
question of the origin of exogamy,[34] the term used first by Mr.
McLennan, in _Primitive Marriage_, for the rule which prohibited
sexual relationships within the group limit. Continence imposed by the
patriarch on his sons within the group, as a condition of his
tolerance of their presence, necessarily and logically entailed
marriage without, with women from some other group. This explanation
of exogamy is so simple that it seems likely to be true. It is much
more reasonable than any of the numerous other theories that have been
brought forward. Mr. McLennan, for instance, suggests that the custom
arose through a scarcity of females, owing to the widespread practice
of female infanticide. This can hardly be accepted, for such
conditions, where they exist, would arise at a much later period. Even
less likely is the theory of Dr. Westermarck, who explains exogamy as
arising from "an instinct against marriage of near kin." But we have
no proof of the existence of any such instinct.[35] Mr. Crawley's
view is similar: he connects the custom with the idea of sexual taboo,
which makes certain marriages a deadly sin. It is evident that these
causes could not have operated with the brute patriarch. One great
point in favour of Mr. Atkinson's view is that it takes us so much
further back. By it exogamy as a custom must have been much earlier
than totemism, as at this stage the different group-families would not
be distinguished by totem names; but its action as a law would become
much stronger when reinforced by the totem superstitions, and would
become fixed in rigid sexual taboos.[36] The strongest of these taboos
is the avoidance between brothers and sisters; this is Mr. Atkinson's
_primal law_. It is a law that is still a working factor among
barbarous races, and entails restrictions and avoidances of the most
binding nature.
[34] _Studies._ Chap. VII. "Exogamy: Its Origin."
[35] _History of Human Marriage._ Chap. XIV. "Prohibition of
Marriage between Kindred."
[36] _Mystic Rose._
Unfortunately I have not space to write even briefly on this important
and deeply interesting subject. A right understanding of the whole
question of sexual taboos, with the complicated totem superstitions on
which they are based, is very necessary to any inquiry into the
position of women. But to do this I should have to write another book.
All I can say is this: these avoidances had in their origin no
connection with the relative power of the two sexes; nor do I believe
it can be proved that they were established by men rather than by
women. They arose quite naturally, out of the necessity for regulation
as a condition of peace.
Let me give one example that will serve to show how easily mistakes
may arise. One of these rules, common among primitive peoples,
prevents the women from eating with the men. This is often considered
as a proof of the inferior position of the women, whereas it proves
nothing of the kind. It is just one instance out of many numerous laws
of avoidance between wife and husband, sister and brother, mother and
son, and, indeed, between all relations in the family, which are part
of the general rule to restrict sexual familiarity between the two
sexes, set up at a time when moral restraints upon desire could act
but feebly. It was only much later that these sexual taboos came to be
fixed as superstitions, that with unbreakable fetters bound the
freedom of women.
Here, indeed, are facts causing us to think. We perceive how old and
strongly rooted are many customs from which to-day we are fighting to
escape; customs of separation between women and men, which, with
appalling conservatism, have descended through the ages. Will they
ever be broken down? I do not know. These questions are not considered
in adequate fashion; often we are ignorant of the deep forces driving
the sexes into situations of antagonism. Clearly these primitive
avoidances shed strong light on the sexual problems of our day. The
subject is one of profound interest. I wish that it were possible to
follow it, but all this lies outside the limit set to my inquiry, and
already I have been led far from the patriarchal family.
The group has advanced in progress, and now has many features in
common with existing savage peoples. The friendly conjunction of the
father and his sons has established peace. Exogamy has begun to be
practised; and the family in this way has been increased not only by
the presence of the group-sons, but by their captured wives. We have
seen that this would necessitate certain rules of sexual avoidance;
thus the patriarch still holds marital rights over his wives and the
group-daughters, while the captured women are sacred to the
group-sons.
There is now a further important change to consider. Again the rights
of the patriarch have to be restricted; a bar has to be raised to
prevent his adding his daughters to his wives. Only by overcoming this
habit of paternal incest can further social evolution become possible.
On this question I shall give the explanation of Mr. Atkinson; and it
is with real regret that the limit of my space makes it impossible to
quote in full his own words.[37] The change came by _the entrance of
outside suitors as husbands for the daughters and their acceptance as
group-members_.
[37] _Primal Law._ The chapter "From the Group to the Tribe,"
pp. 250-263.
At this point a difficulty once again arises. By what means was the
patriarch brought to accept the presence of these young intruders,
thus usurping his sexual rights over his daughters? Mr. Atkinson
believes this could not have taken place during the life of the
patriarch. "The initiative in change must have arisen irrespective of
him, or without his presence." Here Mr. Atkinson appears to me to fall
into error, as once more he neglects to consider the effect of the
young women's own desires. I hold that, by this time, the
group-daughters, supported by their mothers, must have been strong
enough to outwit their father (whose authority already had been
weakened), if not openly, then by deceiving him. They would now see
their brothers living with young wives. Is it credible, I ask, that
they would remain content with the sexual embraces of their father?
In this connection it is of interest to note the opposition sometimes
offered by young females to the advances of an old male among the
families of monkeys. I have received quite recently an account of such
a case in a letter from my friend, Max Henry Ferrass, formerly
Inspector of Schools in India, and the author of a valuable work on
Burmah. This is what he says--
"I once was able to observe a herd of common long-tailed
monkeys of the Indian plains at play on a sandbank in a
river. There were about fifty of all ages. There was one
great bully among them who looked double the size of the
average adult--and must have been double the weight, at any
rate--whose sport was to chase the young females. They,
knowing his game, fled before him, but he caught them
readily. But before he could have his will of any, she would
bound from his grasp as if stung, and always escape, as this
sudden spurt of energy was more than he could control."
Here we have a clear instance in which the young females escape from
the thraldom of the male ruler of the horde. The power with which Mr.
Atkinson endows his human patriarch seems to me quite incredible. I
have asserted again and again that the consolidation of the
group-circle was of much greater importance to the women than to the
men. Now this surely points to the acceptance of the view that the
regulation of the brute sexual appetite was initiated by the women.
Thereby, it may be pointed out, their action merely resembles
womankind in any stage from the lowest degree of savagery to the
highest stage of civilisation.
Moreover, there is further proof that points strongly to the
acceptance of this view, that, the new departure, by which young
husbands came into the group, was brought about by the women, in
opposition to the knowledge and will of the patriarch. There exists a
common custom among primitive tribes, which affords evidence of these
outside suitors having visited their brides in secret. I refer to the
practice by which intercourse between the husband and wife is carried
on clandestinely by night. This is one of the earliest forms of
marriage, and, further, it is closely connected, as I shall presently
show, with the maternal family system. There appears to be no real
cause for this precaution. I do not think it can be explained by the
superstitious dread of the sexes for each other, expressing itself in
this form of sexual taboo; as Mr. Crawley and other writers suggest.
Doubtless this is a factor, and a very powerful one, in the
continuance of the custom, but it does not seem to me to be the true
explanation of its origin. Such secrecy and clandestine meetings are,
however, exactly what must have happened if the group-daughters
received their lovers, as I would suggest, in defiance of the will of
the patriarch. May not the custom as it still exists be a survival,
retained and strengthened by superstition, from a time when these
fugitive visits were necessary for safety?[38]
[38] Mr. Atkinson refers to these clandestine marriages. He
does not, however, connect the custom, as I suggest, with any
action on the part of the young women.
Mr. Atkinson's view is different from mine. He does not allow any
power at all to the women. He holds that after the death of the
patriarch, his daughters, still young, would be left without husbands.
To meet this difficulty suitors are brought from other groups by the
brothers, _i. e._ the sons settled in the group and who now rule. We
are asked to believe that they do this to relieve themselves of the
maintenance of their widowed sisters, and to prevent their being
captured and carried off to other groups. According to Mr. Atkinson
the presence of these outside lovers would not be dangerous to the
family peace. They would come from neighbouring groups, from which
the young men had already captured their wives. In this way the strangers
would be the brothers of their women; and thus the brother-and-sister
avoidance--the primal law already established--would prevent any fear of
interference with the established marital rights on the part of the
new-comers. I strongly differ from the suggestion that the brothers
had to feed and maintain their widowed sisters; such an opinion is but
another example of a failure to appreciate the women's side of the
question. I allow willingly that the sisters may have had the
assistance of their brothers; I incline, indeed, to the opinion that
they would be strong enough to compel their help, though probably this
was not necessary. The group-sisters and the group-brothers may well
have united against the father, who was the enemy of both. To me the
common-sense view is that these visits from outside suitors were first
paid clandestinely at night. In the light of human nature it is at
least probable that the tyrant father was deceived by his daughters
and his sons. If already he was dead, what reason was there for any
fear--why were the visits secret? This seems to show that I am right;
that once more the initiative in the changes that led to regulation
must be traced back to women. Afterwards, the custom thus established,
would come to be recognised, and the practice of the husband visiting
his wife by night would persist long after the danger making such
secrecy necessary had ceased.
It will be readily seen that the introduction of young husbands from
outside, by whatever means this was done, would be an immense gain in
strength. Again a new regulation in the sexual relationships would
follow, and the group-daughters would now have husbands of their own
generation, sacred to them. Furthermore it was the first direct step
in friendly union between group and group; a step that would open up
ways to further progress. The husband, living in his own group, and
visiting his wife in hers, would at once form a connecting link
between two hitherto separate family circles, which friendly
connection would not be broken, when, later, the custom arose of the
husband leaving his group to take up his residence with his wife.
Such an arrangement must have been of immense advantage to the women.
Under the new order, a wife married to one of these young strangers
would hold a position of considerable power, that hitherto had been
impossible. We have seen that the home was made by the group-women,
and must have belonged to them; but so far, the continuance of a
daughter in the home had entailed the acceptance of her father as a
husband; the only way of escape being by capture, which--whether
forced or, as I hold, aided by the girl's desire--sent her out from
her own family as a stranger into a hostile group. Now this was
reversed, and the husband entered as the alien into her home and
family.
The following observation of Mr. Atkinson in this connection must be
quoted, as it is in strong agreement with my own view--
"As a wife who had not been captured, who, in fact, as an
actual member of the group itself, was, so to speak, the
capturer, _her position in regard to her dependent husband
would be profoundly modified_, in comparison with that of
the ordinary captive female, whereas such a captive, seized
by the usual process of hostile capture, had been a mere
chattel utterly without power; _she, as a free agent in her
own home, with her will backed by that of her brothers_"
[why not, I would ask, her sisters and her mother?] "_could
impose law on her subject spouse_."[39]
[39] _Primal Law_, p. 256.
In the foregoing sentences Mr. Atkinson affirms the fateful
significance to women of this new form of marriage. I am in
whole-hearted agreement with this opinion. I glean here and there from
the wealth of Mr. Atkinson's suggestions, statements which indicate
how nearly he came to seeing all that I am trying to establish. Yet, I
am compelled to disagree with his main argument; for always when he
touches the woman's side, he falls back at once to consider the
question in its relation to the males as the only important members in
the group. I do not, for instance, accept his view that the captive
wives were "mere chattels." They could not, under the conditions, have
been without some considerable power, even if it arose only from the
sexual dependence of their owners upon them. Much more significant,
however, is Mr. Atkinson's view regarding the authority of the wife in
these new peaceable marriages. He sees one point only as arising from
such a position, and finds "a psychological factor of enormous power,
now for the first time able to make itself felt, in the play of sexual
jealousy on the part of the wife." She would now "impose law on her
subject spouse, and such law dictated by jealousy would ordain a bar
to intercourse between him and her more youthful and hence more
attractive daughters." Now, I do not deny that such a factor may have
acted, for the incentive to jealousy arises always from individual as
opposed to collective possession. Still I do not think jealousy can
have been strong in this case, and, even if it were not, any reversion
on the part of an alien father to the habits of the patriarch must
have been impossible; such conduct would not have been tolerated by
the other males in the group, nor by the daughters, now able to get
young husbands for themselves. To limit the wife's power to this
single issue can hardly be consistent with the conditions of the case.
Mr. Atkinson, in common with many other anthropologists, seems
disposed to underrate the evidence regarding the far-reaching
importance of this form of marriage. Among existing examples of the
maternal family, the mother-rights and influences of women are
dependent largely on the position of the husband as a stranger in her
family home. This matter will become clear in the later part of my
inquiry.
With the establishment of this new peaceful marriage the way was
cleared for future progress; it is but a few further steps for the
group to grow into the clan and the tribe. The family-group has
increased greatly in size and in social organisation, from the time
when it consisted of the patriarch, and his community of women and
young children. The group-sons have brought in wives from other groups
and have founded families; the group-daughters now have husbands who
live with them. Primitive regulations over the marital rights have
arisen, enabling peace to be maintained. Each family to some extent
would be complete in itself. As the groups advanced in progress, totem
names would come to be used as family marks of distinction, taken
usually from some plant or animal. Peaceable marriages between the
sons and daughters of the different groups would more and more become
the habit, and would gradually take the place of capture marriages.
The regulation of the sexual relationships, by which certain women and
certain men became sacred to each other, would become more strongly
fixed by custom; and afterwards the law would follow that a group of
kindred, distinguished by its totem mark, might not marry within the
hereditary name. The religious superstitions that came to be connected
with these totem names would make binding the new order in the
marriage law. When this stage was reached exogamy would be strictly
practised; and in all cases under the complete maternal system, the
woman on marriage would remain in her family home, where the husband
would come to live with her as a kind of privileged guest.
There is one other matter that must be noted. The totem name was
inherited from the mother, and not the father. This was the natural
arrangement. When the group was small, there may have been a communal
ownership of the group-children by the mothers, under the authority of
the father. But this would not continue for long; when the group
increased in numbers, the mother and her children would keep together
as a little sub-family in the larger circle. This would be especially
the case with captured wives, who would bring with them the totem
marks of their groups, and this would be the name of the children. The
naming of the children after the mother would also be the simplest way
of distinguishing between the offspring of different wives, a
distinction that would often be necessary, during the earlier
conditions, among the polygamous fathers.
It is, however, an entirely mistaken view that the father's relation
to the child was ever unrecognised. The taking of the name of the
mother arose as a matter of course, and was adopted simply as being
the most convenient custom. It is manifest that mother-descent has no
connection with a period of promiscuity. Quite the reverse. All the
conditions of mother-right arose out of the earliest movements towards
order and regulation in the relationships of the sexes, and were not
the result of licence. Nor was the naming of the child after the
mother so much a question of relationship as of what may be called
"social kinship." The causes which led to the maternal system are
closely connected with the collective motive, which, if I am right,
was in its origin, at least, the result of the union of the women
against the selfish inclinations of the patriarch. When property
rights came to be recognised, consisting at first of stores of food
and the household goods, it would be perfectly natural that they
should belong to the women, and descend through them. The inheritance
would be to those most closely bound together, and who lived together
in the same home. Thus it appears that descent through the mother was
founded on social rights, by which the organisation of the family,
such as membership in the group or clan, succession and inheritance
were dependent on the mothers. In this sense it is clear that the term
mother-power is fully justified; it is nearer to the facts than the
term mother-kin.
Further than this I must not go; the first part of my inquiry now has
come to an end. It may seem to the reader that the patriarchal theory,
in a book written to establish mother-right, has received more
attention than was called for. I have discussed it so fully, not only
because of the interest of the subject in proving the errors in the
earlier theories of matriarchy, but because of the insight the
conditions of the primordial group give us into the origin of the
maternal family.
Many of the suggestions made are more or less hypothetical, but not a
few, I think, are necessary deductions, based on what is most probable
to have happened. I am fully aware of numerous omissions, and the
inadequacy of this summary; but if the suggestions brought forward
shall prove in themselves to have merit, it has seemed to me that a
fruitful field of investigation has been opened. Much new ground had
to be covered in this attempt to picture the position of women at a
period so remote that the difficulties are very great. I hope at least
to have cleared away the old errors, which connected mother-descent
with uncertainty of paternity and an early period of promiscuity.
Recognising sexual jealousy as the moving force in brute man, I have
accepted that the primeval family was of the patriarchal type. I have
traced the probable development of the group-family, expanding by
successive steps into larger groups living in peaceful association. In
the earlier stage, whilst the men lived as solitary despots, the women
enjoyed a communal life. It is thus probable that the leading power in
the upward movement of the group developing into the clan and tribe
arose among the united mothers, and not with the father. The women
were forced into social conduct. On this belief is based the theory of
mother-power.
The most important result we have gained is the proof that the
maternal system was framed for order, and has no connection with
sexual disorder. It is enough if I have suggested reasons to show that
this widespread custom, which is practised still among many peoples,
has nothing about it that is exceptional, nothing fantastic, nothing
improbable. I hold it to be a perfectly natural arrangement--the
practical outgrowth of the practical needs of primitive peoples. The
strongest and the one certain claim for a belief in mother-right and
mother-power must rest on this foundation. It is left for the second
part of my book to prove how far I am right in what I claim.
PART II
THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION
"It's not too late to seek a newer world:
* * * * *
Tho' much is taken, much abides: and tho'
We are not now the strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts;
Made weak by time and rule, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
TENNYSON.