TRACES OF MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CIVILISATIONS
I propose in this chapter to examine, as fully as I can, the traces
that mother-right customs have left among some of the great races of
antiquity, as also in the early records of western civilisations. It
is the more necessary to do this because there is so marked a tendency
to minimise the importance of the mother-age, and to regard the
patriarchal family as primeval and universal. So much interesting
material is available, and so wide a field of inquiry must be covered,
that I shall be able to give a mere outline sketch, for the purpose of
suggesting, rather than proving, the widespread prevalence of the
communal clan and the maternal family.
As to whether this maternal-stage, with kinship and inheritance
passing through the mother, has everywhere preceded the second
patriarchal period, it is difficult to be at all certain. Dr.
Westermarck, Mr. Crawley and others have argued against this view. But
(as I have before had occasion to point out) their chief motive has
been to discredit the theory of promiscuity, with which
mother-descent has been so commonly, and so mistakenly, connected. It
does not seem to have been held as possible that the mother-age was a
much later development, whose social customs were made for the
regulation of the family relationships. A number of very primitive
races exhibit no traces, that have yet been discovered, of such a
system, and have descent in the male line. This has been thought to be
a further proof against a maternal stage. But here again is an error;
we are not entitled to regard mother-descent as necessarily the
primitive custom. I believe and have tried to show, from the examples
of the Australian tribes and elsewhere, that in many cases the stage
of the maternal clan has not been reached. If I am right here, we have
the way cleared from much confusion. I would suggest, as also
possible, that there may among some people, have been retrogressions,
customs and habits found out as beneficial, and perhaps for long
practised, have by some tribes been forgotten. There can be no hard
and fast rule of progress for any race. The whole subject is thorny
and obscure, and the evidence on the question is often contradictory.
Still I hold the claim I make is not without foundation. I have tried
to show how the causes which led to the maternal system were perfectly
simple and natural causes, arising out of needs that must have
operated universally in the past history of mankind. And this
indicates a maternal stage at some period for all branches of the
human family. Again the widespread prevalence of mother-right
survivals among races where the patriarchal system has been for long
firmly established lends support to such a view, which will be
strengthened by the evidence now to be brought forward. It will be
necessary to go step by step, from one race to another, and to many
different countries, and I would ask my readers not to shrink from the
trouble of following me.
Let us turn first to ancient Egypt, where women held a position more
free and more honourable than they have in any country to-day.
Herodotus, who was a keen observer, records his astonishment at this
freedom, and writes--
"They have established laws and customs opposite for the
most part to those of the rest of mankind.... With them
women go to market and traffic; men stay at home and
weave.... The men carry burdens on their heads; the women on
their shoulders.... The boys are never forced to maintain
their parents unless they wish to do so; the girls are
obliged to, even if they do not wish it."[180]
[180] Herodotus, Book II, p. 35.
From this last rule it is logical to infer that women inherited
property, as is to-day the case among the Beni-Amer of Africa,[181]
where daughters have to provide for their parents.
[181] Starcke, _The Primitive Family_, p. 67.
Diodorus goes further than Herodotus: he affirms that in the Egyptian
family it is the man who is subjected to the woman.
"All this explains why the queen receives more power and
respect than the king, and why, among private individuals,
the woman rules over the man, and that it is stipulated
between married couples, by the terms of the dowry-contract,
that the man shall obey the woman."[182]
[182] Diodorus, Book I, p. 27.
There is probably some exaggeration in this account, nevertheless, the
demotic deeds, in a measure, confirm it. By the law of maternal
inheritance, an Egyptian wife was often richer than her husband, and
enjoyed the dignity and freedom always involved by the possession of
property. More than three thousand three hundred years ago men and
women were recognised as equal in this land.
Under such privileges the wife was entirely preserved from any
subjection; she was able to dictate the terms of the marriage. She
held the right of making contracts without authorisation; she remained
absolute mistress of her dowry. The marriage-contract also specified
the sums that the husband was to pay to his wife, either as a nuptial
gift or annual pension, or as compensation in case of divorce. In some
cases the whole property of the husband was made over to the wife, and
when this was done, it was stipulated that she should provide for him
during his life, and discharge the expenses of his burial and tomb.
These unusual proprietary rights of the Egyptian wife can be explained
only as being traceable to an early period of mother-right. Without
proof of any absolutely precise text, we have an accumulation of facts
that render it probable that, at one time, descent was traced through
the mother. It is significant that the word _husband_ never occurs in
the marriage deeds before the reign of Philometor. This ruler (it
would appear in order to establish the position of the father in the
family) decreed that all transfers of property made by the wife should
henceforth be authorised by the husband. Up to this time public deeds
often mention only the mother, but King Philometor ordered the names
of contractors to be registered according to the paternal line.
Besides this, the hieroglyphic funeral inscriptions frequently bear
the name of the mother, without indicating that of the father.[183]
[183] For a fuller account of the position of women in Egypt,
see the chapter on this subject in _The Truth about Woman_,
pp. 179-201.
All these facts attest that women in Egypt enjoyed an exceptionally
favourable position. We may compare this position with that held by
the Touareg women of the Sahara, who, through the custom of maternal
inheritance, for long continued, have in their hands the strong power
of wealth, and thus exercise extraordinary authority, giving rise to
what I have called "a pecuniary matriarchy."
It is probable that in Egypt property was originally entirely in the
hands of women, as is usual under the matriarchal system. Later, a
tradition in favour of the old privileges would seem to have
persisted after descent was changed from the maternal to the paternal
line. The marriage-contracts may thus be regarded as enforcing by
agreement what would occur naturally under the maternal customs. The
husband's property was made over by deed to the wife (at first
entirely, and afterwards in part) to secure its inheritance by the
children of the marriage. It was in such wise way the Egyptians
arranged the difficult problem of the fusing of mother-right with
father-right.
In the very ancient civilisation of Babylon we find women in a
position of honour, with privileges similar in many ways to those they
enjoyed in Egypt. There are even indications that the earliest customs
may have gone beyond those of the Egyptians in exalting women. All the
available evidence points to the conclusion that at the opening of
Babylonian history women had complete independence and equal rights
with their husbands and brothers. It is significant that the most
archaic texts in the primitive language are remarkable for the
precedence given to the female sex in all formulas of address:
"Goddesses and gods;" "Women and men," are mentioned always in that
order; this is in itself a decisive indication of the high status of
women in this early period. And there are other traces all pointing to
the conclusion that in the civilisation of primitive Babylon
mother-right was still in active force. Later (as is shown by the Code
of Hammurabi) a woman's rights, though not her duties, were more
circumscribed; in the still later Neo-Babylonian periods, she again
acquired, through the favourable conditions with regard to property,
full liberty of action and equal rights with her husband.[184]
[184] H. Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI, p. 393.
Let us now turn our attention to the Græco-Roman civilisation. It is
convenient to take first a brief glance at Rome. I may note that the
family here would certainly appear to have developed from the
primitive clan, or _gens_. At the dawn of history the patriarchal
system was already firmly established, with individual property, and
an unusually strong subjection of woman to her father first and
afterwards to her husband. There are, however, numerous indications of
a prehistoric phase of communism. I can mention only the right of the
_gens_ to the heritage, and in certain cases the possession of an
_ager publicus_, which certainly bears witness in favour of an antique
community of property.[185] Can we, then, accept that there was once a
period of the maternal family, when descent and inheritance were
traced through the mother? Frazer[186] has brought forward facts which
point to the view that the Roman kingship was transmitted in the
female line; and, if this can be accepted, we may fairly conclude that
at one time the maternal customs were in force. The plebeian marriage
ceremonies of Rome should be noted. The funeral inscriptions in
Etruria in the Latin language make much greater insistence on the
maternal than the paternal descent; giving usually the name of the
mother alone, or indicating the father's name by a simple initial,
whilst that of the mother is written in full.[187] This is very
significant. Very little trustworthy evidence, however, is
forthcoming, and of the position of women in Rome in the earliest
periods we know little or nothing. And for this reason I shall refer
my readers to what I have written elsewhere[188] on this matter;
merely saying that there are indications and traditions pointing to
the view that here, as in so many great civilisations, women's actions
were once unfettered, and this, as I believe, can be explained only on
the hypothesis of the existence of a maternal stage, before the
establishment of the individual male authority under the patriarchal
system.
[185] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 335.
[186] _Golden Bough_, Part I. _The Magic Art_, Vol. II, pp.
270, 289, 312.
[187] Müller and Bachofen, cited by Giraud-Teulon, _op. cit._
pp. 283-284.
[188] _The Truth About Woman_, pp. 227-242.
The evidence with regard to prehistoric Greece is much more complete.
The Greek [Greek: genos] resembled the Roman _gens_. Its members had a
common sepulture, common property, the mutual obligation of the
_vendetta_ and archon.[189] In the prehistoric clans maternal descent
would seem to have been established. Plutarch relates that the Cretans
spoke of Crete as their motherland, and not fatherland. In primitive
Athens, the women had the right of voting, and their children bore
their name--privileges that were taken from them, says the legend, to
appease the wrath of Poseidon, after his inundation of the city,
owing to the quarrel with Athene. Tradition also relates that at
Athens, until the time of Cecrops, children bore the name of their
mother.[190] Among the Lycians, whose affinity to the Greeks was so
pronounced, a matriarchate prevailed down to the time of Herodotus.
Not the name only, but the inheritance and status of the children
depended on the mother. The Lycians "honoured women rather than men;"
they are represented "as being accustomed from of old to be ruled by
their women."[191]
[189] Grote, _History of Greece_, Vol. III, p. 95.
[190] Letourneau, _op. cit._ pp. 335-336.
[191] Herodotus, Book I, p. 172.
One of the most remarkable instances of a gynæcocratic people has only
now been fully discovered as having existed in ancient Crete. It seems
probable that women enjoyed greater powers than they had even in
Egypt. The new evidence that has come to light is certainly most
interesting; the facts are recorded by Mr. J. R. Hall in a recent
book, _Ancient History in the Far East_, and I am specially glad to
bring them forward. He affirms: "It may eventually appear that in
religious matters, perhaps even the government of the State itself as
well, were largely controlled by the women." From the seals we gather
a universal worship of a supreme female goddess, the Rhea of later
religions, who is accompanied sometimes by a youthful male deity.
Wherever we find this preponderating feminine principle in worship we
shall find also a corresponding feminine influence in the customs of
the people. We have seen this, for instance, among the Khasis, where
also goddesses are placed before gods. Mr. Hall further states: "It is
certain that they [the women in Crete] must have lived on a footing of
greater equality with men than in any other ancient civilisation." And
again: "We see in the frescoes of Knossos conclusive indications of an
open and free association of men and women, corresponding to our idea
of 'Society,' at the Minoan court, unparalleled till our own day." The
women are unveiled, and the costumes and setting are extraordinarily
modern. Mr. Hall draws attention to the curious fact that in
appearance the women are very similar to the men, so that often the
sexes can be distinguished only by the conventions of the artists,
representing the women in white, and the men in red outline; the same
convention that was used in Egypt. I may recall to the reader the
likeness of the men to the women among the North American Indians, and
the same similarity between the sexes occurs among the ancient
Egyptians.[192] It is perhaps impossible to search for an explanation.
I would, however, point out that in all these cases, where the sexes
appear to be more alike than is common, we find women in a position of
equality with men. This is really very remarkable; I think it is a
fact that demands more attention than as yet it has received.
[192] See pp. 129-131, also _The Truth about Woman_, pp.
199-201.
At one time there would seem to have been in prehistoric Greece a
period of fully established mother-right. Ancient Attic traditions are
filled with recollections of female supremacy. Women in the Homeric
legends hold a position and enjoy a freedom wholly at variance with a
patriarchal subjection. Not infrequently the husband owes to his wife
his rank and his wealth; always the wife possesses a dignified place
and much influence. Even the formal elevation of women to positions of
authority is not uncommon. "There is nothing," says Homer, "better and
nobler than when husband and wife, being of one mind, rule a
household. Penelope and Clytemnestra were left in charge of the realms
of their husbands during their absence in Troy; the beautiful Chloris
ruled as queen in Pylos. Arete, the beloved wife of Alcinous played an
important part as peacemaker in the kingdom of her husband."[193]
[193] Gladstone, _Homeric Studies_, Vol. II, p. 507.
Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 18-19.
If we turn to the evidence of the ancient mythology and art, it is
also clear that the number of female deities must be connected with
the early predominance of women in Greece. We have to remember that
"the gods" are shaped by human beings in their own image, and the
status of women on earth is reflected in the status of a goddess. Five
out of the eight divinities of immemorial Greek worship were female,
Hera, Demeter, Persephone, Athene and Aphrodite. In addition there
were numerous lesser goddesses. One must consider also that it was
not uncommon for cities to be named after women; and the Greek stories
seem to point to tribes with totem names. How can these things be
explained, unless we accept a maternal stage? There are numerous other
facts all indicating this same conclusion. We find relationships on
the mother's side regarded as much more close than those on the
father's side. In Athens and Sparta a man might marry his father's
sister, but not his mother's sister. Lycaon, in pleading with
Achilles, says in order to appease him, that he is not the uterine
brother of Hector. It is also noteworthy to find that the Thebans,
when pressed in war, seek assistance from the Æginetans as their
nearest kin, _recollecting that Thebe and Æginia had been sisters_. A
similar case is that of the Lycaones in Crete, who claimed affinity
with Athens and with Sparta, which affinity was traced through the
mother.[194]
[194] McLennan, "Kinship in Ancient Greece"; Essay in
_Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 195-246.
There is much evidence I am compelled to pass over. It must, however,
be noted that there seems clear proof of the maternal form of marriage
having at one time been practised. Plutarch mentions that the
relations between husband and wife in Sparta were at first
secret.[195] The story told by Pausanias about Ulysses' marriage
certainly points to the custom of the bridegroom going to live with
the wife's family.[196] In this connection the action of Intaphernes
is significant, who, when granted by Darius permission to claim the
life of a single man, chose her brother, saying that both husband and
children could be replaced.[197] Similarly the declaration of Antigone
that neither for husband nor children would she have performed the
toil she undertook for Polynices[198] clearly shows that the tie of
the common womb was held as closer than the tie of marriage; and this
points to the conditions of the communal clan.
[195] Plutarch, _Apophthegms of the Lacedæmonians_, LXV.
[196] Pausanias, III, 20 (10), (Frazer's translation).
[197] Herodotus, III, 119.
[198] Sophocles, _Antigone_, line 905 _et seq._
Andromache, when she relates to Hector how her father's house has been
destroyed, with all who are in it, turns to him and says: "But now,
Hector, thou art my father and gracious mother, thou art my brother,
nay, thou art my valiant husband."[199] It is easy, I think, to see in
this speech how the early idea of the relationships under mother-right
had been transferred to the husband, as the protector of the woman
conditioned by father-right. As in so many countries, the patriarchal
authority of the husband does not seem to have existed in Greece at
this early stage of development. It may, however, be said that all
this, though proving the high status of women in the prehistoric
period, does not establish the existence of the maternal family. I
would ask: how, then, are these mother-right customs to be explained?
In the later history of Greece, with the family based on patriarchal
authority, all this was changed. We find women occupying a much less
favourable position, their rights and freedom more and more
restricted. In Sparta alone, where the old customs for long were
preserved, did the women retain anything of their old dignity and
influence. The Athenian wives, under the authority of their husbands,
sank almost to the level of slaves.[200]
[199] _Iliad_, VI, 429-430.
[200] _The Truth about Woman_, pp. 210-227.
The patriarchal system is connected closely in our thought with the
Hebrew family, where the father, who is chief, holds grouped under his
despotic sway his wives, their children, and slaves. Yet this Semitic
patriarch has not existed from the beginning; numerous survivals of
mother-right customs afford proof that the Hebrew race must have
passed through a maternal stage. These survivals have a special
interest, as we are all familiar with them in Bible history, but we
have not understood their significance. It is possible to give a few
illustrations only. In the history of Jacob's service for his wives,
we have clear proof of the maternal custom of _beenah_ marriage. As a
suitor Jacob had to buy his position as husband and to serve Laban for
seven years before he was permitted to marry Leah, and seven years for
Rachel, while six further years of service were claimed before he was
allowed the possession of his cattle.[201] Afterwards, when he wished
to depart with his wives and his children, Laban made the objection,
"these daughters are my daughters, and these children are my
children."[202] Now, according to the patriarchal custom, Laban's
daughters should have been cut off from their father by marriage, and
become of the kindred of their husbands. Such a claim on the part of
the father proves the subordinate position held by the husband in the
wife's family, who retained control over her and the children of the
marriage, and even over the personal property of the man, as was usual
under the later matriarchal custom. Even when the marriage is not in
the maternal form, and the wife goes to the husband's home, we find
compensation has to be paid to her kindred. Thus when Abraham sought a
wife for Isaac, presents were taken by the messenger to induce the
bride to leave her home; and these presents were given not to the
father of the bride, but to her mother and brother.[203] This is the
early form of purchase marriage, such bridal-gifts being the
forerunners of the payment of a fixed bride-price. We still find
purchase marriage practised side by side with _beenah_ marriage in the
countries where the transitional stage has been reached and
mother-right contends with father-right. But there is stronger
evidence even than these two cases. The injunction in Gen. ii, 24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife," refers without any doubt to the early form of
marriage under mother-right, when the husband left his own kindred and
went to live with his wife and among her people. We find Samson
visiting his Philistine wife who remained with her own people.[204]
Even the obligation to blood vengeance rested apparently on the
maternal kinsmen (Judges viii, 19). The Hebrew father did not inherit
from the son, nor the grandfather from the grandson, which points back
to a time when the children did not belong to the clan of the
father.[205] Among the Hebrews individual property was instituted at a
very early period,[206] but various customs show clearly the early
existence of communal clans. Thus the inheritance, especially the
paternal inheritance, must remain in the clan "then shall their
inheritance be added unto the inheritance of the tribe." Marriage in
the tribe is obligatory for daughters. "Let them marry to whom they
think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they
marry. So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from
tribe to tribe."[207] We have here an indication of the close relation
between father-right and property.
[201] Gen. xxx, 18-30; xxxi, 14, 41.
[202] Gen. xxxi, 43.
[203] Gen. xxiv, 5, 53.
[204] Judges xv, 1.
[205] Numb., xxxii, 8-11. See Letourneau, _Evolution of
Marriage_, p. 326.
[206] Gen. xxiii, 13.
[207] Numb. xxxvi, 4-8.
Under mother-right there is naturally no prohibition against marriage
with a half-sister upon the father's side. This explains the marriage
of Abraham with Sarah, his half-sister by the same father. When
reproached for having passed his wife off as his sister to the King of
Egypt, the patriarch replies: "For indeed she is my sister; she is the
daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she
became my wife."[208] In the same way Tamar could have married her
half-brother Amnon, though they were both the children of David:
"Speak to the King, for he will not withhold me from thee." And it was
her uterine brother, Absalom, who revenged the rape of Tamar by
slaying; afterwards he fled to the kindred of his mother.[209] Again,
the father of Moses and Aaron married his father's sister, who legally
was not considered to be related to him.[210] Nabor, the brother of
Abraham, took to wife his fraternal niece, the daughter of his
brother.[211] It was only later that paternal kinship became legally
recognised among the Hebrews by the same titles as the natural kinship
through the mother.
[208] Gen. xii, 10-20.
[209] 2 Sam. xiii, 13-16 and 37.
[210] Exod. vi, 20.
[211] Gen. xi. 26-29.
It is by considering these survivals of mother-right in connection
with similar customs to be found among existing maternal peoples that
we see their true significance. They warrant us in believing that the
patriarchal family, as we know it among the Hebrews and elsewhere, was
a later stage of an evolution, which had for its starting-point the
communal clan, and that these races have passed through the maternal
phase. We come to understand the change in the privileged position of
women. As the husband and father continued to gain in power, with the
reassertion of individual interests, it was inevitable that the mother
should lose the authority she had held, under the free social
organisation of the undivided clan.
Traces of a similar evolution of the family may, I am convinced, be
found by all who will undertake an inquiry for themselves. The subject
is one of great interest. So far as my own study goes, I believe that
these survivals of the maternal-group customs may be discovered in the
early history of every people, where the necessary material for such
knowledge is available. I wish it were possible for me even to
summarise all the evidence, direct and inferential, that I have
collected for my own satisfaction. I must reluctantly pass over many
countries I would like to include; some of these--China, Japan, Burma
and Madagascar--have been noticed briefly in _The Truth about
Woman_.[212] There is surprising similarity between the facts; and,
the more of such survivals that can be found, the more the evidence
seems to grow in favour of the acceptance of a universal maternal
stage in the evolution of society.
[212] See pp. 156-161.
I must now, before closing this chapter (whose accumulation of facts
may, I fear, have wearied my readers), refer briefly to the races of
barbarous Europe. The point of interest is, of course--how far
mother-right may be accepted, as at one period, having existed. The
earliest direct evidence is the account given by Strabo of the
Iberians of ancient Spain. And first it is important to note that the
Iberians belonged to the Berber race, now widely regarded as the
parent of the chief and largest element in the population of Europe.
There is another fact that must be noted. The general characteristic
of the Berber family seems to have been the privileged position they
accorded to their women, privileges so great that we meet with strong
tendencies towards the matriarchate. This last is still in force among
the Touaregs of the Sahara; and there are as well numerous traces of
its former existence among the neighbouring Kabyles, though there the
most rigorous patriarchate has replaced the maternal family.[213] We
have seen, too, that in ancient Egypt, where the Berbers were largely
represented, women enjoyed a position of extraordinary freedom and
authority.
[213] Letourneau, _op. cit._ 328.
Bearing this in mind, we may accept the statement of Strabo: "Among
the Cantabrians usage requires that the husband shall bring a dower to
his wife, and the daughters inherit, being charged with the marriage
of their brothers, which constitutes a kind of gynæcocracy." There is
possibly some exaggeration in the term gynæcocracy; yet if there is no
proof of "rule by women," there can be no doubt that, through the
system of female inheritance, property was held by them, and this must
certainly have given them the power always involved by the possession
of wealth.
The freedom of the women of ancient Spain is sufficiently indicated by
the fact that they took part in the activities usually considered as
belonging to men. It was these women who played their part in driving
back the Roman legions from the mountainous districts of northern
Spain; we read of them fighting side by side with men, where they used
their weapons with courage and determination. They received their
wounds with silent fortitude, and no cry of pain ever escaped their
lips, even when the wounds which laid them low were mortal. To women
as well as men liberty was a possession more valued than life, and,
when taken prisoners, they fell upon their own swords, and dashed
their little ones to death rather than suffer them to live to be
slaves. Nor were the activities of women confined to warfare. Justin
speaks of women as not only having the care of all domestic matters,
but also cultivating the fields. And Strabo, writing of these Amazons,
tells us that they would often step aside out of the furrows "to be
brought to bed," and then, having borne a child, would return to their
work "just as if they had only laid an egg." He notes, too, as being
practised among them the _couvade_, whereby the husband, in assertion
of his legal fatherhood, retired to bed when a child was born.[214]
[214] See in this connection my book, _Spain Revisited_, pp.
291-304.
Spain is a land that I know well, and for this reason I have chosen to
write of it in fuller detail. Persistent relics of the early maternal
period even yet may be traced in the customs of this strongly
conservative people. Women are held in honour. There is a proverb
common all over Spain to the effect that "he who is unfortunate and
needs assistance should seek his mother." Many primitive customs
survive, and one of the most interesting is that by which the eldest
daughter in some cases takes precedence over the sons in inheritance.
Among the Basques, until quite recently, the administration of the
family property passed to the eldest child, whether a boy or a girl;
and in the case of a daughter, her husband was obliged to take the
name of the family and to live in the wife's home. Spanish women
always retain their own names after marriage, and as far back as the
fourth century we find them at the Synod of Elvira resisting an
attempt to limit this freedom. The practice is still common for
children to use the name of the mother coupled with that of the
father, and even, in some cases, alone, showing a quite unusual
absence of preference for paternal descent. This is very significant.
It explains the recognition given in old Spain to the unmarried
mother; even to-day in no country, that I know, does less social
stigma fall on a child born out of wedlock. The profound Spanish
veneration of the Virgin Mary, as well as the number of female saints,
is another indication of the honour paid to women, which must, I am
certain, be connected with a far back time when goddesses were
worshipped. I would note, too, the fine Spanish understanding of
hospitality. This belongs to the ideals of communal life. I know
nothing to equal it in the common habits of other European countries.
It may be compared with the conditions in the joint-family communities
of the American Indians.[215]
[215] See pp. 107-109.
Much more might be said on the position of the Spanish women. I have,
however, written elsewhere of these women,[216] of their intelligence,
and strength, and beauty, and of the active part they take still in
the industrial life of the country. There can be no question that some
features of the maternal customs have left their imprint on the
domestic life of Spain, and this, as I believe, explains how women
here have in certain directions, preserved a freedom of action and
privileges, which even in England have never been established, and
only of late claimed.
[216] _Spain Revisited; Things Seen in Spain; Moorish
Cities._
As we may expect, there is less direct evidence of mother-right in the
other European countries than is the case in conservative Spain.
Dargun, who has written much on this subject,[217] believes that
maternal descent was formerly practised among the Germans. He holds
further "that the ancient Aryans at the time of their dispersion
regarded kinship through the mother as the sole, or chief, basis of
blood-kinship, and all their family rights were governed by this
principle." There is much conflict of opinion on this matter, and it
would, perhaps, be rash to make any definite statement. We may recall
what Tacitus says of the Germans:
[217] _Mutterrecht und Raubehe und ihre Reste im Germanischen
Recht und Leben_, Vol. XVI, quoted by Starcke, _The Primitive
Family_, pp. 103 _et seq._
"The son of a sister is as dear to his uncle as to his father; some
even think that the first of these ties is the most sacred and close;
and in taking hostages they prefer nephews, as inspiring a stronger
attachment, and interesting the family on more sides." The same
authority tells us that the Germans of his day met together to take a
clan meal, to settle clan business, _i. e._ for the clan council--and
to arrange marriages. This is strong confirmation of what I am trying
to establish.[218] Further evidence may be gathered from the ancient
religion. There are many Teutonic goddesses, who may well be connected
with the primitive tribal-mothers.[219] Religion here, as so often
elsewhere, would seem to have been symbolised as feminine. Not only
the seers, but the sacrificers among the early Teutons were
women.[220] To this evidence may be added that in Germany up to a late
period the mother could be the guardian of her children; that a wife
had to be bought by the husband, both she and her children remaining
under the guardianship of her father. All this points to mother-right
and the existence of the maternal clan.[221] Let us note also that in
the Slav communities women had the right to vote, and might be elected
to the government of the community.
[218] _De moribus Germanorum_, XX. See also K. Pearson, _The
Chances of Death_, Vol. II, p. 132.
[219] Grimm, _Mythologie_, Vol. I, p. 248.
[220] K. Pearson, _The Chances of Death_, Vol. II, p. 102.
[221] Starcke, _op. cit._ p. 105, citing Dargun and Grimm.
See also Letourneau, _op. cit._ pp. 339-340.
It will interest my readers to know that mother-descent must once
have prevailed in Britain. Among the Picts of Scotland kingship was
transmitted through women.[222] Bede tells us that down to his own
time--the early part of the eighth century--whenever a doubt arose as
to the succession, the Picts chose their king from the female rather
than from the male line.[223] There is an ancient legend which
represents the Irish as giving three hundred wives to the Picts, on
the condition that the succession to the crown should always be
through their females--
"There were oathes imposed on them,
By the stars, by the earth,
That from the nobility of the mother
Should always be the right to the sovereignty."[224]
[222] Giraud-Teulon, _op. cit._ pp. 41-42.
[223] Bede, II. 1-7.
[224] McLennan, _Studies_, p. 46.
Similar traces are found in England: Canute, the Dane, when
acknowledged King of England, married Emma, the widow of his
predecessor, Ethelred. Ethelbald, King of Kent, married his
stepmother, after the death of his father Ethelbert; and, as late as
the ninth century, Ethelbald, King of the West Saxons, wedded Judith,
the widow of his father. Such marriages are intelligible only if we
suppose that the queen had the power of conferring the kingdom upon
her consort, which could only happen where maternal descent was, or
had been, practised. These marriages with the widow of a king were at
one time very common. The familiar example of Hamlet's uncle is one,
who, after murdering his brother, married his wife and became king.
His acceptance by the people, in spite of his crime, is explained if
it was the old Danish custom for marriage with the king's widow to
carry the kingdom with it. In Hamlet's position as avenger, and his
curious hesitancy, we have really an indication of the conflict
between the old and the new ways of descent.[225]
[225] See Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Part I. _The Magic Art_,
Vol. II, 282-283.
The Celtic population of Britain preserved the institution of the clan
much longer than the other European races. In Wales and in Ireland, in
particular, communism was strongly established. The clan was
responsible for the crimes of its members, paid the fines, and
received the compensations.[226] There are numerous indications of
mother-right. In Ireland women retained a very high position and much
freedom, both before and after marriage, to a late period: temporary
unions were freely allowed, and customs having the force of law
safeguarded the rights of the wife. "Every woman," it was said, "is to
go the way she willeth freely."[227]
[226] Letourneau, _op. cit._ p. 338. Maine, _Early
Institutions_, pp. 113 _et seq._
[227] Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, _The Welsh People_.
The early Celtic mythologies and folk-records are full of these
survivals. Goddesses are frequent as primeval tribal-mothers. Let me
give one instance. The Irish goddess Brigit (whose attributes at a
later date were transferred to St. Bridget) is referred to in a
ninth-century glossary as--_operum atque artificiorum initia_. She was
the tribal-mother of the Bringantes. Similarly Vote was tribal-mother
of the Burgundians; and the goddess Bil of the Billings, and there are
numerous other cases. In a recent book on _Ulster Folk-lore_,[228] I
have been fortunate enough to find a most interesting passage
referring to the Irish goddess Brigit. I quote it with pleasure as a
fitting ending to this chapter.[229]
"Now, St. Bridget had a pagan predecessor, Brigit, a poetess
of the Tuatha de Danann, and whom we may perhaps regard as a
female Apollo. Cormac in his _Glossary_ tells us she was a
daughter of the Dagda and a goddess whom all poets adored,
and whose sisters were Brigit the physician and Brigit the
smith. Probably the three sisters represent the same divine,
or semi-divine, person whom we may identify with the British
goddess Brigantia and the Gaulish Brigindo."
[228] By E. Andrews, p. 18.
[229] I would refer the reader to a most interesting article
on "Old English Clans" (_Cornhill_, Sept. 1881); this I had
not read when I wrote this chapter. The author holds that the
clan system was once common to the whole Aryan race. In the
Teutonic stock its memory died out in an early stage of
development, owing to the strong individuality of the
Teutonic mind. Yet it has left behind it many traces.
Numerous examples are given. Perhaps the most interesting is
the evidence showing that totemism seems to have existed; the
clan names being taken from animals or plants.