CONCLUDING REMARKS
My investigation of the mother-age might fitly have terminated with
the preceding chapter; but the immense interest which attaches to the
subject, and the amount of misconception which prevails regarding the
origin and conditions of the maternal family, as well as my own
special views upon it, induce me to devote a brief final chapter to a
few observations that to me seem to be important.
In my little book (which must be regarded rather as a sketch or design
than as a finished work) an attempt has been made to approach the
problem of the primitive family from a new and decisive standpoint. I
am well aware that in certain directions I have crossed the threshold
only of the subjects treated. I hope that at least I have opened up
suggestions of many questions on which I could not dwell at length.
All this may bring the hesitation that leads to further inquiry. And I
believe that those of my readers who will follow out an investigation
for themselves in any direction--either in the collecting of maternal
customs among existing primitive peoples, or in noting the relics of
such customs to be met with in historical records and in folk-lore,
will find an ever increasing store of evidence, and that then the
discredited mother-age, with its mother-right customs, will become for
them what it is for me, a necessary and accepted stage in the
evolution of human societies.
Many of the conclusions to which I have come are so completely opposed
to those which generally have been accepted as correct, that now, I am
at the end of my inquiry it will be well to sum up briefly its result.
The facts I have so rapidly enumerated have a very wide bearing; they
serve to destroy the accepted foundations on which the claim for
mother-right has hitherto been based. The first stage of the family
was patriarchal. All the evidence we possess tends to show that
tracing descent through the mother was not the primitive custom.
Throughout my aim has been to bring into uniformity the opposing
theories of the primeval patriarchate and the maternal family. The
current view, so often asserted, and manifestly inspired by a
Puritanical ideal, insists that mother-descent arose through uncertain
fatherhood, and was connected with an early period of promiscuous
relationships between the two sexes. This view has been proved to be
entirely wrong. The system of maternal descent was a system framed for
order, and had in its origin, at least, no connection with sexual
disorder. Further than this, it is certain that marriage in some form
has always existed, and that the sexual relationships have never been
unregulated. We must renounce any theory of primitive promiscuity.
And there is more than this to be said. Such freedom in love and in
marriage as we do find in barbarous societies is so strong a proof of
friendly feeling and security that it is certain it could not have
existed in the first stage of the jealous patriarchate; rather it must
have developed at a subsequent period with the growth of the
social-tribal spirit, and the liberty of women from the thrall of
sexual ownership. In these particulars my opinion differs from all
other writers who have sought to establish a theory of matriarchy. I
venture to claim that the position of the mother-age has been
strengthened, and, as I hope, built up on surer foundations.
Let us cast a brief glance backward over the way that we have
travelled.
Our most primitive ancestors, half-men, half-brutes, lived in small,
solitary and hostile family groups, held together by a common
subjection to the strongest male, who was the father and the owner of
all the women, and their children. There was no promiscuity, for there
could be no possible union in peace. Here was the most primitive form
of jealous ownership by the male, as he killed or drove off his
rivals; his fights were the brutal precursors of all sexual
restrictions for women. These customs of brute ownership are still in
great measure preserved among the least developed races. This explains
how there are many rude peoples that exhibit no traces at all of the
system of mother-descent. In the lowest nomad bands of savages of the
deserts and forests we find still these rough paternal groups, who
know no social bonds, but are ruled alone by brute strength and
jealous ownership. With them development has been very slow; they have
not yet advanced to the social organisation of the maternal clan.
From these first solitary families, grouped submissively around one
tyrant-ruler, we reach a second stage out of which order and
organisation sprang. In this second stage the family expanded into the
larger group of the communal clan. The upward direction of this
transformation is evident; the change was from the most selfish
individualism to a communism more or less complete--from the
primordial patriarchate to a free social organisation, all the members
of which are bound together by a strict solidarity of interests. The
progress was necessarily slow from the beginning to this first phase
of social life. Yet the change came. With the fierce struggle for
existence, association was the only possible way, not only to further
progress, but to prevent extermination.
It has been shown that the earliest movements towards peace came
through the influence of the women, for it was in their interest to
consolidate the family, and, by means of union, to establish their own
power. Collective motives were more considered by women, not at all
because of any higher standard of feminine moral virtue, but because
of the peculiar advantages arising to themselves and to their
children--advantages of freedom which could not exist in a society
inspired by individual inclination. And for this reason the clan
system may be considered as a feminine creation, which had special
relation to motherhood. Under this influence, the marital rights of
the male members were restricted and confined. A system of taboos was
established, which as time advanced was greatly strengthened by the
sacred totem marks, and became of inexorable strictness. In this way
association between the jealous fighting males was made possible.
Here, then, are the reasons that led to the formation of the maternal
family and the communal clan. It was a movement that had nothing about
it that was exceptional; it was a perfectly natural arrangement--the
practical outgrowth of the practical needs of primitive peoples. The
strong and certain claim for the acceptance for the mother-age, with
its privileged position for women, rests on this foundation.
Let us be quite clear as to the real question involved, for it is a
crucial one. I refer to the complete disturbance arising through this
change in the family organisation in the relationships between the two
sexes. A wife was no longer the husband's property. Her position was
unchanged by marriage, for her rights were safeguarded by her kindred,
whose own interests could be protected only through her freedom.
If we turn next to the status of men--of the husband and father--in
the maternal kindred group, we find their power and influence at first
gradually, and then rapidly, decreasing. It was under these conditions
of family communism that the rights of the husband and father were
restricted on every side. Not only does he not stand out as a
principal person from the background of the familial clan; he has not
even any recognised social existence in the family group. This
restriction of the husband and father was clearly dependent on the
form of marriage. We have seen that the individual relationships
between the sexes began with the reception of temporary lovers by the
woman in her own home. But a relationship thus formed would tend under
favourable circumstances to be continued, and, in some cases,
perpetuated. The lover became the husband; he left the home of his
mother to reside with his wife among her kin; he was still without
property or any recognised rights in her clan, with no--or very
little--control over the woman and none over her children, occupying,
indeed, the position of a more or less permanent guest in her hut or
tent. The wife's position and that of her children was assured, and in
the case of a separation it was the man who departed, leaving her in
possession.
Under such an organisation the family and social customs were in most
cases--and always, I believe, in their complete maternal
form--favourable to women. Kinship was reckoned through the mother,
since in this way alone could the undivided family be maintained. The
continuity of the clan thus depending on the women, they were placed
in a very special position of importance, the mother was at least the
nominal head of the household, shaping the destiny of the clan through
the aid of her clan-kindred. Her closest male relation was not her
husband, but her brother and her son; she was the conduit by which
property passed to and from them. Often women established their own
claims and all property was held by them; which under favourable
circumstances developed into what may literally be called a
matriarchate. In all cases the child's position was dependent entirely
on the mother and not on the father. Such a system of inheritance may
be briefly summarised as "mother-right."
There is another matter to notice. Every possible experiment in sexual
association has been tried, and is still practised among various
barbarous races, with very little reference to those moral ideas to
which we are accustomed. It is, however, very necessary to remember
that monogamy is frequent and indeed usual under the maternal system.
We have seen many examples where, with complete freedom of separation
held by the wife, lasting and most happy marriages are the rule. When
the husband lives with his wife in a dependent position to her family
he can do so only in the case of one woman. For this reason polygamy
is much less deeply rooted under the conditions in which the communal
life is developed than in patriarchal communities. In the complete
maternal family it is never common, and is even prohibited.[247]
[247] It is significant that in Sumatra polygamy occurs with
the _djudur_ marriages, where the wife is bought and lives
with her husband, while it is unknown in the maternal
marriages. It is frequent in Africa and elsewhere, when the
marriage is not the maternal form.
As we might expect, the case is quite opposite with polyandry. This
form of marriage has evident advantages for women when compared with
polygamy; it is also a form that requires a certain degree of social
civilisation. It clearly involves the limitation of the individual
marital rights of the husband. Polyandry in the joint family group was
not due to a licentious view of marriage; far otherwise, it was an
expression of the communism which is characteristic of this
organisation. This fact has been forgotten by many writers, who have
regarded this form of the sexual relationships as a very primitive
development, connected with group-marriage and promiscuous ownership
of women. It is very necessary to be clear on this point. Under the
maternal conditions, nothing is more certain than the equality of
women with men in all questions of sexual morality. In proof of this
it is necessary only to recall the facts we have noted. We find little
or no importance attached to virginity, which in itself indicates the
absence of any conception of the woman as property. Thus no
bride-price is claimed from the husband, who renders service in proof
of his fitness as a lover, not to gain possession of the bride. The
girl is frequently the wooer, and, in certain cases, she or her mother
imposes the conditions of the marriage. After marriage the free
provision for divorce (often more favourable to the wife than to the
husband) is perhaps of even greater significance. There can, I think,
be no doubt that this freedom in love was dependent on the wife's
position of security under the maternal form of marriage.
I hold that the facts brought forward entitle us to claim that the
maternal communal clan was an organisation in which there was a freer
community of interest, far more fellowship in labour and partnership
in property, with a resulting liberty for woman, than we find in any
patriarchal society. For this reason, shall we, then, look back to
this maternal stage as to a golden period, wherein was realised a free
social organisation, carrying with it privileges for women, which even
to-day among ourselves have never been established, and only of late
claimed? It is a question very difficult to answer, and we must not in
any haste rush into mistakes. We found that the mother-age was a
transitional stage in the history of the evolution of society, and we
have indicated the stages of its gradual decline. It is thus proved to
have been a less stable social system than the patriarchate which
again succeeded it, or it would not have perished in the struggle with
it. Must we conclude from this that the one form of the family is
higher than the other--that the superior advantage rests with the
patriarchal system? Not at all: rather it proves how difficult is the
struggle to socialise. Human nature tends so readily towards
individualism; it yields itself up to the joy of possession whenever
it is possible.
The impulse to dominate by virtue of strength or property possession
has manifested itself in every age. It cannot be a matter of surprise,
therefore, that at this period of social development a rebellion arose
against the customs of maternal communism. Within the large and
undivided family of the clan the restricted family became gradually
re-established by a reassertion of individual interests. In proportion
as the family gained in importance (which would arise as the struggle
for existence lessened and the need of association was less
imperative) the interest of the individual members would become
separated from the group to which they belonged. Each one would
endeavour to get himself as large a share as possible of what was
formerly held in common. As society advanced property would increase
in value, and the social and political significance of its possession
would also increase. Afterwards, when personal property was acquired,
each man would aim at gaining a more exclusive right over his wife and
children; he would not willingly submit to the bondage of the maternal
form of marriage.
In the earlier days the clan spirit was too strong, now men had shaken
off, to a degree sufficient for their purpose, the female yoke, which
bound the clan together. We have seen the husband and father moving
towards the position of a fully acknowledged legal parent by a system
of buying off his wife and her children from their clan-group. The
movement arose in the first instance through a property value being
connected with women themselves. As soon as the women's kindred found
in their women the possibility of gaining worldly goods for
themselves, they began to claim service and presents from their
lovers. It was in this way for economic reasons, and for no moral
considerations that the maternal marriage fell into disfavour. The
payment of a bride-price was claimed, and an act of purchase was
accounted essential. As we have seen, it was regarded as a condition,
not so much of the marriage itself, but of the transference of the
wife to the home of the husband and of the children to his kindred.
The change was, of course, effected slowly; and often we find the two
forms of marriage--the maternal and the purchase-marriage--occurring
side by side. What, however, is certain is that the purchase-marriage
in the struggle was the one that prevailed.
This reversal in the form of the marriage brought about a
corresponding reversal in the status of women. This is so plain. The
women of the family do not now inherit property, but are themselves
property, passing from the hands of their father to that of a husband.
As purchased wives they are compelled to reside in the husband's house
and among his kin, who have no rights or duties in regard to them, and
where they are strangers. In a word, the wife occupies the same
position of disadvantage as the man had done in the maternal marriage.
And her children kept her bound to this alien home in a much closer
way than the husband could ever have been bound to her home. The
protection of her own kindred was the source of the woman's power and
strength. This was now lost. The change was not brought about without
a struggle, and for long the old customs contended with the new. But
as the patriarchate developed, and men began to gain individual
possession of their children by the purchase of their mothers, the
father became the dominant power in the family. Little by little
individual interests prevailed. Moral limits were set up. Women's
freedom was threatened on every side as the jealous ownership, which
always arises wherever women are regarded as property, asserted
itself. Mother-right passed away, remaining only as a tradition, or
preserved in isolated cases among primitive peoples. The patriarchal
age, which still endures, succeeded.
Yet in this connection it is very necessary to remember that the
reassertion of the patriarchate was as necessary a stage in human
development as the maternal stage. Whatever may have been the
advantages arising to women from the clan organisation (and that the
advantages were great I claim to have proved) such conditions could
not remain fixed for ever. For society is not stable; it cannot be, as
the need for adjustment is always arising, and at certain stages of
development different tendencies are active. No one cause can be
isolated, and, therefore, it is necessary in estimating any change to
take a synthetic view of many facts that are contemporaneous and
interacting. Yet, it would seem that the social and domestic habits of
a people are decided largely by the degree of dominance held either by
women or men; and almost everything else depends on the accurate
adjustment of the rights of the two sexes.
The social clan organised around the mothers carried mankind a long
way--a way the length of which we are only beginning to realise. But
it could not carry mankind to that family organisation from which so
much was afterwards to develop. It was no more possible for society to
be built up on mother-right alone than it is possible for it to remain
permanently based on father-right.
But there is another aspect of this question that I must briefly touch
upon. The opinion that the reversal in the position of authority of
the mother and the father arose from male mastery, or was due to any
unfair domination on the part of the husband must be set aside. To me
the history of the mother-age does not teach this. I believe that the
change to the individual family must have been regarded favourably by
the women themselves, for such a change could not have arisen, at all
events it would not have persisted, if women, with the power they then
enjoyed, had not desired it. Nor need this bring any surprise. An
arrangement that would give a closer relationship in marriage and the
protection of a husband for herself and her children may well have
come to be preferred by the wife. Nor do I think it unlikely that she,
quite as strongly as the man, may have desired to live apart from her
mother and her kindred in her husband's home. Individual interests are
not confined to men.
With all the evils father-right has brought to women, we have got to
remember that the woman owes the individual relation of the man to
herself and her children to the patriarchal system. The father's
right in his children (which, unlike the right of the mother, was not
founded upon kinship, but rested on the quite different and insecure
basis of property) had to be re-established. Without this being done,
the family in its complete development was impossible. The survival
value of the patriarchal age consists in the additional gain to the
children of the father's to the mother's care. I do not think this
gain will ever be lost. We women need to remember this lest bitterness
stains our sense of justice. It may be that progress could not have
been accomplished otherwise; that the cost of love's development has
been the enslavement of women. If so, then women will not, in the long
account of Nature, have lost in the payment of the price. They may be
(when they come again to understand their power) better fitted for
their refound freedom.
Such is the history of the past, what is the promise of the future?
We have traced three stages in the past evolution of the family--two
individual and patriarchal, one communal and maternal. Is the
patriarchal stage, then, the final stage? Has the upward growth, ever
yet continuous, been arrested here? The social ideal of the mother-age
was a transition and a dream--but as a moment of peace in the records
of struggle, following the bloody opening drama in man's history, and
then passing into a forgetfulness so complete that its existence by
many has been denied. Yet the feet of the race were in the way,
though men and women let it pass, blindly unknowing.
Our age is working for scarcely yet formulated changes in the
ownership of property and in the status of women. The patriarchal view
of woman's subjection to man is being questioned in every direction.
What do these movements indicate? If, as seems probable, the
individual evolution, already for so long continued, is perishing,
what is to take its place? What form will the family take in the
future? These are questions to which it is not possible for me here
even to attempt to find the answer.[248]
[248] I hope to do so in a future book on _Motherhood_.
Let us look for a moment in this new direction, the direction of the
future, because it is there that the past becomes so important. In our
contemporary society there is a deep-lying dissatisfaction with
existing conditions, a yearning and restless need for change. We stand
in the first rush of a great movement. It is the day of experiments,
when again the old customs are in struggle with the new. We are
questioning where before we have accepted, and are seeking out new
ways in which mankind will go--will go because it must.
Social institutions alter very slowly as a rule; for long a change may
pass unnoticed, until one day it is discovered that a step forward has
been taken. Those changes that appear so new and are bringing fear to
many to-day, are but the last consequences of causes that for long
have been operating slowly. The extraordinary enthusiasm now sweeping
through womanhood reveals behind its immediate feverish expression a
great power of emotional and spiritual initiative. Wide and radically
sweeping are the changes in women's outlook. So much stronger is the
promise of a vital force when they have refound their emancipation. To
this end women must gain economic security, and the freedom for the
full expression of their womanhood. The ultimate goal I conceive--at
least I hope--is the right to be women, not the right to become like
men. There can be no gain for women except this. To be mothers were
women created and to be fathers men. This rightly considered is the
deepest of all truths.
What is needed at present is that women should be allowed to
rediscover for themselves what is their woman's work, rather than that
they should continue to accept perforce the rôle which men (rightly or
wrongly) have at various times allowed to them throughout the
patriarchal ages. This necessity is as much a necessity for men as it
is for women.
I do not think that women will fail (even if for a time they stumble a
little) in finding the way. The vital germinal spot of each forward
step in women's position must be sought with the women who are the
conscious mothers of the race. The great women reformers are not those
who would have women act just like men in all externals, but those who
are conscious that all men are born of women. In this lies women's
strength in the past and in this must be their strength in that glad
future that is to be. But only if motherhood is regarded as an
intrinsic glory, and children are born in freedom. Think what this
means. The birth of a child, in so far as its mother has not received
the sanction of a man, is subject to the fire and brimstone of public
scorn. And this scorn is the most pitiful result in all the
patriarchal record. A woman's natural right is her right to be a
mother, and it is the most inglorious page in the history of woman
that too often she has allowed herself to be deprived of that right.
Women have this lesson first to learn. We, and not men, must fix the
standard in sex, for we have to play the chief part in the racial
life. Let us, then, reacquire our proud instinctive consciousness,
which we are fully justified in having, of being the mothers of
humanity; and having that consciousness, once more we shall be
invincible.
INDEX
A
Absorption by the male of female ideas, 75
Advance of the family to the clan and tribe, 36, 67-91, 170, 256 _et seq._
Africa, 174-176, 204-205
Agriculture and women, 60 _et seq._, 116, 158, 194-208
Ahitas of Philippines, 152
Alladians of Gold Coast, 185
Allison, Mrs., 198
Amazons, 34, 36, 38, 228, 245-246
Amazons, revolt of, 31, 32, 36, 38
_Ambel-anak_ marriage, 147, 182
American aborigines, 27, 95-131, 148, 198, 206
Andamanese, women's work among, 197
Andombies, women's work among, 201
Apes, anthropoid, 72, 80, 81
Arabia, 178, 206
Arabs, 179-180, 189
Architects, women as primitive, 117, 203
Arruwimi tribe, 201
Aryans, mother-descent among, 230 _et seq._
Athens, 216, 220
Atkinson, Mr., 24, 47, 51, 52, 56, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86
Australia, 102, 167-170, 178
Australia, work of women in, 197, 200, 210
B
Babylon, position of women in ancient, 214-215
Bacchanalian festivals, 38, 241, 243
Bachofen, 26 _et seq._, 40, 97, 154, 165, 216, 240, 245
Bachofen's theory of matriarchy, 26-44
Bancroft, 116, 119, 124, 125, 184
Bandelier, 207
Banyai tribe, 183
Barton, 178
Basques, 229
Batu tribe, 175
Bavili tribe, 185
_Beena_ marriage, 178, 182, 183, 223, 248
Benefits of marriage law for women, 32
Beni-Amer of Africa, 211
Berbers, 222-227
Bonwick, 195
Brewers, women as, 203
Bride-price, 159, 184, 190, 260, 263
Brute-force of male, 44.
_See_ Father as tyrant.
Buckley, 197, 198
C
Californian Redskins, 124
Campbell, 183
Capture of wives, 51, 64, 74, 80, 83, 169, 181
Celts, 233, 234
Ceylon, 173, 182
Charleroix, 114
Chavanne, 160, 161
Chivalry, 162
Choice in love, the right of the female, 64, 113, 151-153, 177, 260
Clan, primitive, 18, 103, 166, 167, 176, 190, 209, 257 _et seq._
Communal living, 75, 88, 103 _et seq._, 116, 117 _et seq._, 148
_et seq._, 154, 166, 174, 231, 256 _et seq._
Contrast between the work of women and men, 195 _et seq._
Conventional morality, 36
Courtship, 45, 120 _et seq._, 151-153.
_See_ Choice in love.
Couvade, 206, 228
Crawley, 47, 77, 82, 95, 96, 209
Creek Indians, 118-119
Crete, matriarchy in ancient, 216, 217-218, 220
Criticism of mother-right, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 35, 40, 42, 48,
95-96, 170, 192, 210, 253
Curr, 128
Cushing, 117, 237
D
D'Allosso, Prof., 246
Dalton, 133, 152
Dances, 100
Dargun, 230, 231
Darwin, 45
_Deega_ marriage, 182
De Mailla, 150
Deniker, 198
Dennett, 185
Dependence of the human child, 58
Descent through the mother, 17, 26, 33, 88, 119, 160, 162 _et seq._,
163-165, 213-214, 220 _et seq._, 224, 227, 230,
232-233, 249 _et seq._, 257, 258 _et seq._
Diodorus, 211, 212
Divinities, women as, 136 _et seq._, 154, 214, 217, 219, 229, 231, 240
Divorce, 113, 121, 141-143, 157, 179, 206, 260
_Djudur_ marriage, 182, 259
Doctors, women as, 203
Domestication of animals, 203
Duveyrier, 160, 161, 162
E
Economic matriarchy, 159 _et seq._
Egypt, position of women in ancient, 162, 211-214, 227
Ellis, Havelock, 153, 192, 199, 201, 203, 205, 215
Euripedes, 239
Exogamy, 76-77, 87, 119, 123, 135, 141, 154
Expansion of the family into the clan, 67 _et seq._, 79 _et seq._,
86-87, 97, 256 _et seq._
F
Fairy stories, their evidence for mother-right, 246-252
Family, primitive, 41, 48 _et seq._, 54-55, 68 _et seq._,
168-169, 256 _et seq._
Fanti of Gold Coast, 175
Father as tyrant, 34, 44, 48, 50, 54, 57, 63, 68, 70, 72, 74,
81, 83, 168, 255
Father the true parent, 38, 39, 239
Father-right dependent on purchase, 182 _et seq._, 185-186, 188,
190, 262-263
Female dominance, 35, 111, 133, 156, 159.
_See_ Gynæcocracy.
Ferrass, Max Henry, 80
Fison, 193, 200, 206
Folk-lore as evidence of mother-right, 233, 234, 236 _et seq._, 249, 251
Food and women, 59 _et seq._
_See_ Industry and women.
Forbes, 183
Formosans, 150-151
Frazer, 133, 179, 187, 215, 220, 233
Fuegians, 203
G
Garos, 151-152
Germans, mother-descent among, 230-231
Giraud-Teulon, 28, 176, 216
Greece, ancient, traces of mother-right in, 216-222
Grimm, 231
Grote, 216
Guinea, 181
Gurdon, P. R., 132, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143
Gynæcocracy, 27, 30, 34, 38, 97, 112, 133, 156, 159-162, 176
H
Haddon, 153, 196
Haidis, 187
Hale, Horatio, 205
Hall, J. R., 217, 218
Hammurabi, Code of, 214
Hartland, 114, 123, 125, 172, 177, 186
Hassanyah Arabs, 179-180
Haydes, 198
Hearne, 178
Hebrew patriarchs, 13, 222 _et seq._
Heriot, 110, 113, 120
Herodotus, 211, 217, 221
Herrera, 117
Hodgson, 159, 177
Hoffman, 208
Home, woman's connection with the, 34-35, 36, 59, 84, 150,
193 _et seq._, 263
Homer, 219
Hooker, Sir J., 133
Hopis, 122-123
Hospitality, American-Indian, 108, 230
Howitt, 193, 200
Husband as "consort guest," 15.
_See_ Maternal marriage.
Husband visiting the wife by night, 81, 83, 140-141, 220, 258
I
Iberians, mother-right among, 226-227
Ibn Batua, 178
Illegitimacy, 122, 184, 185, 189
Im Thurn, 196, 200
Importance of mother-descent, 17, 20, 21, 27, 32-33, 88-89, 99,
100, 119, 121, 133, 139, 143, 149
_et seq._, 153, 155, 156, 166, 170,
173, 175, 258-259, 261
Incest, paternal, 79, 176-178
India, 102.
_See_ Khasis.
Indians of Guiana, 195, 200
Industry and women, 60-62, 102, 116, 117, 134, 135, 150, 175, 192-208
J
Jealousy, 45 _et seq._, 51-53, 54, 60, 62, 65, 67, 68, 73, 86, 90, 104,
157, 170, 191, 253
Johnstone, H. H., 201
Joint tenement houses, 106, 117, 148-149, 230
Joyce.
_See_ Torday.
Justin, 228
K
Kaffirs, 203
Kamilaroi and Kurnai tribes, 193, 201
Kamtschatdals, 203
Khasis, 132-146, 177, 218
Kingsley, Miss, 175
Kinship through women.
_See_ Descent through mother.
Koochs, 176-177
Kubary, 155-156
Kurds, 204
L
Laing, 176
Lang, Andrew, 24, 47, 51, 56, 95
Legends, 33, 101, 137, 217, 219, 232, 236-240, 243-246
Letourneau, 162, 172, 176, 215, 233, 239
Liburni tribes, 188, 231
Limboltz, 152
Limboo tribe, 183
Lippert, 176
Livingstone, 183
Logan, J. R., 133
Lyell, Sir Chas., 132, 137
M
Macdonald, 183, 200
McGee, 16, 27, 117, 126, 133, 149, 152, 201
McLennan, 26, 27, 33, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52, 76, 105, 155, 181,
183, 185, 187, 220, 229, 244, 245
McLennan, theory of mother-right, 40 _et seq._
Madagascar, 189, 226
Maine, Sir H., 18, 223
Malay States, 147 _et seq._
Malwlo tribe, 185
Mang'anja tribe, 188
Manyuema tribe, 201
Maoris, 186
Marsden, 182
Marvana Islanders, 180
Mason, O., 197, 200, 202
Maternal love, 69, 70 _et seq._, 263
Maternal marriage, 15, 17, 41, 85, 86, 87, 100, 112 _et seq._, 114,
119, 123, 127, 147, 149, 158, 166, 176, 177, 183,
223, 232, 233, 247 _et seq._, 258
Matriarchal theory, mistakes in, 15, 16, 19, 39 _et seq._, 90-91, 97, 98.
_See_ Criticism of mother-right.
Matriarchate. _See_ Gynæcocracy.
Meave, Queen of Ireland, 252
Menomini Indians, 207
Monogamy, 119, 122, 123, 125, 149, 259
Monopolist desire of male, 186-187.
_See_ Unsocial conduct of males.
Moore, 152
Moral prohibition, primitive, 119.
_See_ Taboos.
Morgan, 27, 40, 103, 104, 105, 109, 111, 117, 118
Müller, 216
Musical faculty of women, 161
N
Naïrs of Malabar, 171-174
Newbold, 243
New Caledonia, women's work in, 197
New Guinea, 152-153
New theory of mother-right, 35, 43-44, 48 _et seq._, 72, 90-91, 96, 97,
170, 212, 254, 257
Nicaraguans, 125
O
Origin of the human family, 21, 24, 25, 41-42, 50 _et seq._, 77,
90, 255 _et seq._
Origin of the maternal system, 16, 41, 43, 88-89, 166, 257 _et seq._
Owen, 115, 197
Ownership of children, 115, 141, 183 _et seq._, 187
P
Pakpatan, 189
Pani Kotches, 158-159
Papuans of New Guinea, 201
Paraguay, 152
Parenthood, 37, 268-269
Parke, 201
Passivity of female in love, 153
Patriarchal authority of father, 19, 35, 48, 51, 63, 68, 72, 74, 81.
_See_ Father as tyrant.
Patriarchal family, 35, 45, 91, 215, 222, 255 _et seq._
Patriarchal theory, 24, 26, 35, 45 _et seq._, 254
Pearson, K., 231, 240, 241, 243, 248, 250, 251
Pecuniary matriarchy, 159
Pedangs of Sumatra, 148-150
Pelew Islanders, 152-159, 207-208
Petherick, 180
Picts, mother-descent among, 232
Pike, W., 198
Plato, 239
Plutarch, 216, 220
Polyandry, 42, 51, 112, 125, 136, 173, 260
Polygamous males, 49, 50, 52
Polygamy, 112, 125, 157, 259
Polynesians, 203
Position of the father, 13, 15, 17, 21, 58 _et seq._, 141, 143, 149,
165, 170, 173, 191, 225, 238, 242, 257
Position of the mother, 13, 15, 17, 21, 58 _et seq._, 111, 165, 176,
191, 225, 238, 257
Position of women, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 106, 143, 152, 158, 192, 204, 238
Powell, 114, 116
Power, 202, 224
Pre-matriarchal period, 35, 169, 255
Present social and economic condition, 14, 267-269
Prevalence of mother-descent, 17, 128-129, 209-210, 233
Primal law, 24, 47, 52, 73, 74, 75, 77
Promiscuity, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 40 _et seq._, 43, 45 _et seq._, 76, 97,
99, 168, 209-210, 255
Property ownership, its importance for women, 43, 45 _et seq._, 77, 97,
99, 168, 209-210, 255
Pueblos, 116 _et seq._, 200, 207
Purchase marriage, 124, 177, 182, 233
Puritan spirit, 36, 96, 255
Q
Quissama women, 203
R
Race, responsibility to, 37, 268-269
Ratzel, 206
Religions, position of women in primitive, 29, 37, 238, 241.
_See_ Divinities, women as.
Religious festivals, 241, 242-243
Religious myths, 29-30, 33, 236-238
Revolt of women, 31, 34, 35, 44, 267
Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, 233
Riedel, 183
Rome, ancient, traces of mother-right in, 215-216
S
Sai tribe, 123-124
Salish tribe, 127
Samoa, 187
Santals, 177
Schellong, 201
School craft, 110, 112, 116
Semper, 157
Senecas. _See_ Iroquois.
Seri Indians, 126-128
Service marriage, 147-150, 184, 222-223
Sex antagonism, 36, 55, 264 _et seq._
Sexual egoism of male, 61, 67.
_See_ Unsocial conduct of males.
Sexual freedom for women, 120, 127, 171, 173, 178, 179-180, 260
Sexual subjection of female, 53, 63, 68, 189, 191, 265-266
Similarity of sexes, 129-131, 218
Similkameen Indians, 198
Slavs, the clan among the, 231
Social conduct of women, 31, 34, 55 _et seq._, 59-65, 68, 70, 72, 75,
81, 90, 107, 193, 256 _et seq._
Social habits, primitive, 23, 49, 58 _et seq._, 67, 81, 107 _et seq._, 170.
_See_ Maternal marriage.
Soulima women, 176
Spain, position of women in, 227-230
Sparta, 220, 222
Spencer, H., 180
Spiritual quality in women, 31, 56, 68
Stages in the development of the family, 17, 23, 97, 168, 174, 194,
254 _et seq._
T
Taboos, primitive sexual, 73, 77-78, 107, 168, 170, 257
Tacitus, 230
Tarrahumari Indians, 152
Tasmanian women, 195
Thebans, 220
Thibet, 173
Thomas, C., 129
Thomas, I. T., 181, 202
Thomas, N. W., 95
Torday and Joice, 184
Torres Straits, women's work in, 196
Totem names, 77,87, 119, 168, 257
Touaregs of the Saraha, 159-162, 227
Transition period, 12, 23, 151, 169, 184 _et seq._, 187, 235, 261
Tribal ancestresses, 135, 155, 226, 231, 233, 234
Turner, 188, 197
Tylor, 25, 98, 104, 117, 152
U
Uncertainty of paternity, 27, 41, 42, 99, 141, 254
Unsocial conduct of males, 55 _et seq._, 61-64, 68, 71, 72, 75, 90,
193, 256
V
Visiting wife in secret, 140-141, 147, 220, 222-223, 258
Volti, 123
W
Wade, 189
Waitz-Gerland, 181
Wamoimia, 175
War and women, 115-116, 197-198, 246
Watubela tribe, 183
Wayao tribe, 183
Wells, Mr. H. G., 24, 52, 192
Werner, Alice, 175, 204
Westermarck, 18, 35, 42, 47, 76, 95, 99, 125, 152, 168, 209
Wheeler, J. M., 152
Wilkin, 188, 189
Woman as food-giver, 60, 202 _et seq._
Woman's movement, 11 _et seq._, 267-268
Women, primitive, not ill-treated by men, 200 _et seq._
Women, spiritual superiority, 30
Wright, Asher, Rev., 111
Wyandots. _See_ Iroquois.
Y
Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego, 198
Yaos of Africa, 175
Ymer, 157
Yokia women of California, 202
Z
Zuñi Indians, 117-118, 120-122
_Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, London and Bungay._
_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_
THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN
By C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY
(Mrs. Walter Gallichan)
_Fourth Edition 7s. 6d. net_
_SOME PRESS OPINIONS_
"_The best written and the most profitable of the many recent books
upon the woman's movement._ It is distinguished alike by the scope of
its learning, the skilful way in which evidence is marshalled, and,
above all, by the independence of thought and temper brought to the
interpretation of the modern issues.... The discussion of sex
differences and of the social problems which spring therefrom shows
not only wide and deep personal acquaintance with modern men and
women, but a singular freedom from some of the squeamishness of
thought and feeling which hampers most discussion ... _an exceedingly
important contribution to the most difficult problem of our and every
other time_."--J. A. HOBSON in _The Manchester Guardian_.
"_The book shows a fearless intellectual honesty and a deep sympathy
and tolerance; it is the work of a serious student and of a woman who
knows life as well as libraries...._ The chapter on 'Sexual
Differences in Mind' is absorbingly interesting, and based on the
latest research. She writes finely and truly on the absurd and
indecent cruelty of penalising divorce; on the cherished superstition
of feminine passivity in love, and the origin of the chastity taboo on
women with its waste of life and love. She even has a sane and humane
chapter on prostitution, recognising the complexity of its causes, and
the kindness and generosity of these scapegoat women to one another,
as well as their erotic insensibility. _The book should be read by all
educated men and women._ It will probably be greeted with screams of
denunciation from those persons whose hostility forms a hall-mark of
mental honesty and social value."--_The English Review._
"We very heartily commend this remarkable book.... Every chapter
abounds in challenges to thought, and we must thank a woman who has
dared and cared to think and dared to say."--_The Pall Mall Gazette._
"One of the most thoughtful books about women I have yet read.... The
book is certainly of an advanced feminism, yet the author is found
most strongly on the side of marriage, of love, of women's femininity
as their strength; in fact, of all the things which shallow observers
suppose the woman movement is actively denying."--_Truth._
"Sane, sound, and well reasoned ... she has more capacity than any
other woman writer of the kind we have yet come across for regarding
all questions of sex from the man's point of view."--_Glasgow Herald._
EVELEIGH NASH, 36 King Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.