Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Jeannie Howse and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
* * * * *
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Transcriber's Note: |
| |
| Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has |
| been preserved. |
| |
| Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For |
| a complete list, please see the end of this document. |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
* * * * *
THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
_BOOKS ON ART_
A RECORD OF SPANISH PAINTING
PICTURES IN THE TATE GALLERY
THE PRADO (Spanish Series)
EL GRECO ( " )
VELAZQUEZ ( " )
_BOOKS ON SPAIN_
MOORISH CITIES IN SPAIN
THINGS SEEN IN SPAIN
SPAIN REVISITED: A SUMMER HOLIDAY IN GALICIA
SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA (Mediaeval Towns Series)
CATHEDRALS OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SPAIN
THE TRUTH
ABOUT WOMAN
BY
C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY
(MRS. WALTER M. GALLICHAN)
NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD & COMPANY
1914
DEDICATION
TO
LESLIE, MY LITTLE ADOPTED SON
In writing at last this book on Woman, which for so many years
has had a place in my thoughts, one truth has forced itself upon
me: the predominant position of Woman in her natural relation to
the race. The mother is the main stream of the racial life. All
the hope of the future rests upon this faith in motherhood.
To whom, then, but to you, my little son, can I dedicate my
book? You came to me when I was still seeking out a way in the
futility of Individual ends; you reconciled my warring motives
and desires; you brought me a new guiding principle. You taught
me that the Individual Life is but as a bubble or cluster of
foam on the great tide of humanity. I knew that the redemption
of Woman rests in the growing knowledge and consciousness of her
responsibility to the race.
"The social revolution which is impending in Europe is chiefly
concerned with the future of the workers and the women. It is
for this that I hope and wait, and for this I will work with all
my powers."--IBSEN.
PREFACE
It is very difficult to write a preface to a work which is expressly
intended as a revelation of the faith of the writer. The successive
stages of thought and emotion that have been passed through are still
too near, and one feels too deeply. I have made several futile
attempts to concentrate into a short note the Truths about Woman that
I have tried to convey in my book. I find it impossible to do this.
The explanation of one's own book would really require the writing of
another book, as Mr. Bernard Shaw has proved to us in his delightful
prefaces. But to do this one must be freed altogether from the limits
of length and time. The fragments of what I wish to say would be of no
service to any one.
I then tried to place myself, as it were, outside the book, and to
look at it as a stranger might. But the difficulties here were even
greater. I grew so interested in criticising my own opinions that my
notes soon outran the possibilities of a preface. In this spirit of
genuine discrimination, I became aware how easy it would be for any
one who does not share my faith to find apparent contradictions of
statement and errors in thought--much that is feeble here, extravagant
there; to notice some salient fault and to take it as decisive of the
writer's incompetence. I am tempted to point these out myself to guide
and protect the reader.
Now that my book is done I feel that I have touched only the veriest
fringe of a vast subject. But one thing I may say, I have tried to
express the truth as I have come to see it. The conception I have of
Woman is not new; it is very old. And for that reason it will be
rejected by many women to-day. At present the inspiration towards
freedom in the Woman's Movement has involved a tendency to follow
individual paths, without waiting to consider to what end they lead.
There has arisen a sort of glamour about freedom. No one of us can be
free, for no one of us stands alone; we are all members one of
another. And woman's destiny is rooted in the race. This, rightly
considered, is the most vital of all vital facts. I appeal to women to
realise more clearly their true place and gifts, as representing that
original racial motherhood, out of which the masculine and feminine
characters have arisen.
My book is a statement of my faith in Woman as the predominant and
responsible partner in the relations of the sexes. To such a belief my
opinion was driven, as it were, not deliberately set from the
beginning. The time when the resolve to write a book upon Woman first
took a place in my thoughts goes back for many years. The child of a
Puritan father, who died for the faith in which he believed, the
desire to teach was born in my blood. Our character is forged in the
past, we cannot escape our inheritance. I began my work as the
head-mistress of a school for girls. I was young in experience and
very ignorant of life. In my enthusiasm I was quite unconscious of my
own limitations, I believed that I was able to train up a new type of
free woman. Of course I failed. Looking back now I wonder if I ever
taught my pupils one-hundredth part of what they taught me. Perhaps if
any of them, separated from me by time and circumstances, chance to
read my book, they may be glad to know that it was largely due to them
and what I learnt from them that it has come to be written. Certainly
it was in those days, when saddened by my own failures, that the
purpose came to me, dimly but insistently, to seek out the Truth about
Woman and the relations of the sexes. I began to read and to collect
material at first for my own guidance and instruction, and as a
necessary preparation for my work. I needed it: I must have been slow
to learn. For a long time I wandered in the wrong path. My desire was
to find proofs that would enable me to ignore all those facts of
woman's organic constitution which makes her unlike man. I stumbled
blindly into the fatal error of following masculine ideals. I desired
freedom for women to enable them to live the same lives that men live
and to do the same work that men do. I did not understand that this
was a wastage of the force of womanhood; that no freedom can be of
service to a woman unless it is a freedom to follow her own nature. I
am very glad that the book that is now finished was not written in
that period of my belief. I have waited and I have lived.
Five years ago I took up definitely the task of writing the book. At
that time the plan of the work was made and the first Introductory
chapter written. Circumstances into which I need not enter caused the
work again to be put aside. I am glad: I have learnt much in these
last years.
There is little more that I need to say.
The book is divided into three parts--the first biological, the second
historical. These two parts are preliminary to the third part, which
deals with the present-day aspects of the Woman Problem, the
differences between woman and man, and the relations of the sexes.
This arrangement of my inquiry into three parts was necessary. It may
seem to some that I should have done better to confine my
investigations to the present. But the claim of woman for freedom is
rooted deep in the past. This fact had to be established. I have tried
to give the earlier sections such lighter qualities and interest as
would commend them to my readers. It is hardly necessary for me to say
I can make no claim to personal scientific knowledge. Probably I have
made many mistakes.
It is perhaps foolish to make apologies for work that one has done.
But the inclusion of so wide a field has had a disadvantage. My
investigations may be objected to as in certain points not being
supported by sufficient proof. I know this. My stacks of unused notes
remind me of how much I have had to leave out. This is especially the
case in the final part. The subject of every chapter treated here
could easily form a volume in itself. I hope that at least I have
opened up suggestions of many questions on which I could not dwell at
length.
Some remarks may be necessary as to the nature of my material. It has
been drawn from a variety of sources. I have tried to acknowledge in
footnotes the great amount of help I have received. But my notes have
been taken during many years, and if any acknowledgment has been
forgotten, it is my memory that is at fault, and not my gratitude. The
Bibliography (which has been drawn up chiefly from the works I have
consulted, and is merely representative) will show how many fields
there are from which the student may glean. In particular I am
indebted to the works of Havelock Ellis, of Iwan Bloch and Ellen Key.
To these writers I would express my warmest thanks for the help and
guidance I have gained from their work.
The opinions expressed are in all cases my own. I say this without any
apology of modesty. I hold that the one justification of writing a
book at all is to state those truths one has learnt from one's own
experience of life. For we can give to others only what we have
received ourselves; the vision rising in our own eyes, the passion
born in our own hearts.
C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY.
_7, Carlton Terrace,
Child's Hill, N.W.
March, 1913._
CONTENTS
_N.B.--A complete synopsis of contents will be found at the
beginning of each chapter_
CHAP. PAGE
I INTRODUCTION--THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY 1
PART I--BIOLOGICAL SECTION
II THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES 31
III GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION 45
I The Early Position of the Sexes.
II Two Examples--The Beehive and the Spider.
IV THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES 71
V COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE, AND THE FAMILY 85
I Among the Birds and Mammals.
II Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage, and the Family
among Birds.
PART II--HISTORICAL SECTION
VI THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION 117
I Progress from Lower to Higher Forms of the Family
Relationship.
II The Matriarchal Family in America.
III Further Examples of the Matriarchal Family in
Australia, India, and other Countries.
IV The Transition in Father-right.
VII WOMAN'S POSITION IN THE GREAT CIVILISATIONS OF ANTIQUITY 177
I In Egypt.
II In Babylon.
III In Greece.
IV In Rome.
PART III--MODERN SECTION: PRESENT-DAY ASPECTS OF THE WOMAN PROBLEM
VIII SEX DIFFERENCES 245
IX APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING CHAPTER WITH SOME FURTHER
REMARKS ON SEX DIFFERENCE 271
I Women and Labour.
II Sexual Differences in Mind and the Artistic Impulse in
Women.
III The Affectability of Woman--Its Connection with the
Religious Impulse.
X THE SOCIAL FORMS OF THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP 329
I Marriage.
II Divorce.
III Prostitution.
XI THE END OF THE INQUIRY 375
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION--THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY
The twentieth century the age of hurrying progress--The change in
the position of women--Reasons for the revolution--First
efforts towards emancipation--Outlook of the Woman
Movement--Its fundamental error--Possibilities of future
development--Motherhood and the Woman Movement--Schopenhauer's
view of woman--He asserts an absurdity--The predominance of man
over woman not to be regarded as a natural and inviolable
law--An examination of the mastery of the male--Can we look
forward to a remedy?--Our own time a turning-point in the
history of women--Assumed inferiority of the female
sex--Necessity for biological knowledge in forming an estimate
of the present sex-relationship--Two kinds of influences to be
considered--Nature and Nurture--The different play of the
environmental forces, or Nurture, upon women and upon men--The
importance of Nature--Galton's _Law of Inheritance_--Woman's
responsibility as race-bearer--Sexual differences between the
female and the male--Primitive woman and her position in early
civilisations--Remarks and conclusion--The immense importance
of motherhood.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION--THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY
"The method of investigating truth commonly pursued at this
time, therefore, is to be held erroneous and almost foolish, in
which so many inquire what others have said, and omit to ask
whether the things themselves be actually so or
not."--WILLIAM HARVEY.
The twentieth century will, we may well believe, be stamped in the
records of the future as "the age of hurrying change." In certain
directions this change has resulted in a profounder transformation of
thought than has been effected by all the preceding centuries. Never,
probably, in the history of the world were the meanings and ambitions
of progress so prevalent as they are to-day. An energy of inquiry and
an endless curiosity is sweeping away the complacent Victorian
attitude, which in its secure faith and tranquil self-confidence
accepted the conditions of living without question and without
emotion. Stripped of its masks, this phase of individual egoism was
perhaps the most villainous page of recorded human history; yet, with
strange confidence, it regarded itself as the very summit of
civilisation. It may be that such a phase was necessary before the
awakening of a social conscience could arise. Old conceptions have
become foolish in a New Age. A great motive, an enlarging dream, a
quickening understanding of social responsibility, these are what we
have gained.
Above all, this common Faith of Progress has brought a new birth to
women. Many are feeling this force. There are two, says Professor Karl
Pearson,[1] and it might almost be said only two great problems of
modern social life--they are the problem of woman and the problem of
labour. Regarded with fear by many, they are for the younger
generation the sole motors in life, and the only party cries which in
the present can arouse enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, and a genuine
freemasonry of class and sex.
There is something almost staggering in the range and greatness of the
changes in belief and feeling, in intellectual conclusions and social
habits, which are now disturbing the female part of humankind. How
complete is the divorce between the attitude of the woman of this
generation towards society and herself, and that of the generation
that has passed--yes, passed as completely as if hundreds and not
units represent the years that separate it from the present.
It is instructive to note in passing what was written about woman at
the time immediately preceding the present revolt of the sex. The
virtue upon which most stress was laid was that of "delicacy," a word
which occurs with nauseous frequency in the books written both by
women and men in the two last centuries.[2] "Propriety," wrote Mrs.
Hannah More, "is to a woman what the great Roman citizen said action
is to an orator: it is the first, the second, and the third
requisite."[3]
"This delicacy or propriety," it has been well said,[4] "implied
not only modesty, but ignorance; and not only decency of
conduct, but false decency of mind. Nothing was to be thoroughly
known, nothing to be frankly expressed. The vicious concealment
was not confined to physical facts, but pervaded all forms of
knowledge. Not only must the girl be kept ignorant of the
principles of physiology, but she must also abstain from
penetrating thoroughly into the mysteries of history, of
politics, of science, and of philosophy. Even her special
province of religion must be lightly surveyed. She was not
required to think for herself, therefore she was deprived of all
training which would enable her to think at all. The girl must
appear to be dependent upon the mental strength of a man, as
well as upon his physical strength."
It is necessary to remember this attitude if we are to understand the
direction that woman's emancipation has largely--and, as some of us
think, mistakenly--taken in this country. It explains the demand for
equality of opportunity with men, which has become the watch-cry of so
many women, thinking that here was the way to solve the problem. A cry
good and right in itself, but one which is a starting-point only for
woman's freedom, and can never be its end.
Little more than fifty years have passed since Miss Jex-Blake
undertook her memorable fight to obtain medical training for herself
and her colleagues at the University of Edinburgh.[5] At about the
same time arose women's demand for the right of higher education, and
colleges for women were opened at Oxford and Cambridge. These were the
practical results which followed the revolt of Mary Wollstonecraft,
and later, the great revival due to the publication of John Stuart
Mill's epoch-marking book, the _Subjection of Women_.
During the first period of the woman's movement the centre of
restlessness was amongst unmarried women, who rebelled at the old
restrictions, eager for self-development and a more intellectually
active life. These women undertook their own cause, insisting that
their humanity came before their sex. They were picked women, much
above the average woman, and to a certain extent abnormal in so far as
they denied the important factor of sex. To them the average male was
not a subject of overwhelming interest, and marriage and motherhood
were not of prominent importance in their thought. For them "equality
of opportunity for women with men" seemed to solve the problem of
woman's emancipation. The constructive result of their campaign was
the winning of the higher education of woman, the right to work, and
the rush of women into the professions. Much, indeed, was gained,
though it may be said with equal truth that much was lost. With this
solution--the increased power of self-realisation in a narrow class of
picked women, chiefly unmarried women of the middle-class--the woman's
movement might well begin, but in this alone it can never end. The
movement was incomplete as far as woman's emancipation went, because
it was won by ignoring sex. In spite of the great advance in freedom
and in scope of activity of life, the stigma attached to woman was not
removed. To-day we have arrived at a point where instead of ignoring
sex we must affirm it, and claim emancipation on the ground of our sex
alone. Our mothers taught acceptance, and asked for privileges; the
pioneers of revolt raised the cry "acceptance is a sin and all
privilege evil"; we, the blood in our veins beating more strongly and
understanding at last the true inwardness of our power, found our
claim for complete emancipation upon that special work in the world
and for the State which our differentiation from men imposes upon us.
This differentiation is our potentiality for motherhood, and is the
endowment of every woman, whether realised or not. We claim as our
glory what our mothers accepted as their burden of shame.
No sudden causeless changes ever happen, or ever have happened. And
the question, Why? arises. What is this dynamic force which has been,
and is still sweeping in a great wave of emancipation across the
civilised world, joining women in one common purpose? On the outside
the revolutionary character of women's modern thought and modern
practice means nothing more than that they claim the rights of adult
human beings--political enfranchisement, the right of education and
freedom to work. But the facts are far too complex to enable us thus
to rush hastily to an answer. There is a pitiful monotony in much that
is written and spoken about women's emancipation. The real causes are
deep to seek, and not infrequently they have been missed even by those
who have been most instrumental in bringing a new hope to women. The
most advanced women champions, the martyrs of revolt, show no greater
sense of the meanings and issues of the struggle in which they are
engaged than the complaisant supporters of the worn-out customs they
combat. They exhibit only the energies of an admirable impulse,
without the control of a guiding law. Speculation, which should be
carried to a comprehension of general facts, is concentrated upon the
immediate gain of the hour. The tendency is to trifle with truth, and
to disguise its reach and consequences. We have read, and spoken, and
thought so much about the special character of woman that we have
become almost wearied of the subject. Like Narcissus, we stand in some
danger of falling in love with our own image. Perhaps the truth is we
speculate too much instead of trying to find out the facts. The woman
question is as old as sex itself and as young as mankind.
The future position of woman in society is a question that carries
with it biological and psychological, as well as social and practical,
issues of the widest significance, and further, it is bound up
intimately with the profoundest riddles of existence. The problems
remain to a great extent unsolved. But the conviction forces itself
that the emancipation of woman will ultimately involve a revolution in
many of our social institutions. It is this that brings fear to many.
Yet we must remember that woman's emancipation is no new movement, but
has always been with us, although with varying prominence at different
times in history. In the past, civilisations have fallen, in part at
least, because they failed to develop in equal freedom their women
with their men. It is also certain that no civilisation in the future
can remain the highest if another civilisation adds to the
intelligence of its male population the intelligence of its women.
This in itself is enough to condemn all ideas of sex inequality.
The struggle for the Suffrage has intensified many problems which it
will take all the intellectual and emotional energy of both men and
women to solve. Up till now there has been little more than a fight
for mere rights against male monopolies. In the near future this
struggle must lead to a realisation of the duties of woman, founded on
a level-headed facing of the physiological realities of her nature. It
is a complete disregard of sexualogical difficulties which renders so
superficial and unconvincing much of the talk which proceeds from the
"Woman's Rights" platform. All efforts made to understand the sex
problem, which is the woman question, must be based on the full
knowledge of the physical capacity of woman and the effect that her
emancipation will have on her function of race production. All effort
ought to be directed towards the future welfare and happiness of the
children who are to follow us. This is the goal of woman's struggle
for progress, it is the sole end worthy of it.
To assume as Schopenhauer and so many others have done, down to Sir
Almroth Wright's recent hysterical wail in _The Times_, that woman, on
account of her womanhood is incapable of intellectual or social
development, paying her sole debt of Nature in bearing and caring for
children, is really to state a belief in decay for humankind. Any
stigma attached to women is really a stigma attached to their
potentiality as mothers, and we can only remove it by beginning with
the emancipation of the actual mother. No sharp cleavage can be made
between qualities that are good and masculine on the one side, and all
that is feminine on the other. The view is entirely erroneous. How,
for instance, can ignorance and weakness constitute at once the
perfection of womankind, and the imperfection of mankind? The matter
is not so simple. Man must fall with woman, and rise with her.
My first purpose is to make this clear.
To-day we are faced with the question whether the predominance of man
over woman is to be regarded as a natural, and therefore inviolable,
law of the male and female. Some will deny this mastery of the male.
It may be said that woman sways man more than he rules her. This is
true. The influence of woman is important--fearfully important. Yet
the fitting answer to such glossing--if it be necessary really to
point out that sexual privilege is not personal power--is that such
government is exercised in one direction alone, and arises not from
woman's strength, but out of her subjection. Women have rendered back
to men the ill that this long sex domination has wrought upon them.
None the less have we to reckon with the despotism of the male side of
life. "The softening influence of woman!" ... It is a pretty phrase;
but all the same women and men have been doing their best to degrade
each other to a pitiful mediocrity. It is not the purifying influence
of women--the theory of chivalrous moralists--but an unguided and
therefore deteriorating sexual tyranny that regulates society. Let us
have done with this absurd catch-phrase of "Woman's Influence." No
influence worth naming as such can be exercised but by an independent
mind. Women need better fields for the exercise of their love of
power. The sexual sphere, which has shaped an impalpable prison
around them, has barred them from that part of life which is social
and broadly human; the falsely feminine has been developed to the loss
of the womanhood in them. It is only in obedience to man that woman
has gained her power of life. She has borne children at his will and
for his pleasure. She has received her very consciousness from man:
this has been her womanhood, to feel herself under another's will.
There is no possible hiding of the truth; if women influence men, men
command life.
But is it possible, looking forward to new conditions of society, now
approaching like a long-delayed spring, to foresee a remedy? Can the
woman of the future belong to herself? What are her natural
disabilities, and to what extent are they modifiable by new
arrangements of social and domestic life? Must she be content for the
future with that dependence on the individual man which has been her
fate in the past; or, on the other hand, can she take up her economic
and social position in society and work therein for her own
maintenance as free from considerations of her sex as a man can? These
are the questions which must be faced when united womanhood begins to
formulate their wants and to realise their power. It is almost idle in
the present transition to speculate as to what women should or should
not be, or the work they should or should not do. Women do not yet
know what they want. All that can be done is to note the changes that
are taking place, for we cannot, even do we wish, now change the
revolutionary forces. We must seek to understand their causes, so that
we may be able to direct them in the future in such ways as will tend
to the greater solidarity and happiness of women and men.
In the everlasting controversy as to woman's place in Nature the
majority of arguments have been based on an assumed inferiority of the
female sex. Appeal has been made to anatomy to establish the
difference between the natural endowment of men and women in the hope
of fixing by means of anatomical measurements and tests those
characters of males and females that are unalterable, because inborn,
and those that are acquired, and therefore modifiable. But the
obstacles in the way of anatomical investigations are very great, if
only on account of the complexity of the material. Often and often it
has happened that old conclusions have been overthrown by new
knowledge. Indeed, it may be said that such appeal has resulted in
uncertainty, and in many instances in confusion. The chief source of
error has been the careless acceptance of female inferiority, which
has maimed most investigations and seriously retarded the attainment
of useful results. And though it is very far from my purpose to wish
to deny the fundamentally different nature of the masculine and
feminine character, it is still true that a blank separation of human
qualities into male qualities and female qualities is no longer
possible. In no instance have the anatomists succeeded in determining
with absolute distinction between the characters that belong
separately to the sexes. Moreover, it has been shown that there is no
such thing as a _fixed woman character_, but that women differ
according to the circumstances under which they live, just as men
differ. This brings us directly against the old problem, inferiority
cannot be accepted as the sole reason of woman's present restricted
position in society. Other causes must be sought for.
Many features of the social and psychic as well as the physical
phenomena of human life have what we may call an organismal
mainspring, and become more intelligible when traced back to these. No
one, for instance, can appreciate the social significance of sex, or
account for the existing sexual relationships in human societies, who
does not know something of their biological antecedents. Take again
the sex differences, which attain to such complexity and importance in
the human civilised races, these can be explained only if their origin
is recognisable. To comprehend the higher forms of life we must gain
an acquaintance with the lower and more formative types. In this way
we shall begin to see something of that continual upward change under
the action of love's-selection that has developed the female and the
male. Many problems that have brought sorrow and perplexity to us
to-day will become recognisable as we ascertain their causes, and then
we can do much to remove them. Thus the problem of woman must first be
considered from a biological point of view. Explorations must be made
into the remote and obscure beginnings of sex. We must carry our
investigations back beyond the cycle of man, and trace the growth and
uses of the differentiation of the sexes from the lowest forms of
life.
Biology, a science hardly more than a century old, is still in the
descriptive and comparative stage; it is the scientific study of the
present and past history of animal life for the purpose of
understanding its future history. It is of vital importance to human
welfare in the future that we should learn by this comparative study
of origins and of the potent past what are the lines along which
progress is to be expected.
This, then, will be the first path of our discovery. We shall have to
traverse many past ages of life and to consider certain humble
organisms, before we shall be able really to understand woman in her
true position in the sexual relationship as we find it to-day.
But the possibility of applying biological results to sociology with
any hope of enlightenment depends on an understanding of the
questions, How? and Why? It is important to know what the phenomena
are, but it is yet more important to know how? and for what reason?
they have come about. Thus we are led forward always from facts to
their efficient causes. Women are found to differ from men in this or
that respect. But this in itself decides nothing. As soon as we are
informed as to any one difference, we must seek out its cause; and
this we must do over and over again. Hundreds of women must be
interrogated, observed and reported upon--and then what? Shall we know
the answer to our problem? Certainly not. In each case we must ask: Is
this difference we have found between the sexes a natural inborn
quality of woman, whether it be physical or psychical, that must be
regarded as a right and unalterable part of her woman character, or is
it an acquired, and therefore changeable, modification that has been
superimposed upon her through the artificial sexual, social and
economic circumstances of her environment? The mere asking of this
question will give many new discoveries.
Life is a relation between two forces: on the one hand the organism
and on the other the external conditions that form the environment.
These two processes are known as Nature and Nurture, they are
complementary and inseparable, and they act together. Thus the
organism modifies its surroundings, and is in turn modified by them.
But every life possesses in great degree the power of self-adaptation,
and, broadly speaking, it is true that no matter under what conditions
it may be compelled to live, it will mould its own life into harmony
with those conditions and thus continue its existence, and this
whether it is compelled to adopt a more perfect or a less perfect
character. It becomes evident that an appropriate environment is
necessary if the Nature is to be expressed, or expressed fully;
otherwise life cannot realise development. The environment is
constantly checking and modifying the inheritance. Nurture supplies
the liberating stimulus to the inheritance, and growth is limited, in
exact measurement by the Nurture stimuli available. Human advancement
is, of course, widely different from the slow progress in the lower
forms of life, but it is fundamentally the same. Experience is
continually spreading over new fields and bringing about a more wide
and exact relation between the individual and the external world. It
follows that any change in the environment will cause a change in the
individual. To live differently from what one had been living is to be
different from what one has been. These are simple biological facts.
Now, how does woman stand in this respect? No one can deny the
difference of environment that in the past has acted on women and on
men. Speaking from a biological standpoint, it would seem that any
present inferiority of woman is mainly social, due to her adaptation
to an arbitrary environment. It has been truly said[6] that "man, in
supporting woman, has become her economic environment." By her
position of economic dependence in the sex relation, sex distinction
has become with her "not only a means of attracting a mate, as with
all creatures, but a means of gaining her livelihood, as is the case
with no other creature under heaven." Can we wonder that the
differences between the sexes assume such great and, in certain
directions, such unnatural importance? Woman to a far greater extent
than man is in process of evolution; her powers dormant for want of
liberating Nurture stimuli. We know that Alpine plants brought from
their natural soil change their character and become hardly
recognisable, and these marked modifications will reappear in many
generations of plants, but as soon as the plants are taken back to
grow in their natural environment they are transformed to their
original Alpine forms. May we not then entertain as a possibility that
woman's modern character, with all its acknowledged faults--all its
separation from the human qualities of man--is a veneer imposed by an
unnatural environment on succeeding generations of women? If the
larger social virtues are wanting in her, may it not be because they
have not been called for in a parasitic life? How splendid a hope for
women rests here! There is a biological truth, not usually suspected
by those who quote it, in the popular saying: "Man is the creature of
circumstance." And this is even more true of women, who are less
emancipated from their surroundings than are men--more saturated with
the influences and prejudices of their narrowed environment.
It would seem, then, that Nurture is more important than Nature in
seeking to explain the character of woman to-day. Yet, let me not be
mistaken, nor let it be thought for one moment that I do not realise
the importance of Nature. The first right of every human being is the
right of being well-born. This is the goal of all our struggles for
progress--it is the sole end worthy of them.
Let me try to make this clearer.
Reproduction carries life beyond the individual. Haeckel has said that
the process is nothing more than the growth of the organism beyond its
individual mass. But this process in the higher forms of life has
become exceedingly complex. All living beings are individual in one
respect and composite in another, for the inheritance of each
individual is a mosaic of ancestral contributions. Galton's _Law of
Inheritance_ makes this abundantly clear. Briefly stated, the law is
as follows: The two parents of each living being contribute _on the
average_ one-half of each inherited quality, each of them contributing
one-quarter of it. The four grand-parents furnish between them
one-quarter, or each of them one-sixteenth; and so on backwards
through past generations of ancestors. Now, though, of course, these
numbers are purely arbitrary, applying only to averages, and rarely
true exactly of individual cases, where the prepotency of any one
ancestor may, and often does, upset the balance of the contributions
made by the other ancestors, it may certainly be accepted as the most
probable theory that biology has given us to explain the difficult
problem of Nature--that is the inheritance we receive from our
ancestors.
We see that the heredity relation is an extremely complex affair. It
is not merely dual from the parents; but it is multiple, through them
reaching back to the grand-parents, great-grand-parents,
great-great-grand-parents, and so on backwards indefinitely. It is,
indeed, a mosaic of many, yes, of uncountable, contributions. The Life
Force gathering within itself these multiple sets of heredity
contributions is like capital ever growing at compound interest. The
importance of this is abundantly clear. For as we come to understand
the continuity of our inheritance from generation to generation we
realise more vividly how the past has a living hand on and in the
present, and how that present will be carried on to the future. We are
all links in the one mighty Chain of Life, and on us, and upon women
especially, rests a high responsibility. We must hand on our past
inheritance unimpaired, so that the new link forged by us may
strengthen and not weaken the chain. It is the duty of every woman as
a potential mother of men to choose a fitting father for her children,
having first educated herself for a freer and more capable maternity.
In the past she has done this blindly, following the Life Force
without understanding, or hindered from her purpose by the artificial
conditions of society. In the future such blindness and such failure
of her powers will alike be regarded as sin. With full knowledge,
woman will fulfil her great central purpose of breeding the race--ay,
breeding it to heights now deemed impossible, not dreamt of even by
those of us who look forward through the darkness to the clear
sunlight of that time when the sex relation shall be freed from
economic pressure and from all coercion of a false morality, and the
universal creative energy, no longer finding gratification alone in
personal ends, shall at last reach its goal and give birth to a race
of new women and new men.
But to come back from this dream of the future.
Certain facts now become evident. In the inheritance of each
individual are many latent qualities that do not find expression. It
is as if in every life the separate heredity qualities, or groups of
qualities, wait in competition, and those that succeed and find an
expression in each life owe their success to an incalculable number of
small and mostly unknown circumstances. One is tempted to speculate as
to a possible direction in the future of women that may arise from the
liberating of these unknown forces; but as yet we have not a
sufficient basis of facts. But one truth must not be lost sight of;
the unsuccessful qualities that do not find their expression in an
individual life may remain to be handed on for new competition to a
new generation. No one of the forces of our inheritance, be it for
good or for evil, is dead; rather it sleeps till that time when the
liberating powers of Nurture call it into active expression. There is
real biological truth in the saying, "Every man is a potential
criminal"; but it is equally true that every one is a possible saint.
And there is one point further; we know that those qualities which do
succeed in the competition of the inheritance, and which form at birth
the character of the individual, are very different from their actual
expression in the development of life, where perforce such qualities
are modified to the environment. What we are is no certain criterion
of what we are capable of becoming. For every item of our inheritance
requires an appropriate growth-soil if it is actively to live. Each
life is an adjustment of internal character to external conditions. A
garden that has been choked with weeds may remain flowerless for many
succeeding years, but dig that garden, and sleeping flowers, not known
to live within the memory of man, may spring to life. May it not be
that in the garden of woman's inheritance there are buried seeds,
lying dormant, which at the liberating touch of opportunity may
reawaken and assert themselves as forgotten flowers? Yes, to-day this
seems a practical fact that already is being accomplished, and not a
futile speculation. The re-birth of woman is no dream. At last she is
realising the arrest in her development that has followed the
acceptance of a position which forces her to be a parasite and a
prostitute.
Every one admits the differences of function that separate the female
from the male half of humankind. But to assume that the physical,
mental, and moral disabilities of women, of which we hear so much, are
a necessary part of their inheritance--the debt they pay for being the
mothers of the race--is an absurdity it would be difficult to explain
except for that strange sex bias, which seems always to colour all
opinions as to women, their character and their place in society.
Havelock Ellis, who in his admirable work _Man and Woman_ has made an
exhaustive examination of all the known facts with regard to the real
and supposed secondary sexual differences between women and men, comes
to this conclusion in his final summary--
"We have not succeeded," he says, "in determining the radical
and essential character of men and women uninfluenced by
external modifying conditions. We have to recognise that our
present knowledge cannot tell us what they might be, but what
they actually are, under the conditions of civilisation.... The
facts are so numerous that even when we have ascertained the
precise significance of some one fact, we cannot be sure that it
is not contradicted by other facts. And so many of the facts are
modifiable under a changing environment that in the absence of
experience we cannot pronounce definitely regarding the
behaviour of either the male or female organism under different
conditions."
Only a knowledge of the multifarious and complex environmental forces,
which in the past have moulded women into what to-day they are, will
lead us to our goal. We may examine woman's present character, both
physical and mental, with every precision of detail, but the knowledge
gained will not settle her inborn Nature. We shall discover what she
is, not what she might be. No, rather to do this we must go back
through many generations to primitive woman. We must study, in
particular, that period known as the Mother-Age, when we find an early
civilisation largely built up by woman's activity and developed by her
skill. We must find out every fact that we can of woman's physical and
mental life in this first period of social growth; we must examine
the causes which led to the change from this Mother-rule to that of
the Father-rule, or the patriarchate, which succeeded it. Insight into
the civilisations of the past is of special value to us in trying to
solve our problems of woman's true place in the social life. For one
thing, we shall learn that morality and sexual customs and
institutions are not fixed, but are peculiar to each age, and are good
only in so far as they fulfil the needs of any special period of a
people's growth. We must note, in particular, the contributions made
by woman to early civilisation, and then seek the reasons why she has
lost her former position of power. The savage woman is nearer to
Nature than we ourselves are, and in learning of her life we shall
come to an understanding of many of the problems of our lives.
This, then, must be the second path of our discovery, and, following
it, we shall gain further knowledge of what is artificial and what is
real in the character of woman and in the present relations of the
sexes.
We find that the external surroundings that influence life are
referable to one of two classes: those which tend to increase
destructive processes, and find their active expression in expenditure
of energy, and those which tend to increase constructive processes,
and are passive instead of active, storing energy, not expending it.
These two classes of external forces, disruptive and constructive, are
called katabolic and anabolic. Looking back on the early natural lives
of men and women, we find there has been a very sharp separation in
the play of these opposite sets of influences. A hasty survey of the
facts suffices to prove that the work of the world was divided into
two great parts, the men had the share of killing life, whether that
of man or of animals, their attention was given to fighting and
hunting; while the women's share was the continuing and nourishing
life, their attention being given to the domestic arts--to agriculture
and the attendant stationary industries. Woman's position during the
matriarchate was largely the result of the need in primitive society
of woman's constructive energy, and her power arose from an unfettered
use of her special functions. But this divergence of the paths of
women from the paths of men continued, and during the patriarchal
period became arbitrary with the withdrawal of women from initiative
labour, an unnatural arrangement which arose out of later social
conditions. The militant side of social activities has belonged to
men, the passive to women; and men have been goaded into growth by the
conditions and struggles of their lives. They have gathered around
themselves a special man-formed environment of institutions and laws,
of activities and inventions, of art and literature, of male
sentiments, and male systems of opinions, to which they are connected
in subtle and numerous relations, and this complex heritage of
influences has been reimposed on men generation by generation. In this
social working-life women have not had an equal part--and a drag in
their development has arisen as the result of this passivity. At a
certain period in civilisation women became an inferior class because
men with their greater range of opportunities, which brought them
within a wider and more variable circle of influences, developed a
superior fitness on the motor side. Another contrast is very evident,
men's work being performed under more striking circumstances and with
more apparent effort and danger, drew to itself prestige, which
women's work did not receive; their work, on the contrary, was held in
contempt.[7]
Yet, in this connection, it is necessary to say emphatically that, in
its origin, there was nothing arbitrary in this division between the
sexes. It was, in itself, a natural outcome of natural causes, arising
out of the needs of primitive societies. There is nothing derogatory
to woman in accepting the passive or, more truly, the constructive
power of her nature; rather it is her chief claim for the regaining of
her true position in society. I wish at once to say how far it is from
my desire to judge woman from a male standpoint. The power and nature
that are woman's are not secondary to man's; they are equal, but
different, being co-existent and complementary--in fact, just the
completion of his.
There is another point that must be made clear.
The separation in the social activities of women and men was not
brought about, as is stated so frequently, by men's injustice to
women. There is an unfortunate tendency to regard the subjection of
woman as wholly due to male selfishness and tyranny. Many leaders of
woman's freedom hold to this view as their broad exposition of
principle. Such belief is illogical and untrue. It cannot be too often
repeated that sex-hatred means retrogression and not progress. I do
not mean to say that women have not suffered at men's hands. They
have, but not more than men have suffered at their hands. No woman who
faces facts can deny this truth. Neither sex can afford to bring
railing accusations against the other. The old doctrine of blame is
insufficient. Women's disabilities are not, in their origin at least,
due to any form of male tyranny. I believe, moreover, that any
solution of the woman problem, and of woman's rights, is of ridiculous
impotence that attempts to see in man woman's perpetual oppressor. The
enemy, if enemy there is, of woman's emancipation, is woman herself.
But, on the other side, it is certain that the long-held opinion--what
we may call "the male view of women"--which believes that the position
woman occupies in society and the duties she performs are, in the
main, what they should be, she being what she is, is equally false.
Such theorists throw upon Nature the responsibility of the evils
consequent on the deviations from equality of opportunity in the past
lives of women. Truly we credit Nature with an absurd blunder do we
accept this inferiority of the female half of life. _Woman is what she
is because she has lived as she has._ And no estimate of her
character, no effort to fix the limit of her activities, can carry
weight that ignores the totally different relations towards society
that have artificially grown up, dividing so sharply the life of woman
from that of man.
I am brought back to the object of this book.
What are the conditions that have brought woman to her position of
dependence upon man? How far is her state of physical and mental
inferiority the result of this position? To what extent is she
justified in her present revolt? What result will her freedom have on
the sexual relationships? Will the change be likely to work for the
benefit of the future? In a word, how far are the new claims woman is
making consistent with race permanence? It is not one, but a whole
group of questions that have to be answered when once the ideal of the
right of the present position of the sexes is shaken. The subject is
so entangled that a straightforward step-by-step inquiry will not
always be possible. Dogmatic conclusions, and the bringing forward of
too hasty remedies must alike be avoided. The past must lead us to the
present, and thence we must look to the future. The first need is to
find out every fact that we can that will help us in our search for
the truth. Most writers on the subject, in their desire to fix on a
cause of the evil, have selected one factor, or group of factors, and
largely neglected all others. Otto Weininger, for instance, the
brilliant modern denouncer of woman, refers the whole great difference
between women and men to one cause--the bondage of sexuality. Mrs.
Stetson, in _Woman and Economics_, finds a different answer to the
same question, and assumes that the whole evil is of economic origin.
Both explanations are in part true, but neither is the truth.
To institute reform successfully needs a wider spirit. We must face
sex problems with biological and historical knowledge. Before we can
understand women's present position in society, or even suggest a
future, we must examine the place she has filled in the civilisations
of the past; we must fix, too, the part the female half of life has
played in the evolution of the sexes. Yet an inquiry into facts is
only the first stage, and not the final. When we can go on from these
facts to their results, and learn the reasons of what we have
discovered, we shall become to some extent, at least, prepared. Then,
and then only, can we venture to look forward and intelligently
suggest whither the present revolution is leading us.
It is to reach this goal that this book is written. It is an attempt
to place the woman question in a wider and more decisive light. It is
not an investigation of facts alone, but of causes. The gospel it
would preach is a gospel of liberation. And that from which woman must
be freed is herself--the unsocial self that has been created by a
restricted environment. We have seen that woman's social inferiority
in the past has been to a great extent a legitimate thing. To all
appearances history would have been impossible without it, just as it
would have been impossible without an epoch of slavery and war.
Physical strength has ruled in the past, and woman was the weaker. The
truth is that woman's time had not come, but now her unconscious
evolution must give place to a conscious development. Happiness for
women! That must imply wholly independent activities, and complete
freedom for the exercise of her work of race production. Woman's duty
to society is paramount, she is the guardian of the Race-body and
Race-soul. But woman must be responsible to herself; no longer must
she follow men. The natural growth force needs to be liberated. Woman
must be freed _as woman_; she must die to arise from death a full
human being. There is no other solution to the woman question, and
there can be no other.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] "Woman and Labour," _The Chances of Death_, Vol. I. p. 226.
[2] Quoted from _The Emancipation of English Women_, by W. Lyon
Blease, a book which gives an unbiased, and in many respects
excellent, account of the struggle of English women to gain freedom
from the seventeenth century to the present day.
[3] _Strictures_, I. 6, Gregory.
[4] _The Emancipation of English Women._
[5] For an account of this struggle see _Sketch of the Foundation and
Development of the London School of Medicine for Women_, by Isabel
Thorne; also _The Emancipation of English Women_.
[6] _Woman and Economics_, Mrs. Stetson, p. 38.
[7] See Thomas, _Sex and Society_, chapter on "Sex and Primitive
Industry," pp. 123-146; and Ellis, _Man and Woman_, pp. 1-17.
PART I
BIOLOGICAL SECTION
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER II
THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES
Biology the starting-point of sociology--The irresistible force of
Love--The true place of woman and man in the animal
kingdom--Analogy between animal love-matings and our own--The
Life-force--Reproduction a process of nutrition--Different
modes of Reproduction--Cell-division--Successive stages of
growth--Theory of sex--Its nature and origin--Incipient sex
among the early forms of life--The true office of sex--The
principle of fertilisation--Its use to the species in
progressive development--Nutrition as a factor determining
sex--Illustration of the _volvox_--The dependence of the
male-cell upon the female-cell--The well-nourished female--The
hungry male--Relation between food supply and the
sexes--Illustrations--Lessons to be learnt--All species are
invented and tolerated by Nature for parenthood and its
service--The part played by the female--The demand laid upon
her heavier than that laid upon the male--The female is mainly
responsible for the race--The female led and the male followed
in the evolution of life.
CHAPTER II
THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES
"Before studying the sexual relations, and their more or less
regulated form in human societies, it will not be out of place
to say a few words on reproduction in general, to sketch briefly
its physiology in so far as this is fundamental, and, to show
how tyrannical are the instincts whose formation has been
determined by physiological causes."--LETOURNEAU.
Let us now, as the first path of our inquiry, turn our attention to
that biological point of view which is indispensable and fundamental
if we are to understand those primary emotions, impulses and
differences of the sexes, of deep organic origin, which were rooted
long ago in the lowest forms of life, and hence were passed on to man
from his pre-human ancestors. No apology is needed for this inquiry;
for in these uncounted ancestral forces, dating back to the remote
beginnings of life, we shall find hints, at least, of many things
which lead up to and explain those problems which must be solved,
before we can determine the true position of woman in the complex
sexual relations of our social life. We cannot deny our lineage. The
force which drove life onwards from the start drives it still to-day.
The reproductive impulse is the chief motor of humanity; our seed is
eternal. And the point of view that I wish to make clear is that the
sex-impulses, which are, as few will deny, the base of the present
unrest among women, have an inconceivably long history, and thus
spring up within us with a tremendous organic momentum. To deny this
force is futile, to suppress it impossible; all that can be done is to
so regulate its expression that it may serve life instead of waste it.
Implanted in every normal life is an instinctive desire to function in
two ways: to grow and to reproduce, from the simple cell to the
highest type of life, including man and woman, these two desires are
essential and imperative. The irresistible Force of Life has been
inherited by us from millions of ancestral lovers. Only when furnished
with a re-interpretative clue to the origin of sex and its functioning
can we come to realise its strength and its beauty, far stronger, far
subtler, than we suspected before. It is the shirking of these
life-facts that has resulted so often in error.
And let no one resent or think useless such an analogy between animal
love-matings and our own. In tracing the evolution of our
love-passions from the sexual relations of other mammals, and back to
those of their ancestors, and to the humbler, though scarcely less
beautiful, ancestors of these, we shall discover what must be
considered as essential and should be lasting, and what is false in
the conditions and character of the sexes to-day; and thereby we shall
gain at once warning in what directions to pause, and new hope to send
us forward. We shall learn that there are factors in our sex-impulses
that require to be lived down as out-of-date and no longer beneficial
to the social needs of life. But encouragement will come as, looking
backwards, we learn how the mighty dynamic of sex-love has evolved in
fineness, without losing its intensity, how it is tending to become
more mutual, more beautiful, more lasting. And this gives us new hope
to press forward on that path which woman even now is travelling,
wherein she will be free from the risk of clinging to conditions of
the past, which for so long have dragged her evolution in the mire.
The same force that pushed life into existence tends to increase and
perpetuate it. For when the great Force of Life has once started, the
same movements which constitute that life continue, and give rise to
nutrition, the first of the great faculties, or powers, of life. Then,
after this growth has been carried to a certain point, the organism
from the superabundance of nutrition is furnished with a surplus
growing energy, by means of which it reproduces itself, whence arises
the second of the great life faculties. We thus have the two essential
forces of life--the preservative force and the reproductive force,
arising alike from nutrition. Food to assure life and growth for the
individual; reproduction, an extension of the same process, to ensure
the continuance of the species. We thus see the truth of Haeckel's
definition that "reproduction is a nutrition and growth of the
organism beyond its individual mass," or in biological formula, "a
discontinuous growth."[8]
It is well to grasp at once this first conception of reproduction as
simply an extension of nutrition, if we are to free our minds from
misconception. It is a common belief that the original purpose of sex
is to ensure reproduction, whereas fundamentally it is not necessary
to propagation at all. It is perfectly true, of course, that in the
majority of animals, and also in many plants, an individual life
begins in the union of two minute elements, the mother egg-cell and
the sperm father-cell. But this is not the earliest stage, and below
these higher forms we find a great world of life reproducing without
this sex-process by simple separation and growth. In these unicellular
organisms reproduction is known as asexual, because there are no
special germ-cells, nor is there anything corresponding to
fertilisation. The most common forms are (1) by division into two; (2)
by budding, a modified form of division; (3) by sporulation, a
division into many units.[9]
It is worth while to wait to learn something of this first stage in
the development of life, for in this way we shall gain a clue as to
the origin of sex and the real purpose it fulfils in the service of
reproduction. In the very simplest forms of unicellular organisms
propagation is effected at what is known as "the limit of growth";
when the cell has attained as much volume as its surface can
adequately supply with food, a simple division of the cell takes place
into two halves or daughter cells, each exactly like the other, which
then become independent and themselves repeat the same rupture
process. But in some slightly more complex cases differences occur
between the two cells into which the organism divides, as in the
_slipper animacule_, where one-half goes off with the mouth, while the
other has none. In a short time, however, the mouthless half forms a
mouth, and each half grows into a replica of the original. We have
here one of the earliest examples of differentiation. That injured
multicellular organisms should be able by regrowth to repair their
loss in an analogous phenomenon; thus an earth-worm cut by a spade
does not necessarily suffer loss, but the head part grows a tail and
the decapitated portion produces a head; sponges, which do not
normally propagate by division, may be cut in pieces and bedded out
successfully; the arms of a star-fish, torn asunder by a fisherman,
will almost always result in several perfect star-fish. Similarly
among plants a cut-off portion may readily give rise to new plants--a
potato-tuber is one of hundreds of instances. This ability to effect
complete repair is one of the powers that life has lost; it persists
as high in the scale as reptiles, and a lizard is able to regrow an
amputated leg.
It is certainly not the least interest in studying these early forms
that one is able to trace the analogy they bear with the higher forms.
No rigid line can be drawn between the successive stages of growth.
And it should be borne in mind that, simple as is the life-process in
these single-celled organisms, many of them are highly differentiated
and show great complexity of structure within the narrow limits of
their size. Thus among the _protozoa_, the basis of all animal life,
we find very definite and interesting modes of behaviour, such as
seeking light and avoiding it, swimming in a spiral, approaching
certain substances and retreating from others; the organisms often,
indeed, trying one behaviour after another.[10] If we realise this it
becomes easier to understand how the higher types of life have
developed from these primitive types. Indeed, all the bodies of the
most complex animals--including ourselves--originate as simple cells,
and in the individual history of each of us divide and multiply just
as do the cells which exist independently; only in multicellular
organisms each cell must be regarded as an individual, modified to
serve a special purpose, one cell differentiated to start a lineage of
nerve cells, another a lineage of digestive cells, yet another for the
reproduction of the species, and so on, each group of cells taking on
its special use, but the power of division remaining with the modified
cell. Thus a new life is built up--a child becomes an adult, by
multiplication of these differentiated cells, repeating the original
single-cell development.
Budding, the second, and perhaps the most usual mode of asexual
propagation, may be said to mark a further step in the development of
the reproductive process. Here the mother-cell, instead of dividing
into two equal parts and at once rupturing, protrudes a small portion
of its substance, which is separated by a constriction that grows
deeper and deeper until the bulk becomes wholly detached. This small
bud then grows until it attains the size of the parent, when it, in
turn, repeats the same process. This mode of reproduction is common to
the great majority of plants. In animal life it is not confined to
single-celled organism, but takes place in certain multicellulars,
such as worms, bryozoans, and ascidians; one very interesting example
being the sea-worm (_myrianida_) which buds off a whole chain of
individuals.
Nearly allied with budding is the third stage, in which the division
is multiple and rapid within the limited space of the mother-cell.
This is known as spore formation. The cells become detached, and do
not further develop until they have escaped from the parent. They then
increase by division and growth to form independent individuals. This
spore reproduction is found among certain types of vegetation; it also
occurs in the _protozoa_.
It is probable that these three stages of asexual reproduction are not
all the steps actually taken by Nature in the development of the early
life-process. There must have been intermediate steps, perhaps many
such, but the forms in which they occur either have not persisted, or
have not yet been studied.[11] The feature common to all ordinary
forms of asexual multiplication is that the reproductive process is
independent of sex; what starts the new life is the half, or a
liberated portion of the single parent cell. It will be readily seen
that by this process the offspring are identical with the parent. Life
continues, but it continues unchanged. Thus the power of growth is
restricted within extremely narrow limits. Any further development
required a new process. With the life-force pushing in all directions
every possible process would be tried. We are often met with striking
phenomena of adjustments to new conditions, which in some cases, when
found to be advantageous to the organism, persist. There is, in fact,
abundant evidence that Nature in these early days of life was making
experiments. In pursuance of this policy it naturally came about that
any process by which the organism gained increased power of growth had
the greater likelihood of survival. The number of devices in the way
of modification of form and habit to secure advantage is practically
infinite; but there was one principle that was eagerly seized upon at
a very early stage, and, persisting by this law of advantage, was
utilised by all progressive types as an accessory of success. This was
the principle of fertilisation, which arose in this way from what
would almost seem the chance union of two cells, at first alike, but
afterwards more and more highly differentiated, and from whose
primordial mating have proceeded by a natural series of ascending
steps all the developed forms of sex.
The ways in which this was brought about we have now to see. But even
at this point it becomes evident that the true office of sex was not
the first need of securing reproduction--that had been done
already--rather it was the improving and perfecting of the single-cell
process by introducing variation through the commingling of the
ancestral hereditary elements of two parents, and, by means of such
variations, the production of new and higher forms of life--in fact,
progress by the mighty dynamic of sex.[12]
As we should expect, the passing from the sexless mode of reproduction
to the definite male and female types is not sharply defined or
abrupt. Even among many unicellular organisms the process becomes more
elaborate with distinct specialisation of reproductive elements. In
some cases conjugation is observed, when two individuals coalesce, and
each cell and each nucleus divides into two, and each half unites with
the half of the other to form a new cell. This is asexual, since the
uniting cells are exactly similar, but the effect would seem to be the
strengthening of the cells by, as it were, introducing new blood. In
somewhat more complex cases these cells do not part company when they
divide, but remain attached to one another, and form a kind of
commonwealth. Here one can see at once that some cells in a little
group will be less advantageously placed for the absorption of
nourishment than others. By degrees this differentiation of function
brings about differentiation of form, and cells become modified, in
some cases, to a surprising extent, to serve special purposes. The
next advance is when the uniting cells become somewhat different in
themselves. In the early stages this difference appears as one of
size; a small weakly cell, though sometimes propagating by union with
a similar cell, in other cases seeks out a larger and more developed
cell, and by uniting with it in mutual nourishment becomes strong.
This may be seen among the _protozoa_ where we can trace the distinct
beginnings of the male and female elements. A very instructive example
is furnished by the case of _volvox_, a multicellular vegative
organism of very curious habits. The cells at first are all alike;
they are united by protoplasmic bridges and form a colony. In
favourable environmental conditions of abundant nutrition this state
of affairs continues, and the colony increases only by multiplication
and without fertilisation. But when the supply of food is exhausted,
or by any cause is checked, sexual reproduction is resorted to, and
this in a way that illustrates most instructively the differentiation
of the female and male cells. Some of the cells are seen accumulating
nourishment at the expense of the others and grow larger, and if this
continues, cells which must be regarded as ova, or female cells,
result; while other cells, less advantageously placed with more
competitors struggling to obtain food, grow smaller and gradually
change their character, becoming, in fact, males. In some cases
distinct colonies may in this way arise, some composed entirely of the
large well-nourished cells, and others of small hungry cells, and may
be recognised as completely female or male colonies.[13]
We are now in a position to gain a clue to the difficult problem of
the origin of the sexes. It would be easy as well as instructive to
accumulate examples.[14] I am tempted to linger over the
life-histories of these early organisms that are so full of
suggestion; but the case I have selected--the _volvox_--really answers
the question. Sex here is dependent on, and would seem to have arisen
through, differences in environmental conditions. We find the
well-nourished, larger, and usually more quiescent cell is the female,
the hungrier and more mobile cell the male; the one concerned with
storing energy, the other with consuming it, the one building up, the
other breaking down; or expressed in biological formula, the female
cell is predominantly anabolic, that of the male predominantly
katabolic. Thus we find that the male, through a want of nutrition,
was carried developmentally away from the well-fed female cell, which
it was bound to seek and unite with to continue life. This relation
between the food supply and the sexes is found persisting in higher
forms, and, in this connection, the well-known experiments of Young on
tadpoles and of Siebald on wasps may be cited. By increasing the
nutrition of tadpoles the percentage of females was raised from the
normal of about fifty per cent. to ninety, while similarly among wasps
the number of females was found to depend on warmth and food supply,
and to decrease as these diminished. Mention also may be made of the
plant-lice, or aphides, which infest our rose-bushes and other plants,
which, during the summer months, when conditions are favourable,
produce generation after generation of females, but on the advent of
autumn, with its cold and scarcity of food, males appear and sexual
reproduction takes place. Similarly brine-shrimps when living under
favourable conditions produce females, but when the environment is
less favourable males as well are found. Another significant fact is
the simple and well-known one that within the first eight days of
larval life the additions of food will determine the striking and
functional differences between the workers and queen-bee.[15] Among
the higher animals the difficulties of proving the influence of
environment upon sex are, of course, much greater. There are, however,
many facts which point to a persistence of this fundamental
differentiation. Among these it is sufficient to mention the
experiments of stock-breeders, which show that good conditions tend to
produce females; and the testimony of furriers that rich regions yield
more furs from females, and poor regions more from males. Even when
we reach the human species facts are not wanting to suggest a similar
condition. It is usual in times of war and famine for more boys to be
born; also more boys are born in the country than in cities, possibly
because the city diet is richer, especially in meat. Similarly among
poor families the percentage of boys is higher than in well-to-do
families. And although such evidence is not conclusive and must be
accepted with great caution, it seems safe to say that the facts--of
which I have given a few only of the most common--are sufficient to
suggest that the relation among the lower forms of life persists up to
the human species, and that the female is the result of surplus
nutrition and the male of scarcity.
This is sufficient for our present purpose; all other questions and
theories brought forward regarding the determination and conditions of
the sexes are outside our purpose. Those who will survey the evidence
in detail will find ample confirmation of the point of view I wish to
make clear. (1) All species are invented and tolerated by Nature for
parenthood and its service; (2) the demands laid upon the female by
the part required from her are heavier than those needed for the part
fulfilled by the male. The female it is who is mainly responsible to
the race. And for this reason the progress of the world of life has
always rested upon and been determined by the female half of life.
What I wish to establish now is that the male developed after and, as
it were, from the female. The female led, and the male followed her in
the evolution of life.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] Haeckel, _Generelle Morphologie der Organismen_, Vol. II. p. 16.
[9] Thomson, J. Arthur, _Heredity_, p. 29.
[10] Thomson, J. Arthur, _Heredity_, p. 33.
[11] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, p. 307.
[12] See Ward, _op. cit._, pp. 304-314, from whose chapter on this
subject I have taken these facts.
[13] _Evolution of Sex_, pp. 137-138, 161.
[14] Geddes and Thomson, in _The Evolution of Sex_, pp. 117-123,
135-140, give many interesting and corroborative examples.
[15] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, pp. 40-52, 249-250;
give a complete exposition of this theory with many examples. See also
Thomas, _Sex and Society_, pp. 4-43.
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER III
GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION
I.--_The Early Position of the Sexes_
A further examination into the opinion of the superiority of the
male--Contradictions to the accepted view of female
inferiority--A new way of stating the problem--The female as
the creator of the male--Examples of the simplest types of the
sexes--Predominance of the female in the animal kingdom below
the invertebrates--Superiority of the female in size and often
in power of function--Complemental male husbands--Illustrations
of male parasites--Corroborative evidence from the
sex-elements--The primary service of the male to assist the
female in the race-work--Sex-parasitism among females--This
explained by the conditions under which the species live--The
lessons to be drawn from sex-parasitism--Structural
modifications acquired for adapting the sexes to different
modes of life--Care of offspring not always confined to the
female--Among fishes it is the father who gives any attention
to the young--The superiority of the female persists among
higher forms--Examples--Sex-equality among
birds--Conclusion--The sexual relationship may assume almost
any form to suit the varying conditions of life.
II.--_Two Examples--The Beehive and the Spider_
The case of the beehive--The drones--The queen-mother--The
sterile-workers--The sacrifice of the sexes to the
Life-Force--The maternal instinct among the workers--This has
persisted after the atrophy of the sexual needs--Maternal love
has expanded out into social affection--Application of the
lessons of the beehive--Analogy with modern society--The
Intellectuals among women--Do they understand what they really
want--The organic necessity of love--The price of
sterility--The courtship of the Spider--Mr. Bernard Shaw's
Ann--The part played by woman in courtship--Her passivity only
apparent--Female superiority with which sexuality began remains
in every courtship--The fierce hunger of the male--His
absorption by the female--Nothing can, or should, alter
this--The importance of woman's activity in love in connection
with her claim for emancipation--General observations and
conclusion.
CHAPTER III
GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION
"Sexually Woman is Nature's contrivance for perpetuating its
highest achievement. Sexually Man is Woman's contrivance for
fulfilling Nature's behest in the most economical way. She knows
by instinct that far back in the evolution process she invented
him, differentiated him, created him in order to produce
something better than the single-cell process can produce."--Don
Juan in Hell--_Man and Superman._
I.--_The Early Position of the Sexes_
The opinion of the superiority of the male sex has been so widely, and
without question, accepted that it is necessary to emphasise the exact
opposite view which was brought forward in the last chapter. From the
earliest times it has been contended that woman is undeveloped
man.[16] This opinion is at the root of the common estimation of
woman's character to-day. Huxley, who was in favour of the
emancipation of women, seems to have held this opinion. He says that
"in every excellent character the average woman is inferior to the
average man in the sense of having that character less in quantity or
lower in quality;" and that "the female type of character is neither
better nor worse than the male, only weaker." Few have maintained that
the sexes are equal, still fewer that women excel.[17] The general
bias of opinion has always been in favour of men. Woman almost
invariably has been accorded a secondary place, the male has been held
to be the primary and essential half of life, all things, as it were,
centering around him, while the female, though necessary to the
continuance of the race, has been regarded as otherwise
unimportant--in fact, a mere accessory to the male.
The causes that have given rise to such an opinion are not far to
seek. The question has been approached from the wrong end; we have
looked from above downwards--from the latest stages of life back to
the beginning, instead of from the beginning on to the end. We find
among the higher forms of life--the animals with which we are all
familiar--that the males are as a rule larger and stronger, more
varied in structure, and more highly ornamented and adorned than the
females. And when we rise to the human species these sex differences
persist and are even emphasised, though finding their expression in a
greater number of less strongly marked characters, not on the physical
side alone, but on the mental and psychical. It is difficult to divest
the mind of facts with which it is most familiar. Thus it is easy to
understand the widely-held opinion of the superiority of the male half
of life, and that the female is the sex sacrificed to the reproductive
process.
Now, were this true, the question of woman's place in life would
indeed be settled. There can be no upward change which is not in
accord with the laws of Nature. If the female really started and had
always remained secondary to the male, necessary to continue life, but
otherwise unimportant, in such position she must be content to stay.
Her struggles for advancement may be heroic, yet would they be doomed
to failure, for no individual growth can persist which injures the
growth of the race-life. Well it is for women that there need be no
such fear, even among the most timid-hearted; woman's position and
advancement is sure because it is founded with deepest roots in the
organic scheme of life.
As once more we search backwards, tracing the differences of sex
function to their earliest appearance in the humblest types of life,
we find the exact opposite of this theory of the inferiority of the
female to be true. The female is of more importance than the male from
Nature's point of view. We have seen that life must be regarded as
essentially female, since there is no choice but to look upon asexual
reproduction as a female process; the single-cell being the
mother-cell with the fertilising element of the father or male-cell
wanting. We know further that a similar process, but much more highly
developed, is possible in what is called parthenogenesis, or
virgin-birth, which can only be explained as a survival of the early
form. For long life continued without the assistance of the male-cell,
which, when it did arise, was dependent on the ova, or female-cell,
and was driven by hunger to unite with it in fatigue to continue life.
We are thus forced to regard the male-cell as an auxiliary development
of the female, or as Lester Ward ingenuously puts it, "an
after-thought of Nature devised for the advantage of having a second
sex."
Now, if we examine the simplest types of the sexes in the lower
reaches of the animal kingdom,[18] below the vertebrates we find the
same conditions prevailing. The male is frequently inconspicuous in
size, of use only to fertilise the female, and in some cases incapable
of any other function; the female, on the other hand, remains
unchanged and carries on the life of the species. So marked is this
difference among some species that the male must be regarded as a
fallen representative of the female, having not only greatly
diminished in size, but undergone thorough degeneration in
structure.[19] In certain extreme cases what have been well called
"pigmy males" illustrate this contrast in an almost ridiculous degree.
This is well seen among the common rotifers, where the males are much
smaller than the females and very degenerate. Sometimes they seem to
have dwindled out of existence altogether, as only females are to be
seen; in other cases, though present they fail even to accomplish
their proper function of fertilisation, and as reproduction is carried
on by the females, they are not only minute but useless. Nor are such
cases of male degeneration confined to this group. The whole family of
the _Abdominalia_ (cirripedes) have the sexes separate; and the males,
comparatively very small, are attached to the body of each female, and
are entirely passive and dependent upon her.[20] Some of these male
parasites are so far degenerated as to have lost their digestive
organs and are incapable of any function except fertilisation: the
male _Sygami_ (menatodes), for instance, being so far effaced that it
is nothing but a testicle living on the female.[21] A yet more
striking instance is furnished by the curious green worm _Bonellia_,
where the male appears like a remote ancestor of the female, on whom
it lives parasitically. Somewhat similar is the cocus insect, among
whom the males are very degenerate, small, blind and wingless.
This phenomenon of minute parasitic male fertilisers in connection
with normally developed females was noticed by Darwin, and his
observations have been confirmed by Van Beneden, by Huxley, Haeckel,
Milne Edwards, Fabre, Patrick Geddes, and many other eminent
entomologists.[22] A full study of these early forms of sexuality
should be made by all who wish to understand the problem of woman;
their life-histories furnish prophecies of many large facts. I wish it
were possible for me to bring forward further examples. It is the
difficulty of treating so wide a subject within narrow limits that so
many things that are of interest have to be hurried over and left out.
But there is one delightful case that I cannot refrain from
mentioning. The facts are given in a letter from Darwin to Sir Charles
Lyell, dated September 14, 1849. It is quoted by Professor Lester
Ward. This instance of the sexual relationship among the cirripedes
illustrates very vividly the early superiority of the female.
The letter runs thus--
"The other day I got a curious case of a unisexual, instead of
hermaphrodite cirripede, in which the female had the common
cirripedial character, and in two valves of her shell had two
little pockets, in each of which she kept a little husband; I do
not know of any other case in which the female invariably has
two husbands. I have still one other fact, common to several
species, namely, that though they are hermaphrodite, they have
small additional, or shall I call them, complemental males, one
specimen, itself hermaphrodite, had no less than seven of these
complemental males attached to it. Truly the schemes and wonders
of Nature are illimitable,"[23]
Here, indeed, is a knock-down blow to the theory of the natural
superiority of the male. These cases we have examined are certainly
extreme, the difference between the sexes is, as we shall see, less
marked in many early types. But the existence of these helpless little
husbands serves to show the true origin of the male. How often he
lived parasitically on the female, his work to aid her in the
reproductive process, useful to secure greater variation than could be
had by the single-celled process. In other words, the male is of use
to the life-scheme in assisting the female to produce progressively
fitter forms. She, indeed, created him, his sole function being her
impregnation.
Corroborative evidence appears in the contrast which persists in all
the higher forms between the relatively large female-cell or germ and
the microscopical male-cell or sperm, as also in the absorption of the
male cellule by the female cellule. In the sexual cells there is no
character in which differentiation goes so far as that of size.[24]
The female cell is always much larger than the male; where the former
is swollen with the reserve food, the spermatozoa may be less than a
millionth of its volume. In the human species an ovum is about 3000
times as large as spermatozoa.[25] The male cellule, differentiated to
enable it to reach the female, impregnates and becomes fused within
her cellule, which, unlike hers, preserves its individuality and
continues as the main source of life.
It is true that exceptions occur, sex-parasitism appearing in both sex
forms, and in some cases it is the female who degenerates and becomes
wholly passive and dependent, but this is usually under conditions
which afford in themselves an explanation. Thus, in the troublesome
thread-worm (_Heterodera schachtii_), which infests the turnip plant,
the sexes are at first alike, then both become parasitic, but the
adult male recovers himself, is agile and like other thread-worms,
while the female remains a parasitic victim without power of
function--a mere passive, distended bag of eggs. Another extreme but
well-known example is that of the cochineal insect, where the female,
laden with reserve products in the form of the well-known pigment,
spends much of its life like a mere quiescent gall on the cactus
plant; the male, on the other hand, is active, though short-lived.
Among other insects--such, for example, as certain ticks--a very
complete form of female parasitism prevails; and while the male
remains a complex, highly active, winged creature, the female,
fastening itself into the flesh of some living animal and sucking its
blood, has lost wings and all activity and power of locomotion, having
become a mere distended bladder, which, when filled with eggs, bursts
and ends a parasitic existence that has hardly been life.[26] In many
crustaceans, again, the females are parasitic, but this also is
explained by their habit of seeking shelter for egg-laying
purposes.[27]
The whole question of sex-parasitism as it appears in these first
pages of the life-histories of sexes is one of deep suggestion; and
one, moreover, that casts forward sharp side-lights on modern sex
problems. In some early forms, where the conditions of life are
similar for the two sexes, the male and the female are often like one
another. Thus it is very difficult to distinguish a male starfish from
a female starfish, or a male sea-urchin from a female sea-urchin. It
becomes abundantly clear that degeneration in active function, whether
it be that of the male or the female, is the inevitable nemesis of
parasitism. The males and females in the cases we have examined may be
said to be martyrs to their respective sexes.
A further truth of the utmost importance becomes manifest. Many
differences between the relative position of the sexes, which we are
apt to suppose are inherent in the female or male, are not inherent,
in light of these early and varying types. We see that the
sex-relationship and the character of the female and male assume
different forms, changing as the conditions of life vary. Again and
again when we come to examine the position of women in different
periods of civilisation, we shall find that whenever the conditions of
life have tended to withdraw them from the social activities of
labour, restricting them, like these early sex-victims, to the passive
exercise of their reproductive functions alone, that such parasitism
has resulted invariably in the degeneration of woman, and through her
passing on such deterioration to her sons, there has followed, after a
longer or shorter period, the degeneration of society. But these
questions belong to the later part of our inquiry, and cannot be
entered on here. Yet it were well to fix in our minds at once the
dangers, without escape, that follow sex-parasitism.
It may be thought that these cases of sex-victims are exceptions, and
that, therefore, it is unsafe to draw conclusions from them. The
truth would rather seem to be that they are extreme examples of
conditions that were common at one stage of life. There is no doubt
that up to the level of the amphibians female superiority in size, and
often in power of function, prevails.[28] If, for example, we look at
insects generally, the males are smaller than the females, especially
in the imago state. There are many species, belonging to different
orders--as, for instance, certain moths and butterflies--in which this
superiority is very marked. The males are either not provided with any
functional organs for eating, or have these imperfectly developed. It
seems evident that their sole function is to fertilise the female. A
familiar and interesting example is furnished by the common
mosquitoes, among whom the female alone, with its harmful sting, is
known to the unscientific world. The males, frail and weaponless
little creatures, swarm with the females in the early summer, and then
pass away, their work being done.
Dr. Howard, writing of the mosquito in America, says--
"It is a well-known fact that the adult male mosquito does not
necessarily take nourishment, and that the adult female does not
necessarily rely on the blood of warm-blooded animals. The mouth
parts of the male are so different from those of the female that
it is probable that, if it feeds at all, it obtains its food in
quite a different manner from the female. They are often
observed sipping at drops of water, and in one instance a
fondness for molasses has been recorded."[29]
We find many examples of such structural modifications acquired for
the purpose of adapting the sexes to different modes of life. Darwin
notes that the females of certain flies are blood-suckers, whilst the
males, living on flowers, have mouths destitute of mandibles.[30] The
females are carnivorous, the males herbivorous. It would be easy to
bring forward many further examples among the invertebrates in which
the differences between the sexes indicates very clearly the
persistence of female superiority. But for these I must refer the
reader to the works of Darwin and other entomologists, and to the many
interesting cases given by Professor Lester Ward. There are, it is
true, exceptions, but these may be explained by the conditions under
which the species live.
Even when we ascend the scale to back-boned animals, cases are not
wanting in which the early superiority in size of the female remains
unaltered. The smallest known vertebrate, _Heterandria formosa_, has
females very considerably larger than the males.[31] Among fishes the
males are commonly smaller than the females, who are also, as a rule,
considerably more numerous.[32] This is a fact that fishermen are well
aware of. I may mention, as an example, that on one occasion when my
husband and I caught twenty-five trout in a mountain lake in Wales
there were only two males among them. It is curious to find that any
care of offspring that is evident among fishes is usually paternal.
This furnishes another instance of the truth so necessary to learn
that the sex-relationships may assume almost any form to suit the
varying conditions of life.
There are some mammals among whom the sexes do not differ appreciably
in size and strength, and very little or not at all, in coloration and
ornament. Such is the case with nearly all the great family of
rodents. It is also the case with the Erinaceidae, or at least with its
typical sub-family of hedgehogs.[33] Even among birds, where the sex
instincts have attained to their highest and most aesthetic expression,
we find some large families--as, for example, the hawks--in which the
female is usually the larger and finer bird.[34] Thus the adult male
of the common sparrow-hawk is much smaller than the female, the length
of the male being 13 ins., wing 7.7 ins., and that of the female 15.4
ins., wing 9 ins. The male peregrine, known to hawkers as the tiercel,
is greatly inferior in size to his mate. The merlin, the osprey, the
falcon, the spotted eagle, the golden eagle, the gos-hawk, the
harrier, the buzzard, the eagle-owl, and other species of owls are
further examples where the female bird is larger than the male. Among
many of these families the female birds very closely resemble the
males, and where differences in colour and ornament do occur, they are
slight.
A further point of the greatest importance to us requires to be made.
Wherever amongst the birds the sexes are alike the habits of their
lives are also alike. The female as well as the male obtains food, the
nest is built together, and the young are cared for by both parents.
These beautiful examples of sex equality among the birds cannot be
regarded as exceptions that have arisen by chance--a reversal of the
usual rule of the sexes; rather they show the persistence of the
earlier relations between the female and the male carried to a finer
development under conditions of life favourable to the female. I will
not here say more upon this subject, as I shall have to refer to it in
greater detail when we come to consider the sexual and familial habits
of birds. I will only add that in their delicacy and devotion to each
other and to their offspring, birds in their unions have advanced to a
much further stage than we have in our marriages. These associations
of our ancestral lovers claim our attentive study.
II.--_Two Examples--The Beehive and the Spider_
"At its base the love of animals does not differ from that of
man."--DARWIN.
For vividness of argument I wish in a brief section of this chapter to
make a digression from our main inquiry to bring forward two
examples--extreme cases of the imperious action of the sexual
instincts--in which we see the sexes driven to the performance of
their functions under peculiar conditions. Both occur among the
invertebrates. I have left the consideration of them until now because
of the instructive light they throw upon what we are trying to prove
in this first attack on the validity of the common estimate of the
true position of the sexes in Nature. Let us begin with the familiar
case of the bees. As every one knows, these truly wonderful insects
belong to a highly evolved and complex society, which may be said to
represent a very perfected and extreme socialism. In this society the
vast majority of the population--the workers--are sterile females, and
of the drones, or males, only a very few at the most are ever
functional. Reproduction is carried on by the queen-mother. The lesson
to be drawn from the beehive is that such an organisation has evolved
a quite extraordinary sacrifice of the individual members, notably in
the submergence of the personal needs of sex-function, to its wider
racial end. It is from this line of thought that I wish to consider
it. We have (1) the drones, the fussing males, useless except for
their one duty of fertilisation, and this function only a few actively
perform; thus, if they become at all numerous they are killed off by
the workers, so that the hives may be rid of them; (2) the queen, an
imprisoned mother, specialised for maternity, her sole work the laying
of the eggs, and incapable of any other function; her brain and mind
of the humblest order, she being unable even to feed and care for her
offspring; (3) the great body of unsexed workers, the busy sisters,
whose duty is to rear the young and carry out all the social
activities of the hive.
What a strange, perplexing life-history! What a sacrifice of the sexes
to each other and to the life-force.[35] It seems probable that these
active workers have even succeeded in getting rid of sexual needs. Yet
the maternal instinct persists in them, and has survived the
productive function; it may, indeed, be said to be enlarged and
ennobled, for their affection is not confined to their own offspring,
but goes out to all the young of the association. In this community
one care takes precedence of all others, the care and rearing of the
young. This is the workers' constant occupation; this is the great
duty to which their lives are sacrificed. With them maternal love has
expanded into social affection. The strength of this sentiment is
abundantly proved. The queen-bee, the feeble mother, has the greatest
possible care lavished upon her, and is publicly mourned when she
dies. If through any ill-chance she happens to perish before the
performance of her maternal duties, and then cannot be replaced, the
sterile workers evince the most terrible grief, and in some cases
themselves die. It would almost seem that they value motherhood more
for being themselves deprived of it.
Now, how does this history from the bee-hive apply to us? Here you
have before you, old as the world itself, one of the most urgent
problems that has to be faced in our difficult modern society. I have
little doubt that something which is at least analogous to the
sterilisation of the female bees is present among ourselves. The
complexity of our social conditions, resulting in the great
disproportion between the number of the sexes, has tended to set aside
a great number of women from the normal expression of their sex
functions. Among these women a class appears to be arising who are
turning away voluntarily from love and motherhood. Many of them are
undoubtedly women of fine character. These "Intellectuals" suggest
that women shall keep themselves free from the duties of maternity and
devote their energies thus conserved, to their own emancipation and
for work in the world which needs them so badly. But the biological
objection to any such proposition is not far to seek. No one who
thinks straight can countenance a plan which thus leaves maternity to
the less intellectual woman--to a docile, domestic type, the parallel
of the stupid parasitic queen-bee. Mind counts in the valuation of
offspring as well as physical qualities. The splitting of one sex into
two contrasted varieties, which we see in its completed development in
the bee-hive, cannot be an ideal that can even be worth while for us.
It means an end to all further progress.
There is another group of women who wish to bear children, but who
seem to be anxious to reduce the father to the position of the
drone-bee. He is to have no part in the child after its birth. The
duty of caring for it and bringing it up is to be undertaken by the
mother, aided, when necessary, by the State. This is a terrible
injustice against the father and the child. It seems to me to be the
great and insuperable difficulty against any scheme of State Endowment
of Motherhood. I cannot enter into this question now, and will only
state my belief that a child belongs by natural right to both its
parents. The primitive form of the matriarchal family, which we shall
study later, is realised in its most exaggerated form by the bees and
ants. In human societies we find only imitations of this system. And
here, again, there is a lesson necessary for us to remember. Any
ideal that takes the father from the child, and the child from its
father, giving it only to the mother, is a step backward and not
forward.
And in case any woman is inclined still to admire the position of the
female worker-bees, so free in labour, being liberated from sexual
activity, it were well to consider the sacrifice at which such freedom
is gained. These workers have highly-developed brains, but most of
them die young. Nor must we forget that each one carries her poisoned
sting--no new or strange weapon, but a transformation of a part of her
very organ of maternity--the ovipositor, or egg-placer, with which the
queen-mother lays each egg in its appointed place.[36]
Do "the Intellectuals" understand what they really want? Those women
who are raising the cry increasingly for individual liberty, without
considering the results which may follow from such a one-sided growth
both to themselves and to the race--let them pause to remember the
price paid by the sterile worker-bee. Is it unfair to suggest that any
such shirking for the gains of personal freedom of their woman's right
and need of love and child-bearing may lead in the psychical sphere to
a result similar to the transformation of the sex-organ of the bee;
and that, giving up the power of life, they will be left the possessor
of the stinging weapon of death! Some such considerations may help
women to decide whether it is better to be a mother or a sterile
worker.
The second example I want to consider is that of the common spider,
whose curious courtship customs are described by Darwin.[37] Here we
find the relatively gigantic female seizing and devouring the tiny
male fertiliser, as he seeks to perform the only duty for which he
exists. This is a case of female superiority carried to a savage
conclusion. The male in these courtships often has to risk his life
many times, and it seems only to be by an accident that he ever
escapes alive from the embraces of his infuriated partner. I will give
an example, taken from the _mantes_, or praying insect, where, though
the difference in size between the sexes is much less than among many
spiders, the ferocity of the female is extraordinary. This case is
quoted by Professor Lester Ward,[38] who gives it on the authority of
Dr. L.O. Howard, one of the best-known entomologists--
"A few days since I brought a male or _Mantes carolina_ to a
friend who had been keeping a solitary female as a pet. Placing
them in the same jar, the male, in alarm, endeavoured to escape.
In a few minutes the female succeeded in grasping him. She bit
off his left front tarsus and consumed the tibia and femur. Next
she gnawed out his left eye. At this the male seemed to realise
his proximity to one of the opposite sex, and began vain
endeavours to mate. The female next ate up his right front leg,
and then entirely decapitated him, devouring his head and
gnawing into his thorax. Not until she had eaten all his thorax,
except about three millimetres did she stop to rest. All this
while the male had continued in his vain attempt to obtain
entrance at the valvula, and he now succeeded, and she
voluntarily spread the parts open, and union took place. She
remained quiet for four hours, and the remnant of the male gave
occasional signs of life, by a movement of one of his remaining
tarsi for three hours. The next morning she had entirely rid
herself of her spouse, and nothing but his wings remained."
You will think, perhaps, that this extreme case of female ferocity has
little bearing upon our sexual passions. But consider. I have not
quoted it, as is done by Professor Ward, to prove the existence of the
superiority of the female in Nature. No, rather I want to suggest a
lesson that may be wrested by us from these first courtships in the
life histories of the sexes. I spoke at the beginning of this
biological section of my book of the warnings that surely would come
as we traced the evolution of our love-passions from those of our
pre-human ancestors. We are too apt to ignore the tremendous force
that the sex-impulse has gathered from its incalculably long history.
As animals exhibit in their love-matings the analogies of the human
virtue, it is not surprising to find the occurrence of parallel vices.
Let us look for a moment at this in the light of the fierce
love-contest of the female spider.
Of this habit there are various explanations; the prevalent one
regards the spider as an anomalous exception; the ferocity and
superiority of size in the female not easily to be explained. This is,
I think, not so. Is it not rather a picture, with the details crudely
emphasised, of the action of Life-Force of which the sexes are both
the helpless victims? Whether we look backward to the beginning, where
the exhausted male-cell seeks the female in incipient sexual union, or
onwards through the long stages of sex-evolution to our own
love-passions, this is surely true.
Let me try to make this clearer by an example. It would seem but a
small step from the female spider, so ruthlessly eating up her lover,
to the type of woman celebrated by Mr. Bernard Shaw's immortal Ann. I
recall a woman friend saying to me once, "We may not like it, and, of
course, we refuse to own to it, but there is something of Ann in every
woman." I need not recall to you Ann's pursuit of her victim, Tanner,
nor his futile efforts to escape. Here, as so often he has done, Mr.
Shaw has presented us in comedy with a philosophy of life. You
believe, perhaps, the fiction, still brought forward by many who ought
to know better, that in love woman is passive and waits for man to woo
her. I think no woman in her heart believes this. She knows, by
instinct, that Nature has unmistakably made her the predominant
partner in all that relates to the perpetuation of the race; she knows
this in spite of all fictions set up by men. Have they done this, as
Mr. Shaw suggests, to protect themselves against a too humiliating
aggressiveness of the woman in following the driving of the
Life-Force? This pretence of male superiority in the sexual relation
is so shallow that it is strange how it can have imposed on any one.
I wish to state here quite definitely what I hold to be true; the
condition of female superiority with which sexuality began has in this
connection persisted. In every case the relation between woman and man
is the same--she is the pursuer, he the pursued and disposed of.
Nothing can or should alter this. The male from the very beginning has
been of use from Nature's point of view by assisting the female to
carry on life. It is the fierce hunger of the male, increasing in
strength through the long course of time, which places him in woman's
power. Man is the slave of woman, often when least he thinks so, and
still woman uses her power, even like the spider, not infrequently,
for his undoing.
Here, indeed, is a warning causing us to think. The touch of Nature
that makes the whole world kin is nowhere more manifest than in sex;
that absorption of the male by the female to which life owes its
continuation, its ecstasy, and its pain. It has seemed to me it is
here in the primitive relations of the sexes that we may find the clue
to many of those wrongs which women have suffered at the hands of men.
Man, acting instinctively, has rebelled, not so much, I think, against
woman as against this driving hunger within himself, which forces him
helpless into her power. Like the fish that cannot resist the fly of
the fisherman, even when experience has taught him to fear the hidden
barb, he struggles and fights for his life to escape as he realises
too late the net into which his hunger has brought him.
But we may learn more than this; another truth of even deeper
importance to us. It is because of this superiority of the female in
the sexual relationship that women must be granted their claim for
emancipation. Here is the reason stronger than all others. Nature has
placed in women's hands so tremendous a power that the dangers are too
great for such power to be left to the direction of untrained and
unemancipated women. Above all it is necessary that each woman
understands her own sexual nature, and also that of her lover, that
she may realise in full knowledge the tremendous force of
sexual-hunger which drives him to her, equalled, as I believe, by the
desire within herself, which claims him to fulfil through her Nature's
great central purpose of continuing the race. To women has been
granted the guardianship of the Life-Force. It is time that each woman
asks herself how she is fulfilling this trust.
It is the possession of this power in the sexual sphere which lends
real importance to even the feeblest attempts of women to prepare
themselves to meet the duties in the new paths that are being opened
to them. Women have now entered into labour. They are claiming freedom
to develop themselves by active participation in that struggle with
life and its conditions whereby men have gained their development.
From thousands of women to-day the cry is rising, "Give us free
opportunity, and the training that will fit us for freedom." Not, as
so many have mistakenly thought, that women may compete with men in a
senseless struggle for mastery, but in order first to learn, and
afterwards to perform, that work in society which they can do better
than men. What such work is it must be women's purpose to find out.
But before this is possible to be decided all fields of activity must
be open for them to enter. And this women must claim, not for
themselves chiefly; but because they are the bearers of race-life, and
also to save men from any further misuse of their power. Then working
together as lovers and comrades, women and men may come to understand
and direct those deep-rooted forces of sex, which have for so long
driven them helpless to the wastage of life and love.
I would ask all those who deny this modern claim of women to consider
in all seriousness the two cases I have brought forward--that of the
bee-hives, and even more the destruction by the female spider of her
male lover. That they have their parallel in our society to-day is a
fact that few will deny. I have tried to show the real danger that
lurks in every form of sex-parasitism. It would lead us too far from
our purpose to comment in further detail on the suggestions offered by
these curious examples of sex-martyrs among our earliest ancestral
lovers. Those whose eyes are not blinded will not fail to see.
FOOTNOTES:
[16] So deep-rooted has been this opinion of female inferiority that
it has formed the basis of many theories of sex. Thus Richarz holds
that "the male sex represents a higher grade of development in the
embryo." Hough thinks males are born when the female system is at its
best, females in periods of growth, reparation, or disease. Tiedman
and others regard females as an arrested male, while Velpau, on the
other hand, believes them to be degenerated from primitive males. See
Geddes and Thomson, _Evolution of Sex_, p. 39.
[17] The theory of Lester Ward, to which I have already referred,
supports this view.
[18] I have left out of my inquiry any reference to plants, though all
that has been said of the _protozoa_ in the last chapter is equally
true of the _protophyta_, the basis of plant life. Among plants there
are many beautiful and instructive examples of the relative position
of the female and the male plant. A well-known case is that of the
hemp-plant, where the sexes are indistinguishable up to the period of
fertility, but when the male plants have shed their pollen, and thus
fulfilled their duty of fertilising the female plants, they cease to
grow, turn yellow and sere, and if at all crowded wither and die. Many
other examples might be cited, but the question is too wide to enter
on here. See Lester Ward, _op. cit._, pp. 318-322.
[19] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, article on "Sex," by Prof. Geddes;
also _Evolution of Sex_, pp. 20, 21. Prof. Lester Ward, _Pure
Sociology_, Part II, Chap. XIV, gives an ingenuous and complete view
of the early superiority of the female, to which he gives the name of
the Gynaecocentric theory, as opposed to the usual Androcentric theory,
based on the superiority of the male. While fully appreciating the
suggestiveness and value of this theory, and also acknowledging very
gratefully the help I have derived from it, it must be stated that
some of the facts brought forward in its support by the distinguished
American cannot be accepted. Nor am I able, as will appear later, to
accept the conclusion he arrives at of the passive character of the
female. See also a popular article by Prof. Ward, "Our Better Halves",
_The Forum_, Vol. VI., Nov. 1888, pp. 266-275.
[20] Van Beneden, _Animal Parasites and Messmates_, p. 55.
[21] Milne Edwards, _Lecons sur la physiologie et l'anatomie comparee
de l'homme et des animaux_, Vol. IX. p. 267.
[22] In addition to the works already mentioned, see Darwin, _Descent
of Man_, Vol. I. p. 329; Haeckel, _Evolution of Man_, and _A Manual of
the Anatomy of the Invertebrated Animals_, by T. Huxley, pp. 261-262.
[23] _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. I. p. 345.
[24] Thomson, J.A., _Heredity_, p. 39.
[25] Article by Ryder, _Science_, Vol. I., May 31, 1895, p. 603.
[26] Schreiner, Olive, _Woman and Labour_, pp. 77-78.
[27] These examples of female parasitism have been taken from
_Evolution of Sex_, p. 17; see also pp. 19-22. The authors bring them
forward with many other examples to prove the main thesis of their
book--that the character of the female is anabolic, that of the male
katabolic. In establishing this theory they do not appear to give
sufficient importance to the fact that this degeneration of the female
is only found where the conditions of life are parasitic.
[28] _Evolution of Sex_, p. 21; _Pure Sociology_, pp. 316-317.
[29] "Notes on the Mosquitoes of the United States," by L.O. Howard,
_Bulletin_ No. 25, New Series, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Division of Entomology, 1900, p. 12. Quoted by Lester Ward, _Pure
Sociology_, p. 317.
[30] _Descent of Man_, p. 208.
[31] _Science_, Vol. XV., Jan. 1902, p. 30.
[32] Fulton, Naturalist to the Scottish Fishery Board. Cited in
_Evolution of Sex_, p. 22; see also pp. 25, 272, 295.
[33] _Pure Sociology_, pp. 317, 318.
[34] _Birds of Britain_, by J. Lewis Bonhote, p. 208; also pp.
190-221.
[35] A similar condition will be found in the even more complex
societary forms of ant-hills. Among the vast population of the ants
all the workers and soldiers are arrested in their sexual development,
remaining, as it were, permanent children of both sexes. It seems
probable that this explains the limit that has been reached in the
evolution of these wonderful creatures, which in certain directions
have attained to an extraordinary development, and have then become
curiously and immovably arrested. See _Problems of Sex_, by J.A.
Thomson and Prof. Patrick Geddes, p. 24; _Mind in Animals_, by
Buechner, p. 60; and _Woman and Labour_, by Olive Schreiner, p. 78.
[36] _Problems of Sex_, p. 34. I would recommend this admirable little
book to all students.
[37] _Descent of Man_, Vol. I. p. 329.
[38] _Pure Sociology_, p. 316; _Science_, Vol. VIII., Oct. 1886, p.
326. Letter by Dr. L.O. Howard.
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER IV
THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES
Summary of conclusions arrived at in the previous chapters--The
necessity of a further examination of sexual love among our
pre-human ancestors--The question approached from a different
point of view--The impelling motive of love the union of two
cells--Hermaphroditism--Its various forms--The first step in
the ladder of sex--Reproduction among fishes--The next
step--The attraction of one sex for the other--The female and
the male begin to associate in pairs--Illustration of the
salmon--Sexual differences become more frequent--The males
distinguished by bright colours and ornamental
appendages--Sexual passion and jealous combats of rival
males--Examples--A further step--The note of physical
fondness--The male plays with the female, wooing and caressing
her--The love play often extraordinary--The case of the
stickleback--The males, passionate, polygamous, and
jealous--The paternal instinct of the stickleback--Nature
making experiments in parenthood--Parental forethought among
insects--Illustrations of male parental care--The obstetric
frog--Further examples of primitive animal courtships--A
psychic attraction added to the physical--The courtship of the
octopus--A final step--The co-operation of the sexes in work
together--The dung-rolling beetle--The significance of these
early courtships--Analogy with our sex-passions--The
love-process identical throughout the whole of life.
CHAPTER IV
THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES
"Great effects are everywhere produced in animated Nature, by
minute causes.... Think of how many curious phenomena sexual
relation gives rise to in animal life; think of the results of
love in human life; now all this had for its _raison d'etre_ the
union of two cellules.... There is no organic act which
approaches this one in power and force of
differentiation."--HAECKEL.
What is the practical outcome to us of this early relation of the
sexes in Nature's scheme?
In attempting to answer this question it will be necessary to take an
apparently circuitous route, going back over some of the ground that
already has been covered; to examine in further detail the process of
sexual love as it presents itself among our pre-human ancestors. It is
well worth while to do this. If we can find in this way an answer, we
shall come very near to solving many of the most difficult of woman's
problems. At the same time we shall have made clear how deep-rooted
are the foundations of those passions of sex which agitate the human
heart, and are still the most powerful force amongst us to-day.
In the light of the facts I have briefly summarised, we have been able
in the former chapters to indicate how sexuality began, with the male
element developed from the primary female organism, his sole function
being her impregnation; how this was seized upon and continued through
the advantage gained by the mixing of the two germ-plasms, which, on
the whole, resembling one another somewhat closely, yet differ in
details, and thus introduce new opportunities of progress into the
life-elements; and how, in this way, differentiation of function
between the male and the female was set up. We saw, further, how the
development of the male, at first often living parasitically upon the
female, continued; but how, under certain conditions of life, such
parasitism was transferred to the female, so that it is she who is
sacrificed to the sex function; and, lastly, taking the extreme cases
of the bee-hive and the spider, we suggested certain warnings to be
drawn from these early parasitic relations between the sexes. It is
necessary now to penetrate deeper; to trace more fully the evolution
of the sexual passion, which, from this line of thought, may be said
to be the process which carried on the development and modification of
the male, creating him--as surely we may believe--by the love-choice
of the female. To do this we have once more to return to the
consideration, under a somewhat new aspect, of the relative position
of the female and the male in their love-courtships in some examples
among the humbler types of animal life. After these have been
considered, not only in themselves, but in the relation they bear to
the higher forms which developed from them, we shall be in a surer
position to re-ascend the ladder of life. We shall come to understand
the biological significance of love--something of the complexity and
beauty and force of the passions that we have inherited. We shall find
also the causes, so important to us, which led to the reversal of the
early superiority of the female in size and often in function,
replacing it by the superiority of the male. Then, and then only,
shall we be ready to approach the difficult problems of the sexual
differences which have persisted, separating women from men among
human races, and to estimate if these differences are to be considered
as belonging essentially to the female and the male, or whether they
have arisen through special environmental causes.
If we look back anew to the very start of sexuality, where two cells
flow together, thereby to continue life, we find the very simplest
expression of the sex-appetite. There is what may be called
instinctive physical attraction, and the whole process is very much a
satisfaction of protoplasmic hunger.[39] Now it was, of course, a long
step from this incipient cell-union to the varied function of sex in
animal life, and it was a long process from these to the yet more
complex manifestation of the love-passion among men. But in reality
the source of all love is the same; throughout the entire relations of
the sexes we find this cell-hunger instinct; in every case, it matters
not how fine and ennobling the love may be, the single, original,
impelling motive is the union of two cells--the male element and the
female driven to seek one another to continue life. I find it
necessary to insist on this physical basis of all love. Women are so
apt to go astray. It is one of the vicious tendencies of the female
mind to think that the needs of sex are something to be resisted. Let
us face the truth that this great force of love has its roots fastened
in cell-hunger, and it dies when its roots are cut away.
It is evident that at first this sex-appetite cannot have been
purposive, but acted subconsciously by a kind of interaction between
the want of the organism and its power of function. Even in many
complex multicellular organisms the liberation of the sex-elements
continues very passive; and although the differentiation of the
sexual-cells is already complete in plants and animals comparatively
low in the scale, it at first makes little difference in the
development of the other parts of the individual. Among many lower
animals, and most plants, each individual develops within itself both
kinds of cells--that is, female and male. This union of the two sex
functions in one organism is known as hermaphroditism. There is little
doubt that it was once common to all organisms, an intermediate stage
in the sex-progress, after the differentiation of the sexes had been
accomplished.
Hermaphroditism must be regarded as a temporary or transitional
form.[40] It is found persisting in various degrees in many
species--snails, earth-worms, and leeches, for example, can act
alternately as what we call male and female. Other animals are
hermaphrodite in their young stages, though the sexes are separate in
adult life, as, for example, tadpoles, where the bisexuality of youth
sometimes linger into adult life. Cases of partial hermaphroditism are
very common, while in many species which are normally unisexual, a
casual or abnormal hermaphroditism occurs--this may be seen in the
common frog, and is frequent among certain fishes, when sometimes the
fish is male on one side and female on the other, or male anteriorly
and female posteriorly.[41]
There would seem to be a constant tendency to escape from these early
and experimental methods of reproduction, and to secure true sexual
union, with complete separation of the sexes and differences in the
parents. We have noticed the many instances of tiny complemental
males, in connection with hermaphrodite forms, which, as Darwin
states, must have arisen from the advantage ensuring cross-fertilisation
in the females who harbour them. Even among hermaphrodite slugs we
find very definite evidence of the advance of love; and in certain
species an elaborate process of courtship, taking the form of slow and
beautiful movements, precedes the act of reproduction.[42] Some
snails, again, are provided with a special organ, a slightly twisted
limy dart, which is used to stimulate sexual excitement.[43] What do
such marvellous manifestations, low down in the ladder of life, go to
prove, if not that there must be the closest identity between the
development of life and the evolution of love?
These examples of hermaphrodite love lead us forward to a further
step, where no reproduction takes place without the special activity
and conjugation of two kinds of specialised cells, and these two kinds
are carried about by separate individuals. In some species--fishes,
for example--the two kinds of special cells meet outside the bodies of
the parents. At this humble level the sexes are in many cases very
like one another, and there is, as we should expect, a good deal of
haphazard in the production of offspring. Among fishes, for instance,
the eggs and sperms are liberated into the sea, or the shallow bed of
a river, and, if the sperms (the milt of the males) are placed near to
the spot where the eggs (the spawn) have been laid, fertilisation
occurs, for within a short distance the sperms are attracted--in a way
that is imperfectly understood--to enter the eggs. By this method
there is of necessity great waste in the production of offspring, many
thousands of eggs are never fertilised. The union of the sexual cells
must be something more than haphazard for further development. There
must be some reason inherent in the female or male inducing to the act
of reproduction. In other words, there must be a psychic interest
preceding the sex act. In this way a higher grade is reached when the
presence of one sex attracts the other. Gradually the female and the
male begin to associate in pairs.
We may illustrate this important step in the evolution of love by
reference to the familiar case of the salmon. The male courts the
female and is her attendant during the breeding season, fertilising
the deposited ova in her presence. He guards her from the attention of
all other males, fighting all rivals fiercely, with a special weapon,
developed at this time, in the form of a hooked lower jaw with teeth
often more than half-an-inch long. Darwin records a case, told to him
by a river-keeper, where he found three hundred dead male salmon, all
killed through battle.[44] Thus even among cold-blooded fishes (though
it may appear folly to use the word "love" in this connection) a very
clear likeness with our human sex-passions can be traced.
Sex differences now become more frequent. The males are in some cases
distinguished by bright colours and ornamental appendages. During
their amours and duels certain male fishes flash with beautiful and
glowing colours. Reptiles exhibit the same form of sexual-passion, and
jealous combat of rival males. The rattle of certain snakes is
supposed to act as a love-call. Snakes of different sexes appear to
feel some affection for each other when confined together in cages.
Romanes relates the interesting fact that when a cobra is killed, its
mate is often found on the spot a day or two afterwards. Darwin cites
an instance of the pairing in spring of a Chinese species of lizard,
where the couples appear to have considerable fondness for one
another. If one is captured, the other drops from the tree to the
ground and allows itself to be caught, presumably from despair.[45]
A further development is reached by those animals among whom what has
well been called "the note of physical fondness" is first sounded. We
find the males playing with the female, wooing and caressing her, it
may be dancing with her. The love-play is often extraordinary,[46] as,
for instance, in the well-known case of the stickleback. Not only does
the male woo the female with passionate dances, but by means of its
own secretions it builds a nest in the river weeds. The males at this
season are transformed, glowing with brilliant colours, and literally
putting on a wedding garment of love. The stickleback is passionate,
polygamous and very jealous of rivals. His guardianship of the nest
and vigilance in protecting the young cannot be observed without
admiration.
It is certainly significant to find one of the earliest instances of
genuine parental affection exhibited by the male. This reversal of the
usual role of the sexes is common among fishes, among whom care of
offspring is very little developed. In some species the eggs are
carried about by the father--the male sea-horse, for instance, has a
pouch developed for this purpose; in other cases the male incubates,
or cares for the ova. Sometimes, however, it is the female who
performs this duty, but the known cases are few.[47] Some exceedingly
curious examples of male parental care occur among the amphibians. One
of the most interesting is that of the obstetric frog, where the male
helps to remove the eggs from the female, then twists them in the
coils around its hind legs and buries himself in the water, until the
incubation period is over and the tadpoles escape and relieve him of
his burden. In other species the croaking sacs of the males, which
were previously used for amatory callings, become enlarged to form
cradles for the young. There are also instances of the female
co-operating with the male in this care of offspring. Thus in the
Surinam toad the male spreads the ova on the back of the female, where
skin cavities form in which the tadpoles develop. In other cases the
eggs are carried in the dorsal pouches of the females. It would almost
seem that in this early time Nature was making experiments as to which
parent was the better fitted to rear and protect the young!
But let us return to our present examination of animal love-making. In
many diverse forms there is a very remarkable courtship of touch,
often prolonged and with beautiful refinements, before the climax is
reached, when the two bodies unite. Racovitza[48] has beautifully
described the courtship of the octopus, which is carried out with
considerable delicacy, and not brutally as before had been believed.
"The male gently stretches out his third arm on the right and
caresses the female with its extremity, eventually passing it
into the chamber formed by the mantle. The female contracts
spasmodically, but does not attempt to move. They remain thus
about an hour or more, and during this time the male shifts his
arm from one viaduct to the other. Finally, he withdraws his
arm, caresses her with it for a few moments, and then replaces
it with his other arm."
The various phenomena of primitive animal courtship may be illustrated
further by the love-parades of butterflies and moths, the love-gambols
of certain newts, the amatory serenading of frogs, the fragrant
incense of reptiles, the love-lights of glow-worms, the duels of many
male beetles and other insects, many of whom have special weapons for
fighting with their rivals. Among insects the sexes commonly associate
in pairs, and it seems certain there is some psychic attraction added
to the primitive tactile courtship. In some cases the association of
the sexes is maintained for a lengthened period, with many hints of
what must be regarded as love. There are many examples also of
parental forethought, amounting sometimes to a sort of divining
pre-science, as the habit of certain insects in preparing and leaving
a special nourishment, different from their own food, for the
sustenance of the future larvae. We even find instances of co-operation
of the sexes in work together, affording a first hint of this
linking-force to the development of love in its later and full
expression. Such are the activities of the dung-rolling beetle, where
the two sexes assist each other in their curious occupation. The male
and female of another order of beetle (_Lethrus cephalotes_) inhabit
the same cavity, and the virtuous matron is said greatly to resent the
intrusion of another male.[49]
In insects, as in the higher animals, and as in man, sexual
association takes many different forms. But obviously I must not
linger over these early types of love. My object is to bring forward
examples, which seem to me useful as preliminary studies to throw
light on the origin of sex-passion, and proving that the love-process
throughout the whole of life is identical. Those who are acquainted
with the work of Fabre, "The Insects' Homer," will have no difficulty
in accepting this. The studies he has given us of wonderful behaviour
of insects, their arts and crafts, their courtships and marriages,
their domestic and social relationships, opens up a new drama of
animal life.
FOOTNOTES:
[39] _Evolution of Sex_, p. 265.
[40] There are some who believe that the higher animals pass through a
state of embryonic hermaphroditism, but decisive proof of this is
wanting. In this connection the structural resemblance of the male and
female sexual organs should be noticed; in each sex there is a
complete but rudimentary set of parallels to the organs of the other
sex. This primitive and fundamental unity of the male and female sex
organs is very significant. Indeed, the whole question of
hermaphroditism is one of deep suggestion when these embryological
facts are brought into relation with the abnormalities which occur in
the expression of the sexual impulses. See _Evolution of Sex_, chapter
on "Hermaphroditism," pp. 65-80; also Bloch, _Sexual Life of Our
Times_, pp. 11-12, 551-554. Wieninger's _Sex and Character_, pp. 6, 7,
13, 45, is also interesting.
[41] A similar condition has been noted among butterflies, where, in
some cases, differences in the colouring of the wings on two sides has
been found to correspond to an internal co-existence of the male and
female sex-organs. It seems probable that this interesting phenomenon
of abnormal hermaphroditism is of much commoner occurrence than the
cases that have been recorded (_Evolution of Sex_, p. 67).
[42] "The Love of Slugs," article by James Bladon, _Zoologist_, Vol.
XV., 1857, p. 6272.
[43] "Molluscs," article by Rev. L.H. Cooke, _Cambridge Natural
History_, Vol. III. p. 143. Both these cases are quoted by Havelock
Ellis in his illuminative "Analysis of the Sexual Impulse," the
opening chapters in the third volume of the _Studies in the Psychology
of Sex_.
[44] Trout also fight during the breeding season. _Chapters on Human
Love_, by Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), pp. 13-14.
[45] _Evolution of Sex_, pp. 625-626. _Chapters on Human Love_, p. 14.
[46] _Problems of Sex_, by J.A. Thomson and Prof. Patrick Geddes, p.
20.
[47] _Evolution of Sex_, pp. 270-272, 295.
[48] _Natural Science_, Nov. 1894, quoted by Havelock Ellis,
_Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. p. 30.
[49] _Evolution of Sex_, p. 265.
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER V
COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
I.--_Among the Birds and Mammals_
Courtship and marriage among birds and mammals--Every form of
association similar to human marriage--A high standard of
love-morality among birds--Monogamy, polygamy, and
polyandry--Cases of absolute profligate
promiscuity--Suggestions of all the sexual sins of
humanity--The phenomena of courtship--The law of
battle--Battles of mammals and male gallinaceae--The frenzy of
love--Where supremacy in love is gained by force the males
become stronger and better armed than the females--Importance
of this--Gentler ways of wooing--AEsthetic seductions--Courteous
duels--The note of joy in love among birds--Affectionate
partnerships lasting for life--Frequency of monogamy among
birds--Co-operation of both sexes in forming the home and
caring for the young--The amatory dances of birds--Significance
of dancing--Numerous illustrations--The use of song and
decorative plumage--Musical seduction--AEsthetic
constructions--The extraordinary power of sex-hunger--General
propositions.
II.--_Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage and the Family among
Birds_
Darwin's theory of sexual-selection--Objections to this by Wallace
and others--An explanation--The true object of courtship--The
sexual passion the origin of social growth--A rough outline of
society already established in the animal kingdom--The maternal
and the paternal family--The former the most frequent--The
importance of the female--Difference between the secondary
sexual characters of the male and the female--Doubt of the
accepted view--Need for a further examination--Cases among
birds in which the female equals or even exceeds the male in
size and strength--Beauty tests of brilliant plumage--Numerous
examples of almost identical likeness between the sexes--This
similarity in plumage occurs in some of the most brilliant of
our birds--The interesting case of the phalaropes where the
role of the sexes is reversed--These facts point to an error in
the accepted opinion as to the secondary sexual
characters--Sexual adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary
and exclusive adjunct of the male--Prof. Lester Ward's
Gynaeocratic theory--Male efflorescence--Among the species in
which male differentiation has gone farthest the males are bad
fathers--Examples to prove this--The fathers devoid of
affection belong to the less intelligent species--The
conclusion--An extravagant growth of the secondary sexual
characters not favourable to the highest development of the
species--The most oppressed females the most faithful
wives--The highest development in the beautiful cases in which
the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity and co-operate
together in the race-work--Individual fancies of females--The
case of a female wild duck--Desire for sexual variety--Conjugal
fidelity modified by the conditions of life--Civilisation
depraves birds--General observations--Love the great creative
force.
CHAPTER V
COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
I.--_Among the Birds and Mammals_
"The principle of 'divergence of character' pervades all nature,
from the lowest groups to the highest, as may be well seen in
the class of birds."--WALLACE.
A great step in advance is taken when we come to study the courtship
and sexual relationships of birds and mammals. There are many
examples, in particular among birds, of a beautiful and high standard
of love-morality. To the physical fondness of the sexes for one
another there is now added a wealth of what must be recognised as
psychical attraction, which finds its expression in many diverse ways.
We shall find all forms of sexual association, very similar to
marriage in the human species. There are temporary unions formed for
the purpose of procreation, after which the partners separate and
cease to care for one another. Polygamy is frequent, polyandry also
occurs, and there are many cases of absolute profligate promiscuity.
We shall, indeed, find the suggestion of all the sexual sins of
humanity, every form of coquetry, of love-battles, jealousy and the
like. There are as well many examples of monogamic unions lasting for
the lives of the partners. This is especially the case with birds.
Among the higher mammals polygamy is most common, but permanent unions
are formed, especially among the anthropoid apes. Thus strictly
monogamous marriages are frequent among gorillas and orang-utans, the
young sometimes remaining with their parents to the age of six years,
while any approach to loose behaviour on the part of the wife is
severely punished by the husband.[50] We find both the matriarchate
and patriarchate family; and we may observe the greatest difference in
the conduct of the parents in their care of offspring. Even a rapid
examination of these customs is worth while, for they cast forward
many suggestions on our sexual, domestic, and social relationships.
Let us take first the phenomena of courtship.
It is possible to give only the briefest outline of this fascinating
subject. We will begin with the law-of-battle. Courtship without
combat is rare among mammals; it is less common in many species of
birds. Special offensive and defensive weapons for use in these
love-fights are found; such are the larger canine teeth of many male
mammals, the antlers of stags, the tusks of elephants, the horns of
antelopes, goats, oxen and other animals, while among birds the spurs
of the cock and allied species are examples of sexual weapons.[51]
"The season of love is the season of battle," says Darwin. To those
who understand love there will be no cause of surprise in these
procreative explosions. There can be no doubt that such combats are a
stimulus to mutual sexual excitement in the males who take part in
them and the female who watches them. Throughout Nature love only
reaches its goal after tremendous expenditure of energy. Courtship is
the prelude to love. The question is--what form it shall take? It is
this that even yet we have not decided. But the importance of
courtship cannot be overlooked. We must regard it as the servant of
the Life-force. In the fine saying of Professor Lloyd Morgan,[52] "the
purpose of courtship reveals itself as the strong and steady bending
of the bow, that the arrow may find its mark in a biological end of
the highest importance in the survival of a healthy and vigorous
race."
Even the most timid animals will fight desperately under the stimulus
of sex-passion. Hares and moles battle to the death in some cases;
squirrels and beavers wound each other severely. Seals grapple with
tooth and claw; bulls, deer and stallions have violent encounters, and
goats use their curved horns with deadly effect.[53] The elephant,
pacific by nature, assumes a terrible fury in the rutting season.
Thus, the Sanskrit poems frequently use the simile of the elephant
goaded by love to express the highest degree of strength, nobility,
grandeur and even beauty.[54] It is hardly necessary to point out that
in these love-conflicts we may find the sources of our own brute
passions of jealousy, and the origin of duels, murders and all the
violent crimes committed by men under the excitement of sexual
emotion--the tares among the wheat of love that drive men mad and
wild.
In birds it is among the gallinaceae that love incites the male with
warlike fury. The barn-door cock is the type of the jealous
male--amorous, vain and courageous.[55] It must be noted that
wheresoever supremacy in love is obtained by force the male has
necessarily become, through the action of selection, stronger and
better armed than the female. Among birds, where the law of battle
largely gives place to a gentler wooing, there are many species in
which the female is larger and stronger than the male, and a much
greater number where there is no appreciable difference between the
sexes. These prove what we have already established among the
invertebrates, that there is no necessary correlation between weakness
and the female sex. But to this question, so important in its bearing
on the relative position of the sexes, I shall return later.
The acquisition of mates does not depend entirely upon strength and
victory in battle. Many male mammals have crests and tufts of hair,
and other marks of beauty, such as bright colouring, are often
conspicuous. These are used to attract the females. The incense of
odoriferous glands, which become specially functional during the
breeding season, are another frequent means of sexual attraction.[56]
Even many of the amatory duels are not really fights between rivals.
They are rather parades, or tournaments, used by the males as a means
of displaying their beauty and valour to the females. This is frequent
among the contests of birds, as, for instance, the grouse of Florida
(_Tetras cuspido_), which are said to assemble at night to fight
until morning with measured grace, and then to separate, having first
exchanged formal courtesies.[57]
It is among birds that the notes of joy in love break out with a
wonderful fascination. They are the most perfect of lovers; strength
is often quite set aside, and the eye and ear of the mate alone is
appealed to. The males (and also, in some cases, the females) use many
aesthetic appeals to stimulate passion, such as dancing, beauty of
plumage, and the art of showing it, as well as sweetness of song and
diverse love-calls. There are numerous examples of affectionate
partnerships between the sexes, in some cases lasting for life. The
female Illinois parrot, for instance, rarely survives the death of her
mate. Similarly the death of either sex of the _panurus_ is said to be
fatal to its companion. The affection of these birds is strong; they
always perch side by side, and when they fall asleep one of them,
usually the male, covers the other with its wing. The couples of the
golden woodpeckers and doves live in perfect unison. Brehm records the
case of a male woodpecker who, after the death of his mate, tapped day
and night with his beak to recall the absent one, and when at last
discouraged, he became silent and never recovered his gaiety.[58]
According to some estimates monogamy prevails among ninety per cent of
birds.[59] This is explained by the steady co-operation of both sexes
in forming the home and caring for the young, for it is surely the
working together which causes their love to outlast the excitement of
the procreative season. Sometimes we find this affection flowing out
into a wider altruism, extending beyond the family to the social
group; which again is surely at once the condition and result of these
beautiful and practical love-partnerships.
Those who have read the absorbing pages of Darwin devoted to the
consideration of the sexual characters of birds, or know the examples
given by Buechner, Audubon, Epinas, Wallace and other naturalists, or,
better still, those who have watched and noted for themselves the
love-habits of birds, will find it impossible to withhold admiration
for the poetic character of many of these courtships and marriages,
which put too often our own human matings to utter shame.
Let us look first at the love-dances. Dancing as a means of attracting
the right pitch of passion in the male and the female has always been
used in the service of the sexual instinct. It gives the highest and
most complex expression of movement, and may be said to have been
evolved by love from the more brutal courtships of battle display.[60]
The characteristic features of the amatory dances of birds are well
known; they may be witnessed frequently during the pairing season. The
male blackbird, for instance, is full of action as he woos his mate;
he flirts his tail, spreads his glossy wings, hops and turns; chases
the hen, and all the time chuckles with delight. Similar antics are
performed by the whitethroat. The male redwing, again, struts about
before his female, sweeping the ground with his tail, and acting the
dandy.[61] The crested duck raises his head gracefully, straightens
his silky aigrette, struts and bows to his female, while his throat
swells and he utters a sort of guttural note.[62] The common shield
duck, geese, wood-pigeons, carrion-vultures, and many other birds have
been observed to dance, spread their tails, chase one another, and
perform many strange courting parades. A careful observer of birds,
Mr. E. Selous, who is quoted by Havelock Ellis,[63] has found that all
bird dances are not nuptial, but that some birds--the stone-curlew (or
great plover), for example--have different kinds of dancing. The
nuptial dances are taken part in by both the male and female, and are
immediately followed by conjugation; but there are as well other
dances or antics of a non-sexual character, which may be regarded as
social, and these too are indulged in by both sexes.
The love-fights of swallows, linnets and kingfishers, and the curious
aerial evolution of the swift are similar manifestations of vigour and
delight in movement[64] as a sexual excitant to pairing. Some male
doves have a remarkable habit of driving the hen for a few days before
she lays the eggs. On these occasions his whole time is spent in
keeping her on the move, and he never allows her to settle or rest for
a minute except on the nest.[65]
This last case affords a striking illustration of the real object of
all these elaborate movements. The male albatross, an ugly and
dull-coloured bird,[66] during courtship stands by the female on the
nest, raises his wings, spreads his tail, throws up his head with the
bill in the air, or stretches it straight out or forwards as far as he
can, and then utters a curious cry.[67] But the most interesting
example that I have been able to find recorded of dancing among birds
is the habit of waltzing, common to the male, and in a lesser degree
to the female ostrich. It is thus described by S. Cronwright
Schreiner.[68]
"After running a few yards they (the ostriches) will stop, and
with raised wings spin round rapidly for some time until quite
giddy, when a broken leg occasionally occurs.... Vigorous cocks
'roll' when challenging to fight or when wooing a hen. The cock
will suddenly bump down on his knees (ankle joints), open his
wings, and then swing them alternately backwards and forwards as
if on a pivot. At such a time the bird sees very imperfectly, if
at all, in fact he seems so preoccupied that if pursued one may
often approach unnoticed. Just before 'rolling,' a cock,
especially if courting a hen, will often run slowly and daintily
on the points of his toes, with neck slightly inflated, upright
and erect, the tail half dropped and all his body feathers
fluffed up; the wings raised and expanded, the inside edges
touching the sides of the neck for nearly the whole length, and
the plumes showing separately like an open fan. In no other
attitude is the splendid beauty of his plumage displayed to such
advantage."
In this case it is very suggestive to find that it is the male
ostrich who takes upon himself the task of hatching and rearing the
young. Perhaps this accounts for the female ostrich being able to
dance as well as the male. There are very few examples of birds who
are bad fathers. Often the male rivals the female in love for the
young; he is in constant attendance in the vicinity of the nest; he
guards, feeds and sings to the female, and sometimes shares with her
the duty of incubation. This is done by the male wood-pigeon,
missel-thrush, blue martin, the buzzard, stone-curlew, curlew,
dottrel, the sandpiper, common gull, black-coated gull, kittiwake,
razorbill, puffin, storm-petrel, the great blue heron and the black
vulture. Among these birds it is usual for the family duties to be
performed quite irrespective of sex, and the parent who is free takes
the task of feeding the one who is occupied. As soon as one family is
reared many birds at once burden themselves with another. Audubon
records the case of the blue bird of America, who works so zealously
that two or three broods are reared at the same time, the female
sitting on one clutch, while the male feeds the young of the preceding
brood.[69]
Next in importance to dancing and movement in the aid of courtship
among birds is their use of song and display of decorative plumage.
With them it would seem, even more than among the mammals or with man,
sexual desire raises and intensifies all the faculties, and lifts the
individual above the normal level of life. The act of singing is a
pleasurable one, an expression of superabundant energy and joyous
excitement. Thus love-songs, serving first probably as a call of
recognition from the male to the female, came to be used as a means
of seduction. Every one is familiar with the exquisite lyrical
tournaments of our nightingales; their songs during the love season do
not cease by day or by night, so that one wonders when sleep can be
taken; but as soon as the young are hatched the music ceases, and
harsh croaks are the only sound left.[70] The song of the skylark,
with its splendid note of freedom, is more melodious and more frequent
in the season of love's delirium.[71] Another bird, the male of the
weaver bird, builds an abode of pleasure for himself, wherein he
retires to sing to his mate.[72] A very beautiful case of the use of
these love-calls by the tyrant bird (_Pitangus Bolivianus_) is
recorded by W.H. Hudson.[73]
"Though the male and female are greatly attached they do not go
afield to hunt in company, but separate to meet at intervals
during the day. One of the couple (say the female) returns to
the trees where they are accustomed to meet, and after a time
becoming impatient or anxious at the delay of her consort,
utters a very long, clear call-note. He is perhaps a quarter of
a mile away, watching for a frog beside a pool, or beating over
a thistle bed, but he hears the note and presently responds with
one of equal power. Then, perhaps, for half-an-hour, at
intervals of half-a-minute, the birds answer each other, though
the powerful call of the one must interfere with his hunting. At
length he returns: then the two birds, perched close together,
with their yellow bosoms almost touching, crests elevated, and
beating the branch with their wings scream their loudest notes
in concert--a confused, jubilant noise that rings through the
whole plantation. Their joy at meeting is patent, and their
action corresponds to the warm embrace of a loving human
couple."
Some birds, who are ill-endowed from a musical point of view, have
their wing feathers or tails peculiarly developed and stiffened, and
are able to produce with them a strange snapping or cracking sound.
Thus several species of snipe make drumming or "bleating"
noises--something like the bleat of a goat--with their narrowed tails
as they descend in flight.[74] Magpies have a still more curious
method of call, by rapping on dry and sonorous branches, which they
use not only to attract the female, but also to charm her. We may say
that these birds perform instrumental music.[75]
The exercise of vocal power among birds seems to be complementary to
the development of accessory plumes and ornaments. All our finest
singing birds are plainly coloured, with no crests, neck or tail
plumes to display. The gorgeously ornamented birds of the tropics have
no song, and those which expend much energy in display of plumage, as
the turkey and peacocks, have comparatively an insignificant
development of voice.[76] The extraordinary manner in which birds
display their plumage at the time of courting is well known. Let us
take one example--the courtship of the Argus pheasant. This bird is
noted for the extreme beauty of the male's plumage. Its courtship has
been beautifully observed by H.O. Forbes--[77]
"It is the habit of this bird to make a large circus, some ten
or twelve feet in diameter, in the forest, which it clears of
every leaf and twig and branch, till the ground is perfectly
swept and garnished. On the margin of this circus there is
invariably a projecting branch or high arched rest, at a few
feet elevation from the ground on which the female bird takes
its place, while in the ring the male--the male bird alone
possesses great decoration--shows off all its magnificence for
the gratification and pleasure of his consort, and to exalt
himself in her eyes."
In this picture we have all the characteristic features of the display
of personal beauty in which many birds delight. Any one may see such
performances for themselves. The male chaffinch, for instance, will
place himself in front of the female that she may admire at her ease
his red throat and blue head; the bullfinch swells out his breast to
display the crimson feathers, twisting his black tail from side to
side; the goldfinch sways his body, and quickly turns his slightly
expanded wings first to one side, then to the other, with a golden
flashing effect.[78] Even birds of less ornamental plumage are
accustomed to strut and show themselves off before the females. Birds
often assemble in large numbers to compete in beauty before pairing.
The _Tetras cuspido_ of Florida and the little grouse of Germany and
Scandinavia do this. The latter have daily amorous assemblies, or
_cours d'amour_, of great length, which are renewed every year in the
month of May.[79] It seems certain that this aesthetic display is
conscious and pre-meditated; for while most pheasants parade before
their females, two of the species--the _Crossoptilon auritum_ and the
_Phasianus Wallichii_--which are of dull colour, refrain from doing
so, being apparently conscious of their modest livery.[80]
Certain birds are not content alone with the display of natural
ornament, but make use of further aesthetic appeal in the construction
of their homes in a truly beautiful manner. Some species of
humming-birds are said to decorate the exterior of their nests in
great taste with lichens, feathers, etc. The bower-birds of Australia
construct bowers on the ground, ornamented with shell, feathers, bones
and leaves. Both sexes take part in the building of these abodes of
love, which are used for the courting parades. But an even more
delightful example of the rare sexual delicacy in courtship is
recorded by M.O. Beccari of a bird of Paradise of New Guinea, the
_Amblyornis inornata_.[81]
"This wonderful and beautiful bird constructs a little conical
hut to protect his amours, and in front of this he arranges a
lawn, carpeted with moss, the greenness of which he relieves by
scattering on it various bright coloured objects, such as
berries, grains, flowers, pebbles and shells. More than this,
when the flowers are faded, he takes great care to replace them,
so that the eye may be always agreeably flattered. These curious
constructions are solid, lasting for several years, and probably
serving for several birds."
It is, I think, by such cases as these that we may come to realise the
extraordinary power of sex-hunger. It seems to me that many of us are
still walking in sleep; fear holds our eyes from the truth. But as we
look back to the complex and often beautiful manifestations of love's
actions among our animal ancestors, we begin to perceive that
unanalysable something called "beauty," which is the glory that has
arisen out of that first simple impelling hunger, which drove the male
cell and the female cell to unite. This is how I see things--Life
knows no development except through Love.
II.--_Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage, and the Family among
Birds_
It is especially upon the efflorescence of male beauty among birds
that Darwin founded his celebrated theory of sexual selection. The
motley of display seems endless, beautiful plumes, elongated feathery
tresses, neck-ruffs, breast-shields, brightly-coloured cowls and
wattles occur with marvellous richness of variety.
Now, can we accept the Darwinian theory, and believe that all these
appendages of beauty, as well as the sexual weapons, powers of song
and movement, have been developed through the preference of the
females? the stronger and more ornamental males becoming in this way
the parents of each successive generation. Wallace, as is well known,
opposed Darwin's view, preferring to regard sexual selection as a
manifestation of natural selection. He has been followed by other
naturalists, who have denied this creative power of love, being unable
to credit conscious choice by the females of the most gifted males.
The controversy on the question has been long and at times violent.
Yet, it would seem, as so often happens in all disagreements, that the
difference in opinion is more apparent than founded on the facts.
There is really no difficulty if once we understand the true
significance of courtship. What this is I have tried to make clear.
During the excitement of pairing the male birds are in a condition of
the most perfect development, and possess an enormous store of
superabundant vitality; this, as may readily be understood, may well
express itself in brilliant colours and superfluities of ornamental
plumage, as also in song, in dancing, in love tournaments and in
battles. The fact that we have to remember is that the female is most
easily won by the male, who, being himself most charged with sex
desire--and through this means reaching the finest development--is
able to create a corresponding intoxication in her, and thus, by
producing in both the most perfect condition, favours the chances of
reproduction. There is no need whatever to suppose any conscious
choice or special aesthetic perception on the part of the females.
Great effects are everywhere produced in Nature by simple causes. The
female responds to the stimulus of the right male at the right
moment--that is really the whole matter.[82]
In these instances (brought forward in the previous section of this
chapter) of the universal hunger of sex, which are fairly typical and
are as complete as my space will allow, certain facts have become
clear. In the first place we have seen something of the strong driving
of the procreative function, which is the guarantee of the
continuation and development of life. The importance of the result to
be gained explains the diverse and elaborate phenomena of courtship.
The higher we ascend in the animal kingdom the stronger does the
sex-appetite become: it vibrates in the nerve-centres, giving rise to
violent emotions which intensify all the physical and psychic
activities. Love is the great creative force. It awakens impressions
and desires in the individual, giving rise to what may be called
"experiments in creative self-expression," to the energy of which we
owe the varied and marvellous phenomena in animal life.
A further cause arising from the development of love is certainly of
not less importance--it is the beginning of life not wholly
individualistic. It is in the sexual passions we must seek the origins
of all social growth. This is evident. We have seen that sexual union
induces durable association between the female and the male for the
object of rearing the young. Here already we find that truth, which it
is the chief purpose of this book to make plain, that the individual
exists for the race. This is the new and practical morality of the
biological view, which regards the individual as primarily the host
and servant of the seed of life. And this is really of the greatest
benefit to the individual. From this service to the future arises the
family and the home. The familial instinct, more or less developed,
may be traced far back in the scale of life; and as it gains in
strength it extends from the family into a wider social love, which in
some species results in the forming of societies grouped together for
mutual protection and co-operation in communal activities. A rough
outline of society is thus found established already in the animal
kingdom.
Just as there were many different forms of sexual associations among
our animal ancestors, so we may observe the two chief forms of human
societies, the matriarchate and the patriarchate--or the maternal and
paternal family. It is the former that is the most frequent. This is
what we should expect. The female, the mother, as the natural centre
of the family, the male, her servant, in the procreative act; but
apart from this, we find him most frequently following personal
interests; the female's love for the young is stronger and more
developed than his. I lay stress upon this fact, for it shows how
strongly planted in woman is the maternal instinct. I doubt if any
woman can ever find true expression for her nature apart from
motherhood. It is in these past histories of life's development that
we may find the key for its purpose and meaning to us.
There is another point of special importance to us in estimating the
true place of woman in society. This early position of the female
proves conclusively (as we shall see more clearly later when we come
to study the primitive human family) the importance of the mother and
her children as the founders of society. Woman, by reason of her more
intimate connection with the children and the home, became the centre
of the social group, while the males, less bound by domestic ties,
were able to wander, but came back to the home, driven by their sexual
needs to return to the female. But without giving more time here to
this question, to which I shall return later, there is a further
consideration, arising from our study of the family habits among the
birds and mammals, that now must claim our attention. Certain
examples I have come across, in particular among birds, have forced
into my mind doubt of a widely-accepted belief. I put forward my
opinion with great diffidence; it is so easy to interpret facts by the
bias of one's own wishes. I know that the cases I have found and
studied are probably few in comparison with those I have missed; but
to me they seem of such importance, by the light they throw on the
whole question of the position of the sexes, that it seems necessary
to bring them forward.
We must go back to the position we left, some time back, of the
differences between the secondary sexual characters of the male and
the female. We have followed the development of the male, under the
action of love's selection, from his first insignificant position in
the reproductive process; we have seen him becoming larger than the
female, strong, jealous and masterful--in fact, a kind of fighting
specialisation, with special weapons of defence for sex-battles. This
is the general condition among mammals. Among birds another set of
secondary character, that may be classed as beauty-tests, are more
frequent. Now two questions must be answered. Can it be proved that
all these acquired developments of strength and of beauty belong
exclusively to the males--that they must be regarded as proof of the
greater tendency to diversity in the male, which has carried him
further in the evolution process than the female? Can it also be
proved that such highly-marked differentiation between the sexes is in
all cases necessary to reproduction--that this heightened male
attractiveness is a progressive force in the service of the race? If
so, examples will surely point in the direction of finding that among
those species where the sexual characters of the male, whether of
strength or of beauty, are most different from the female, sexual love
will find its most perfect expression; and further, that the males in
such case will be the most highly developed--the best parents and the
most social in their habits. The whole question, I think it must be
evident, turns upon this being proved.
But in the face of the facts before us this is just what we do not
find. Among birds (who in erotic development far excel all other
animals, not, indeed, excepting the human species, and thus must be
accepted as affording the most perfect examples of sexual development)
we have seen that the cases are not few in which the female equals, or
even exceeds the male in size and in strength. This is so with the
curlew, the merlin, the dunlin, the black-tailed goodwit, which is
considerably larger than the male, and the osprey, where the female is
also more spotted on the breast: these examples must be added to those
I have already given (page 58).
If we turn now to the beauty-test of brilliancy of plumage, we may
observe an even larger number of examples of almost identical likeness
between the sexes. Among British birds alone there are no fewer than
382 species, or sub-species,[83] in which the female closely resembles
the male. In some few of these examples, it is true, the colours of
the female are slightly duller, and in others the female is rather
smaller than the male, but the difference in each case is very slight.
It is specially significant to note that this similarity of plumage
occurs in some of the most beautiful of our birds, as, for instance,
the kingfisher and the jay, where the brilliant dresses of the sexes
are practically alike; the female robin shares the beauty of the male;
in all the families of the charming tits the sexes are alike; this is
also the case with the roller-bird with its gaily-coloured plumage;
and there is no difference between the white elegance of the female
and the male swan.
In the presence of such examples it seems to me impossible to refrain
from thinking that there is a mistake somewhere, and that less
importance is to be attached to the secondary sexual characters of the
male than is generally imagined. Grant that these cases are
exceptional; but if we once admit that among many species--and these
highly developed in sex--the female shows no evidence of retarded
development, we shall be forced also to break once for all with many
beliefs and trite theories which have inspired on this subject of the
sexual differences between the female and the male so much dogmatic
statement and so many unproved assumptions.
I am not forgetting the gorgeous plumage of some male birds, and the
contrast they afford with the plain females. What I wish to show is
that such adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary adjunct to the
male--an expression, in fact, of the male constitution. Nor are they,
as we shall find later, necessary, or even beneficial in the highest
degree, to the reproductive process.[84] I have an even more
interesting case to bring forward, which to me seems to point very
conclusively to what I am trying to prove. The phalaropes, both the
grey and red-necked species, have a peculiarity unique among British
birds, although shared by several other groups in different parts of
the world.[85] Among these birds the role of the sexes is reversed.
The duties of incubation and rearing the young are conducted entirely
by the male bird, and in correlation with this habit the female does
all the courting, is stronger and more pugnacious than the male, and
is also brighter in plumage. In colour they are a pale olive very
thickly spotted and streaked with black. The male is the psychical
mother, the female taking no notice of the nest after laying the eggs.
Frequently at the beginning of the breeding season she is accompanied
by more than one male, so that it is evident that polyandry is
practised.[86]
Now, if such an example of the reversal of the sexes has any meaning
at all, it seems to me that we find the conclusion forced upon us that
the secondary sexual characters are not necessarily different in the
male and the female, but depend on the form of the union or marriage
and the conditions of the family. Professor Lester Ward, in connection
with his Gynaeocratic theory, fully discusses this question. His
conclusion is that this superiority of the males in strength and size
among mammals and in beauty of plumage (which is also a symbol of
force) among birds, instead of indicating an arrested development in
the females indicates an over-development in the males. "Male
efflorescence" is the apt term by which Professor Ward designates it.
He says--
"The whole phenomena of so-called male superiority bears a
certain stamp of spuriousness and sham. It is to natural history
what chivalry was to human history; ... a sort of make-believe,
play, or sport of nature of an airy unsubstantial character. The
male side of nature shot up and blossomed out in an unnatural,
fantastic way, cutting loose from the real business of life, and
attracting a share of attention wholly disproportionate to its
real importance."[87]
This may, I think, be regarded as a picturesque over-statement of what
is in the main true. Male efflorescence has drawn upon itself an
excessive importance, through what we may call its dramatic insistence
upon our notice. It is plain, too, that the more we examine the
question the more we are forced to the one conclusion. It is certainly
very suggestive, as Professor Ward points out, that those mammals and
birds in which the process of male differentiation has gone farthest,
such as lions, buffaloes, stags and sheep among mammals, and peacocks,
pheasants, turkey-cocks and barn-door-cocks among birds, do
practically nothing for their families. Among the gallinaceae it is the
female who undertakes the whole burden of incubation, and feeding and
caring for the young; during this time the male is running after
adventures, in some cases he returns when his offspring are old
enough to follow him and form a docile band under his government.[88]
The conduct of the male turkey is much worse, and he often devours the
eggs, which have to be hidden by the mother, while later the offspring
are only saved from his attacks by large numbers of females and the
young uniting in troops led by the mothers.[89] The polygamous
families of monkeys are always subject to patriarchal rule. The father
is the tyrant of the band--an egoist. Any protection he affords to the
family is in his own interest, frequently he expels the young males as
soon as they are old enough to give him trouble, the daughters, in
some cases, he adds to his harem; only when old age has rendered him
powerless are the tables turned, and the young, for so long oppressed,
rebel and sometimes assassinate their tyrannous father. There is very
little evidence of paternal affection among mammals. Even among
monogamous species, where the male keeps with the female, he does so
more as chief than as father. At times he is much inclined to commit
infanticides and to destroy the offspring, which, by absorbing the
attention of his partner, thwart his amours. Thus among the large
felines the mother is obliged to hide her young ones from the male
during the first few days after birth to prevent his devouring
them.[90]
It is important to note that among birds the fathers devoid of
affection generally belong to the less intelligent species. We may,
therefore, see that these violent polygamous amours of the male, which
result in the development of the more extravagant of the second sexual
characters, are not really favourable to the development of the
species. They belong to a lower grade of sexual evolution. And a
further proof, it seems to me, is furnished as we note that, in spite
of this tyranny, the females show considerable affection for these
tyrant males--the chimpanzee, for example, proving this by zealously
plucking the lice from her master's coat, which with monkeys is a mark
of very special attention.[91] The most oppressed females are, as a
rule, the most faithful wives. Thus the females of the guanaco lamas,
if their master chances to be wounded or killed, do not run away; they
hasten to his side, bleating and offering themselves to the shots of
the hunter in order to shield him, while, in sharp contrast, if a
female is killed, the male makes off with all his troop--he thinks
only of himself.[92] Must we say, then, that the female animal likes
servitude? It is, of course, because the aggressive male, being the
one to arouse her sexual passions, enables her to fulfil her work of
procreation. This may be. But, granting this explanation, it must be
allowed that love under such conditions evidences a deterioration,
not alone in the size and strength of the female, but in mental
capacity--love at a much lower level than those beautiful cases in
which the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity, and co-operate
together in the race work.
Yet in justice it must be added that even the most polygamous males
are not always devoid of affection. I once saw on a Derbyshire
high-road a cock show evident signs of sorrow over the death of one of
his wives, who had been killed by a passing motor. He refused to leave
the spot where her body lay, and walked round and round it, uttering
sharp cries of grief. Nor are sexual lapses confined to the males; a
female will take advantage of a moment when the attention of the old
cocks is entirely absorbed by the anxiety of a fight, to run off with
a young male.[93] Even among species noted for their conjugal fidelity
this sometimes happens. Female pigeons, for example, have been known
to fall violently in love with strange males, and this is especially
common if the legitimate spouse is wounded or becomes weak.[94] Darwin
records a very curious case of a sudden passion appearing in a female
wild-duck, who, after breeding with her own mallard for a couple of
seasons, deserted him for a stranger--a male pintail.
"It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for she swam
about the newcomer caressingly, though he appeared evidently
alarmed and averse to her overtures of affection. From that hour
she forgot her old partner. Winter passed by, and the next
spring the pintail seemed to have become a convert to her
blandishments, for they nested and produced seven or eight young
ones."[95]
I am tempted to wait to consider the immense significance of such
cases as these in the analogy they bear to our own sudden preferences
in love. The question as to the moral conduct of this duck opens up
suggestions of those cases of exceptional love-passions, which all our
existing institutions, laws and penalties have never been able to
crush. The desire for sexual variety is the ultimate cause of all
sexual lapses and irrationalities. It is a mistake to think that this
is a condition peculiar to mankind and the result of civilisation. If
this were so it would be easier to deal with; but before these
deeply-rooted instincts of sexual hunger we are often powerless. I
know of no question that needs to be faced by women more than this
one. I would like to say more about it. But already this first section
of my book has exceeded its limits. I must, therefore, pass on, to
draw attention to the fact, clearly proved by the case of this
wild-duck's love, as well as by many other examples, that it is the
females, who, exercising their right of selection much more than the
males, introduce individual preference into their sexual
relationships. The difficulty is that such preference, of profound
biological importance, is often thwarted among civilised people by
considerations of property and the accepted morality. From this
standpoint permanent marriage may often fail to do justice to the
sexual needs both of the individual and the wider needs of the race.
Nature has no care for sex-morals as we understand them, any mode of
sexual union is equally right so long as it serves the race-process.
But men have set up a whole host of prohibitions and conventions--the
"thou shalt nots" of society and religion. Which are we to follow?
Which is the wheat and which the tares, that must be garnered or
sifted from our loves?
It is important to notice that among mammals, as among men, conjugal
fidelity is modified by the conditions of life. An animal belonging to
a species habitually monogamic may easily change under the pressure of
external causes and adopt polygamy, and, in some cases, polyandry. The
shoveler duck, though normally monogamic, is said[96] to practise
polyandry when males are in excess; two males being in constant and
amicable attendance on the female, without sign of jealousy.
Wild-ducks, again, which are strictly monogamous, good parents, and
very highly developed in social qualities when in a wild state, become
loosely polygamous and indifferent to their offspring under
domestication. Civilisation, in this case, depraves the birds, as
often it does men.
But enough has now been said. We shall find later how far the facts we
have learnt of the position of the female and the sexual relationship,
as we have studied them in these examples from the animal kingdom,
will apply to us and to our loves. We have now to study marriage and
the family as it exists among primitive peoples. We shall find a close
resemblance in the courtship customs and the sexual and familial
associations to those we have seen to be practised by our pre-human
ancestors. The same resemblance will persist when, lastly, we come to
investigate the same institutions among civilised races, up to our
own. Indeed, we may have to admit that, in some directions, love is
not even yet as finely developed with us humans as it is among birds.
It is in the loves of birds, as I believe, that we must seek hints to
that evolution in fineness, which has still to come in our love.
One thing more. It refers to the disputed question of the
differentiation of the sexes by the action of love's-selection. It is
a truth that I wish as strongly as I am able to emphasise. We cannot
learn to know love's selective powers by enclosing its action within
the narrow circle of our preconceived ideas. Instead of limiting its
power we should extend it without hindrance of any form--to the female
as well as the male; to the woman as to the man. We should regard
nothing as impossible, no development of either sex too great to be
accomplished, knowing that all progress is possible to love's power.
Exceptional cases, then, irregularities, it may be, in sexual
expression will henceforth no longer surprise us; they will find their
place in the infinite order of life. Such examples may come to be
regarded as filling in the chain; they form intermediate stages and
also mark the reappearance of earlier manifestations of the sexual
hunger. The new morality of love, which is having its birth amongst us
to-day, will be deeper and wider than the old morality, because it
will be founded on surer knowledge.
FOOTNOTES:
[50] Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 422.
[51] _Evolution of Sex_, p. 8.
[52] _Animal Behaviour_, p. 265, quoted by Havelock Ellis, _Psychology
of Sex_, Vol. III. p. 28.
[53] Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), _Chapters on Human Love_, pp.
17-18.
[54] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 16.
[55] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 12.
[56] _Evolution of Sex_, pp. 7-8.
[57] Epinas, _Soc. Animales_, p. 326; Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p.
433.
[58] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 27.
[59] Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 422.
[60] One of the most charming accounts of the loves of birds is given
in a chapter on "Music and Dancing in Nature," in a volume entitled,
_The Naturalist in La Plata_, by W.H. Hudson.
[61] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. I. p. 350.
[62] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. II. p. 50.
[63] E. Selous, _Bird Watching_, pp. 15-20; Havelock Ellis,
_Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. p. 25.
[64] The jay is the only bird I know whose habits in this respect are
different. Noisy and active during the winter the male becomes
exceedingly quiet with the approach of the pairing season. This may
possibly be explained by the fact that the two sexes of these
beautiful birds are practically alike; thus there may be less
temptation for the male to show off as the handsomer bird.
[65] J. Lewis Bonhote, _The Birds of Britain_, p. 272. It is from this
work I have taken many facts relating to birds. See also A.R. Wallace,
_Darwinism_, p. 287.
[66] Wallace states that these love-movements are more commonly
performed by birds with dull plumage who have no special beauties to
display to their mates, but the custom, as we have seen, is by no
means confined to such birds.
[67] _Notes of a Naturalist on the "Challenger,"_ quoted by Wallace,
_Darwinism_, p. 287.
[68] "The Ostrich," _Zoologist_, March 1897; quoted by Havelock Ellis,
_Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. p. 34.
[69] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. I. p. 317.
[70] J. Lewis Bonhote, _The Birds of Britain_, p. 39.
[71] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. I. p. 383.
[72] Epinas, _Societes Animales_, p. 299.
[73] _Argentine Ornithology_, Vol. I. p. 148; quoted by Havelock
Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. p. 33.
[74] Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 284; also J. Lewis Bonhote, _The Birds
of Britain_, p. 319.
[75] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 14-15.
[76] Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 287.
[77] H.O. Forbes, _A Naturalist's Wanderings_, p. 131; quoted by
Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. pp. 33-34.
[78] Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 438.
[79] Epinas, _Soc. animales_, p. 326; and Letourneau, _Evolution of
Marriage_, p. 14.
[80] Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 438; Letourneau, _op. cit._, p. 13.
[81] _Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale di Genova_, t. IX.
fasc. 3-4, 1877, quoted by Letourneau, whose account I give; _op.
cit._, p. 14.
[82] Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. pp. 18-24, has
discussed this question at some length. The brief account I have given
is a summary of his view. I take this opportunity of gratefully
acknowledging the great help I have gained from the illuminating and
valuable works of Mr. Ellis.
[83] These facts are taken from Mr. J. Lewis Bonhote's _British
Birds_. I may add that in many species where the sexes are alike the
young are quite different from the parents, a fact which seems to have
escaped the notice of those who say that the young birds resemble the
female. A very curious instance is furnished by the greater spotted
woodpecker, where the sexes are similar, but the female lacks the red
crown of the male; and yet the young _of both sexes_ have this red
crown.
[84] This seems to be the position taken by Professor Geddes and J.A.
Thomson in _Evolution of Sex_, pp. 4-5.
[85] Several examples are mentioned by Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 281.
He, however, brings them forward in quite a different connection to
prove his theory of the protective duller colours of the female birds.
[86] My facts of the phalaropes are taken from J. Lewis Bonhote's
_British Birds_, pp. 314-315.
[87] _Pure Sociology_, p. 331.
[88] Epinas, _Soc. animales_, p. 422.
[89] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, t. Ier, p. 29. I may say, that at
the time of writing this, while staying in the country, I have had an
opportunity of watching these bands of female turkeys with their
young. Their fear at the approach of the strutting noisy male is very
manifest. On such occasions they at once seek shelter. I once saw them
fly into a church. The females invariably keep together. I have never
seen a single mother with her young.
[90] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, chapter on the "Family among
Animals," pp. 29-34, from which these cases are taken.
[91] Epinas, _Soc. animales_, p. 443. In this connection I may mention
the fact that in Southern Spain, where the women are noted for their
love of their children, I have often seen mothers sitting at their
doors for several hours, extracting lice from the heads and bodies of
their children. I once saw a beautiful _flamenca_ (Sevillian gipsy)
performing this task for her lover.
[92] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 32.
[93] Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 399.
[94] _Ibid._, p. 234.
[95] _Ibid._, p. 455.
[96] J.G. Millais, _Natural History of British Ducks_, pp. 8, 13.
PART II
HISTORICAL SECTION
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER VI
THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION
I.--_Progress from Lower to Higher Forms of the Family Relationship_
Primitive human love--The same domination of sex-needs in man as
among the animals--Different conditions of
expression--Acquisition of a new element--The individuation of
love--Sex uninterruptedly interesting--The human need for
sexual variety--The personal end of passion--Primitive
sex-customs and forms of marriage--Superabundance of
evidence--An attempt to group the periods to be considered--An
early period in which man developed from his ape-like
ancestors--Illustrations from primitive savages--First
formation of tribal groups--Second period--Mother-descent and
mother-rights--The position of women--The importance of this
early matriarchate--The transitional period from mother-right
to father-right--The assertion of the male force in the person
of the woman's brother--This alien position of the husband and
father--The formation of the patriarchal family--The change a
gradual one and dependent upon property--Civilisation started
with the woman as the dominant partner--Traces of
mother-descent found in all parts of the world--Evidence of
folk-lore as legends--Examples of mother-descent in the early
history of England, Scotland, and Ireland--The freedom enjoyed
by women--Survival of mother-right customs among the ancient
Hebrews.
II.--_The Matriarchal Family in America_
Traces of mother-descent frequent in the American
continent--Mother-rule still in force in some
districts--Morgan's description of the system among the
Iroquois--The customs of Iroquois tribes--Communal
dwellings--The authority of the women--The creeping in of
changes leading to father-right--The system of government among
the Wyandots--Further examples of the sexual relationships--The
interesting customs of the Seri tribe--The probation of the
bridegroom--His service to the bride's family--Stringent
character of the conditions imposed--The freedom granted to the
bride--A decisive example of the position of power held by
women--The Pueblos--The customs of these tribes--Monogamic
marriage--The happy family relationship--This the result of the
supremacy of the wife in the home--Conclusions to be drawn from
these examples of mother-rights among the Aboriginal tribes of
America--Women the dominant force in this stage of
civilisation--Why this early power of women has been denied--A
meeting with a native Iroquois--He testifies to the high status
and power of the Indian women.
III.--_Further Examples of the Matriarchal Family in Australia, India
and other Countries_
The question of the position of women during the mother-age a
disputed one--Bachofen's opinion--An early period of
gynaeocracy--This view not accepted--Need for unprejudiced
opinion--Women the first owners of property--Their power
dependent on this--Further examples of mother-right
customs--The maternal family in Australia--Communal
marriage--Mother-right in India--The influence of
Brahmanism--Traces of the maternal family--Some interesting
marriage customs--Polyandry--Examples of its practice--Great
polyandrous centres--The freedom enjoyed by women--The causes
of polyandry--Matriarchal polyandry--The interesting custom of
the Nayars--The Malays of Sumatra--The _ambel-anak_
marriage--Letter from a private correspondent--It proves the
high status of women under the early customs of
mother-descent--Traces of the maternal family among the
Arabs--The custom of _beena_ marriage--Position of women in the
Mariana Islands--Rebellion of the husbands--Use of religious
symbolism--The slave-wife--Her consecration to the Bossum or
god in Guinea.
IV.--_The Transition to Father-right_
The position of women in Burma--The code of Manu--Women's activity
in trade--Conditions of free-divorce--Traces of mother-descent
in Japan--In China--In Madagascar--The power of royal
princesses--Tyrannical authority of the princesses of
Loango--In Africa descent through women the
rule--Illustrations--The transition to father-right--The power
passing from the mother into the hand of the maternal
uncle--Proofs from the customs of the African tribes--The rise
of father-right--Reasons which led to the change--Marriage by
capture and marriage by purchase--The payment of a
bride-price--Marriage with a slave-wife--The conflict between
the old and the new system--Illustration by the curious
marriage customs of the Hassanyeh Arabs of the White
Nile--Father-right dependent on economic
considerations--_Resume_--General conclusions to be drawn from
the mother-age--Its relation to the present revolt of
women--The bright side of father-right.
CHAPTER VI
THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION
I.--_Progress from Lower to Higher Forms of the Family Relationship_
"The reader who grasps that a thousand years is but a small
period in the evolution of man, and yet realises how diverse
were morality and customs in matters of sex in the period which
this essay treats of" (_i.e._ _Mother-Age Civilisation_), "will
hardly approach modern social problems with the notion that
there is a rigid and unchangeable code of right and wrong. He
will mark, in the first place, a continuous flux in all social
institutions and moral standards; but in the next place, if he
be a real historical student, he will appreciate the slowness of
this steady secular change; he will perceive how almost
insensible it is in the lifetime of individuals, and although he
may work for social reforms, he will refrain from constructing
social Utopias."--Professor KARL PEARSON.
Our study of the sexual associations among animals has brought us to
understand how large a part the gratification of the sex-instincts
plays in animal life, equalling and, indeed, overmastering and
directing the hunger instinct for food. If we now turn to man we find
the same domination of sex-needs, but under different conditions of
expression.[97] Man not only loves, but he knows that he loves; a new
factor is added, and sex itself is lifted to a plane of clear
self-consciousness. Pathways are opened up to great heights, but also
to great depths.
We must not, therefore, expect to take up our study of primitive human
sexual and familial associations at the point where those of the
mammals and birds leave off.[98] We have with man to some extent to
begin again, so that it may appear, on a superficial view, that the
first steps now taken in love's evolution were in a backward
direction. But the fact is that the increased powers of recollection
and heightened complexity of nervous organisation among men, led to
different habits and social customs, separating man radically in his
love from the animals. Man's instincts are very vague when compared,
for instance, with the beautiful love-habits of birds; he is
necessarily guided by conflicting forces, inborn and acquired. Thus
precisely by means of his added qualities he took a new and personal,
rather than an instinctive, interest in sex; and this after a time,
even if not at first, aroused a state of consciousness in love which
made sex uninterruptedly interesting in contrast with the fixed
pairing season among animals. Hence arose also a human and different
need for sexual variety, much stronger than can ever have been
experienced by the animals, which resulted in a constant tendency
towards sexual licence, of a more or less pronounced promiscuity, in
group marriage and other forms of sexual association which developed
from it.
This is so essential to our understanding of human love, that I wish I
could follow it further. All the elaborate phenomena of sex in the
animal kingdom have for their end the reproduction of the species. But
in the case of man there is another purpose, often transcending this
end--the independent significance of sex emotion, both on the physical
and psychical side, to the individual. It seems to me that women have
special need to-day to remember this personal end of human passion.
This is not, however, the place to enter upon this question.
I have now to attempt to trace as clearly as I can the history of
primitive human love. To do this it will be necessary to refer to
comparative ethnography.[99] We must investigate the sex customs,
forms of marriage and the family, still to be found among primitive
peoples, scattered about the world. These early forms of the sexual
relationship were once of much wider occurrence, and they have left
unmistakable traces in the history of many races. Further evidence is
furnished by folk stories and legends. In peasant festivals and dances
and in many religious ceremonies we may find survivals of primitive
sex customs. They may be traced in our common language, especially in
the words used for sex and kin relationships. We can also find them
shadowed in certain of our marriage rites and sex habits to-day. The
difficulty does not rest in paucity of material, but rather in its
superabundance--far too extensive to allow anything like adequate
treatment within the space of a brief and necessarily insufficient
chapter. For this reason I shall limit my inquiry almost wholly to
those cases which have some facts to tell us of the position occupied
by women in the primitive family. I shall try to avoid falling into
the error of a one-sided view. Facts are more important here than
reflections, and, as far as possible, I shall let these speak for
themselves.
In order to group these facts it may be well to give first a rough
outline of the periods to be considered--
1. A very early period, during which man developed from his ape-like
ancestors. This may be called the pre-matriarchal stage. With this
absolutely primitive period we are concerned only in so far as to
suggest how a second more social period developed from it. The idea of
descent was so feeble that no permanent family groups existed, and the
family remains in the primitive biological relation of male, female
and offspring. The Botocudos, Fuegians, West Australians and Veddahs
of Ceylon represent this primitive stage, more or less completely.
They have apparently not reached the stage where the fact of kinship
expresses itself in maternal social organisation.[100] A yet lower
level may be seen among certain low tribes in the interior of
Borneo--absolutely primitive savages, who are probably the remains of
the negroid peoples, believed to be the first inhabitants of Malaya.
These people roam the forests in hordes, like monkeys; the males carry
off the females and couple with them in the thickets. The families
pass the night under the trees, and the children are suspended from
the branches in a sort of net. As soon as the young are capable of
caring for themselves, the parents turn them adrift as the animals
do.[101]
It was doubtless thus, in a way similar to the great monkeys, that man
first lived. With the chimpanzee these hordes never become large, for
the male leader of the tribe will not endure the rivalry of the young
males, and drives them away. But man, more gregarious in his habits,
would tend to form larger groups, his consciousness developing slowly,
as he learnt to control his brute appetites and jealousy of rivals by
that impulse towards companionship, which, rooted in the sexual needs,
broadens out into the social instincts.
It is evident that the change from these scattered hordes to the
organised tribal groups was dependent upon the mothers and their
children. The women would be more closely bound to the family than the
men. The bond between mother and child, with its long dependence on
her care, made woman the centre of the family. The mother and her
children, and her children's children, and so on indefinitely in the
female line, constituted the group. Relationship was counted alone
through them, and, at a later stage, inheritance of property passed
through them. And in this way, through the woman, the low tribes
passed into socially organised societies. The men, on the other hand,
not yet individualised as husbands and fathers, held no rights or
position in the group of the women and their children.
2. This leads us to the second period of mother-descent and
mother-rights. It is this phase of primitive society that we have to
investigate. Its interest to women is evident. Just as we found in our
first inquiry that, in the beginnings of sexuality the female was of
more importance than the male, so now we shall find society growing up
around woman. It is a period whose history may well give pride to all
women. Her inventive faculties, quickened by the stress of
child-bearing and child-rearing, primitive woman built up, by her own
activities and her own skill, a civilisation which owed its
institutions and mother-right customs to her constructive genius,
rather than to the destructive qualities which belonged to the
fighting male.
3. But again we find, as in the animal kingdom, that step by step the
forceful male asserts himself. We come to a third transitional period
in which the male relatives of the woman--usually the brother, the
maternal uncle--have usurped the chief power in the group. Inheritance
still passes through the mother, but her influence is growing less.
The right to dispose of women and the property which goes with them is
now used by the male rulers of the group. The sex habits have changed;
endogamous unions, or kin marriages within the clan, have given place
to exogamy, where marriage only takes place between members of
different groups. But at first the position of the husband and father
is little changed; he marries into the wife's group and lives with
her family, where he has no property rights or control over his wife's
children, who are now under the rule of the uncle.
4. It is plain that this condition would not be permanent. The male
power had yet to advance further; the child had to gain a father. We
reach the patriarchal period, in which descent through the male line
has replaced the earlier custom. Woman's power, first passing to her
brother or other male relative, has been transferred to the husband
and father. This change of power did not, of course, take place at
once, and even under fully developed father-right systems many traces
of the old mother-rights persist.
What it is necessary to fasten deeply in our minds is this: the father
as the head of the woman and her children, the ruler of the house, was
not the natural order of the primitive human family. Civilisation
started with the woman being dominant--the home-maker, the owner of
her children, the transmitter of property. It was--as will be made
abundantly clear from the cases we shall examine--a much later
economic question which led to a reversal of this plan, and brought
the rise of father-right, with the father as the dominant partner;
while the woman sank back into an unnatural and secondary position of
economic dependence upon the man who was her owner--a position from
which she has not even yet succeeded in freeing herself.
The maternal system of descent is found in all parts of the world
where social advance stands at a certain level. This fact, added to
the widespread traces the custom has left in every civilisation,
warrants the assumption that mother-right in all cases preceded
father-right, and has been, indeed, a stage of social growth for all
branches of the human race.[102]
I shall not attempt to give the numerous traces of mother-descent that
are to be found in the early histories of existing civilised nations,
for to do this would entail the writing of the whole chapter on this
subject. For the same reason I must reluctantly pass over the abundant
evidence of mother-right that is furnished in folk-lore, in heroic
legends, and in the fairy stories of our children. These stories date
back to a time long before written history; they are known to all of
us, and belong to all countries in slightly different forms. We have
regarded them as fables; they are really survivals of customs and
practices once common to all society. Wherever we find a king ruling
as the son of a queen, because he is the queen's husband, or because
he marries a princess, we have proof of mother-descent. The influence
of the mother over her son's marriage, the winning of a bride by a
task done by the wooer, the brother-sister marriage so frequent in
ancient mythologies, the interference of a wise woman, and the many
stories of virgin-births--all are survivals of mother-right customs.
Similar evidence is furnished by mother-goddesses, so often converted
into Christian local saints. I wish it were possible to follow this
subject,[103] whose interest offers rich rewards. Perhaps nowhere
else can we gain so clear and vivid a picture as in these ancient
stories and legends of the early powerful position of woman as the
transmitter of inheritance and guardian of property.
It may interest my readers to know that mother-descent must once have
prevailed in Britain. Among the Picts of Scotland kingship was
transmitted through women. 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.[104] 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 matrilineal descent
was, or had been, recognised.[105] In Ireland (where mother-right
must have been firmly established, if Strabo's account of the free
sexual relations of the people[106] is accepted) women retained a very
high position and much freedom, both before and after marriage, to a
late period. "Every woman," it was said, "is to go the way she willeth
freely," and after marriage "she enjoyed a better position and greater
freedom of divorce than was afforded either by the Christian Church or
English common law."[107]
Similar survivals of mother-right customs among the ancient Hebrews
are made familiar to us in Bible history. To mention a few examples
only: 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 to her mother and brothers. Jacob had to serve Laban for
fourteen years before he was permitted to marry Leah and Rachel,[108]
and six further years of service were given for his cattle. Afterwards
when he wished to depart with his children and his wives, Laban made
the objection, "these daughters are my daughters, and these children
are my children."[109] Such acts point to the subordinate position
held by Jacob, which is clearly a survival of the servitude required
from the bridegroom by the relatives of the woman, who retain control
over her and her children, and even over the property of the man, as
was usual under the later matriarchal custom. The injunction in Gen.
ii. 24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife," refers without any doubt to the early 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 kindred.[110] Even the
obligation to blood vengeance rested apparently on the maternal
kinsmen (Judges viii. 19). The Hebrew father did not inherit from his
son, nor the grandfather from the grandson,[111] which points back to
an ancient epoch when the children did not belong to the clan of the
father.[112] Among the Hebrews individual property was instituted in
very early times (Gen. xxiii. 13); but various customs show clearly
the ancient existence of communal clans. Thus the inheritance,
especially the paternal inheritance, must remain in the clan. 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 not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove
from tribe to tribe."[113] We have here an indication of the close
relation between father-right and property.
Under mother-descent there is naturally no prohibition against
marriage with a half-sister upon the father's side. This explains the
marriage of Abraham with Sara, his half-sister by the same father.
When reproached for having passed his wife off as his sister to the
King of Egypt and to Abimelech, 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."[114] In the same way Tamar
could have married her half-brother Amnon, though they were both the
children of David.[115] The father of Moses and Aaron married his
father's sister, who was not legally his relation.[116] Nabor, the
brother of Abraham, took to wife his fraternal niece, the daughter of
his brother.[117] It was only later that paternal kinship became
recognised among the Hebrews by the same title as the natural kinship
through the mother.[118]
Other examples might be added. All these survivals of mother-descent
(and they may be discovered in the early history of every people) have
their value; they are, however, only survivals, and their interest
rests mainly in comparing them with similar facts among other peoples
among whom the presence of mother-right customs is undisputed. To
these existing examples of the primitive family clan grouped around
the mother we will now turn our attention.
II.--_The Matriarchal Family in America_
Traces of mother-descent are common everywhere in the American
continent; and in some districts mother-rule is still in force.
Morgan, who was commissioned by the American Government to report on
the customs of the aboriginal inhabitants, gives a description of the
system as it existed among the Iroquois--
"Each household was made up on the principle of kin. The married
women, usually sisters, own or collateral, were of the same
_gens_ or clan, the symbol or _totem_ of which was often painted
upon the house, while their husbands and the wives of their sons
belonged to several other _gentes_. The children were of the
_gens_ of their mother. As a rule the sons brought home their
wives, and in some cases the husbands of the daughters were
admitted to the maternal household. Thus each household was
composed of persons of different _gentes_, but the predominating
number in each household would be of the same _gens_, namely
that of the mother."[119]
There are many interesting customs belonging to the Iroquois; I can
notice a few only. The _gens_ was ruled by chiefs of two grades,
distinguished by Morgan as _sachem_ and common chiefs. The sachem was
the official head of the _gens_. The actual occupant of the office was
elected by the adult members of the _gens_, male and female, the own
brother or son of a sister being most likely to be preferred.[120] The
wife never left the parental home, because she was considered the
mistress, or, at least, the heiress; her husband lived with her. In
the house all the duties and the honour as the head of the household
fell on her. She was required in case of need to look after her
parents. The Iroquois recognised no right in the father to the custody
of his children; such power was in the hands of the maternal
uncle.[121] Marriages were negotiated by the uncles or the mothers;
sometimes the father was consulted, but this was little more than a
compliment, as his approbation or opposition was usually
disregarded.[122] The suitor was required to make presents to the
bride's family. It was the custom for him to seek private interviews
at night with his betrothed. In some instances, it was enough if he
went and sat by her side in her cabin; if she permitted this, and
remained where she was, it was taken for consent, and the act would
suffice for marriage. If a husband and wife could not agree, they
parted, or two pairs would exchange husbands and wives. An early
French missionary remonstrated with a couple on such a transaction,
and was told: "My wife and I could not agree. My neighbour was in the
same case. So we exchanged wives, and all four are content. What can
be more reasonable than to render one another mutually happy, when it
costs so little and does nobody any harm?"[123] It would seem that
these primitive people have solved some difficulties better than we
ourselves have!
Among the Senecas,[124] an Iroquoian tribe with a less organised
social life, the authority remained in the hands of the women. These
people led a communal life, dwelling in long houses, which
accommodated as many as twenty families, each in its own
apartments.[125]
"As to their family system, it is probable that some one clan
predominated (in the houses), the women taking in husbands,
however, from the other clans, and sometimes for novelty, some
of their sons bringing in their young wives until they felt
brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually the female portion
ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it.
The stores were in common, but woe to the luckless husband or
lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No
matter how many children or whatever goods he might have in the
house, he might at any time be ordered to pack up his blanket
and budge, and after such orders it would not be healthful for
him to attempt to disobey; the house would be too hot for him,
and, unless saved by the intercession of some aunt or
grandmother, he must retreat to his own clan, or, as was often
done, go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The
women were the great power among the clans as everywhere else.
They did not hesitate, when occasion required, to 'knock off the
horns,' as it was technically called, from the head of a chief
and send him back to the ranks of the warrior. The original
nomination of the chiefs also always rested with them."
This last detail is very interesting; we find the woman's authority
extending even over warfare, the special province of men.
The Wyandots, another Iroquoian tribe, camp in the form of a
horse-shoe, every clan together in regular order. Marriage between
members of the same clan is forbidden; the children belong to the clan
of the mother. The husbands retain all their rights and privileges in
their own _gentes_, though they live in the _gentes_ of their wives.
After marriage the pair live for a time, at least, with the wife's
mother, but afterwards they set up housekeeping for themselves.[126]
We may note here the creeping in of changes which led to father-right.
This is illustrated further by the Musquakies, also belonging to the
Algonquian stock. Though still organised in clans, descent is no
longer reckoned through the mother. The bridegroom, however, serves
his wife's mother, and he lives with her people. This does not make
him of her clan; she belongs to his, till his death or divorce
separates her from him. As for the children, the minors at the
termination of the marriage belong to the mother's clan, but those who
have had the puberty feast are counted to the father's clan.[127]
The male authority is chiefly felt in periods of war. This may be
illustrated by the Wyandots, who have an elaborate system of
government. In each _gens_ there is a small council composed of four
women, called _yu-wai-yu-wa-na_; chosen by the women heads of the
household. These women councillors select a chief of the _gens_ from
its male members, that is from their brothers and sons. He is the
head of the _gentile_ council. The council of the tribe is composed of
the aggregated _gentile_ councils, and is thus composed of four-fifths
of women and one-fifth of men. The _sachem_ of tribes, or tribal-chief
is chosen by chiefs of the _gentes_. All civil government of the
_gens_ and of the tribe is carried on by these councils, and as the
women so largely outnumber the men, who are also--with the exception
of the tribal chief chosen by them--it is surely fair to assume that
the social government of the _gens_ and _tribe_ is largely directed by
them. In military affairs, however, the men have sole authority; there
is a military council of all the able-bodied men of the tribe, with a
military chief chosen by the council.[128] This seems a very wise
adjustment of civic duties; the constructive civil work directed by
the women; the destructive work of war in the hands of men.
Some interesting marriage customs of the Seri, on the south-west
coast, now reduced to a single tribe, are described by McGee.[129] The
matriarchal system exists here in its early form, it is, therefore, an
instructive example by which to estimate the position held by the
women--
"The tribe is divided into exogamous _totem_ clans. Marriage is
arranged exclusively by the women. The elder woman of the
suitor's family carries the proposal to the girl's clan-mother.
If this is entertained, the question of the marriage is
discussed at length by the matrons of the two clans. The girl
herself is consulted; a _jacal_ is erected for her, and after
many deliberations, the bridegroom is provisionally received
into his wife's clan for a year, under conditions of the most
exacting character. He is expected to prove his worthiness of a
permanent relation by demonstrating his ability as a provider,
and by showing himself an implacable foe to aliens. He is
compelled to support all the female relatives of his bride's
family by the products of his skill and industry in hunting and
fishing for one year. There is also another provision of a very
curious nature. The lover is permitted to share the jacal and
sleeping robe, provided for the prospective matron by her
kinswomen, not as a privileged spouse, but merely as a
protective companion; and throughout this probationary term he
is compelled to maintain continence--he must display the most
indubitable proof of moral force."
This is the more extraordinary if we compare the freedom granted to
the bride. "During this period the always dignified position occupied
by the daughters of the house culminates." Among other privileges she
is allowed to receive "the most intimate attentions from the
clan-fellows of the group."[130] "She is the receiver of the supplies
furnished by her lover, measuring his competence as would-be husband.
Through his energy she is enabled to dispense largess with lavish
hand, and thus to dignify her clan and honour her spouse in the most
effective way known to primitive life; and at the same time she enjoys
the immeasurable moral stimulus of realising she is the arbiter of the
fate of a man who becomes a warrior or an outcast at her bidding, and
through him of the future of two clans--she is raised to a
responsibility in both personal and tribal affairs which, albeit
temporary, is hardly lower than that of the warrior chief." At the
close of the year, if all goes well, the probation ends in a feast
provided by the lover, who now becomes husband, and finally enters
his wife's _jacal_ as "consort-guest." His position is wholly
subordinate, and without any authority whatever, either over his
children or over the property. In his mother's hut he has rights,
which seem to continue after his marriage, but in his wife's hut he
has none.
The customs of the Pueblo peoples of the south-west of the United
States are almost equally interesting. They live in communal
dwellings, and are divided into exogamous _totem_ clans. Kinship is
reckoned through the women, and the husband on marriage goes to live
with the wife's kin and becomes an inmate of her family. If the house
is not large enough, additional rooms are built adjoining and
connected with those already occupied. Hence a family with many
daughters increases, while one consisting of sons dies out. The women
are the builders of the houses, the men supplying the material. The
marriage customs are instructive. As is the case among the Seri, the
lover has to serve his wife's family, but the conditions are much less
exacting. Unlike most maternal peoples, these, the Zuni Indians, are
monogamists. Divorce is, however, frequent, and a husband and wife
would "rather separate than live together unharmoniously."[131] Their
domestic life "might well serve as an example for the civilised
world." They do not have large families. The husband and wife are
deeply attached to one another and to their children. "The keynote of
this harmony is the supremacy of the wife in the home. The house, with
all that is in it, is hers, descending to her through her mother from
a long line of ancestresses; and her husband is merely her permanent
guest. The children--at least the female children--have their share in
the common home; the father has none." Outside the house the husband
has some property in the fields, though probably in earlier times he
had no possessory rights. "Modern influences have reached the Zuni,
and mother-right seems to have begun its inevitable decay."
The Hopis, another Pueblo tribe, are more conservative, and with them
the women own all the property, except the horses and donkeys, which
belong to the men. Like the Zunis, the Hopis are monogamists. Sexual
licence is, however, often permitted to a woman before marriage. This
in no way detracts from her good repute; even if she has given birth
to a child "she will be sure to marry later on, unless she happens to
be shockingly ugly." Nor does the child suffer, for among these
matriarchal people the bastard takes an equal place with the child
born in wedlock. The bride lives for the first few weeks with her
husband's family, during which time the marriage takes place, the
ceremony being performed by the bridegroom's mother, whose family also
provides the bride with her wedding outfit. The couple then return to
the home of the wife's parents, where they remain, either permanently,
or for some years, until they can obtain a separate dwelling. The
husband is always a stranger, and is so treated by his wife's kin. The
dwelling of his mother remains his true home, in sickness he returns
to her to be nursed, and stays with her until he is well again. Often
his position in his wife's home is so irksome that he severs his
relation with her and her family and returns to his old home. On the
other hand, it is not uncommon for the wife, should her husband be
absent, to place his goods outside the door: an intimation which he
well understands, and does not intrude himself upon her again.[132]
Lastly, among the Pueblo peoples we may consider the Sai. Like the
other tribes they are divided into exogamous _totem_ clans; descent is
traced only through the women. The tribe through various reasons has
been greatly reduced in numbers, and whole clans have died out, and
under these circumstances exogamy has ceased to be strictly enforced.
This has led to other changes. The Sai are still at least normally
monogamous. When a young man wishes to marry a girl he speaks first to
her parents; if they are willing, he addresses himself to her. On the
day of the marriage he goes alone to her home, carrying his presents
wrapped in a blanket, his father and mother having preceded him
thither. When the young people are seated together the parents address
them in turn enjoining unity and forbearance. This constitutes the
ceremony. Tribal custom requires the bridegroom to reside with the
wife's family.[133]
Now I submit to the judgment of my readers--what do these examples of
mother-right among the aboriginal tribes of America show, if not that,
speaking broadly, women were the dominant force in this early stage
of civilisation? In some instances, it is true, their power was
shared, or even taken from them, by their brothers or other male
relatives. This I believe to have been a later development--a first
step in the assertion of male-force. In all cases the alien position
of the father, without tribal rights in his wife's clan and with no
recognised authority over her children, is evident. If this is denied,
the only conclusion that suggests itself to me is, that those who seek
to diminish the importance of mother-rule have done so in
reinforcement of their preconceived idea of male superiority as the
natural and unchanging order in the relationship between the sexes. I
have no hesitation as the result of very considerable study, in
believing that it is the exact opposite of this that is true. The
mother, and not the father, was the important partner in the early
stages of civilisation; father-right, the form we find in our sexual
relationships, is a later reversal of this natural arrangement, based,
not upon kinship, but upon property. This we shall see more clearly
later.
Thomas[134] suggests another reason for the general tendency among
many investigators to lessen the importance of the mother-age
civilisations. He thinks it due to dislike in acknowledging the theory
of promiscuity (notably Westermark in his _History of Human
Marriage_). This view would seem to be connected with the mistaken
opinion that womb-kinship arose through the uncertainty of paternity.
But this was not the sole reason, or indeed the chief one, of descent
being traced through the mother. We have found mother-rule in very
active existence among the Pueblo peoples, who are monogamists, and
where the paternity of the child must be known. The modern civilised
man cannot easily accustom himself to the idea that in the old
matriarchal family the dominion of the mother was accepted as the
natural, and, therefore, the right order of society. It is very
difficult for us to accept a relationship of the sexes that is so
exactly opposite to that to which we are accustomed.
After I had written the foregoing account of mother-rule as it exists
in the continent of America, I had the exceeding good fortune to
attend a lecture given by a native Iroquois. I wish it were possible
for me to write here those things that I heard; but I could not do
this, I know, without spoiling it all. This would destroy for me what
is a very beautiful and happy memory. For to hear of a people who live
gladly and without any of those problems that are rotting away our
civilisation brings a new courage to those of us who sometimes grow
hopeless at this needless wastage of life.
The lecturer told us much of the high status and power of women among
the Iroquoian tribes. What he said, not only corroborated all I have
written, but gave a picture of mother-rule and mother-rights far more
complete than anything I had found in the records of investigators and
travellers. The lecturer was a cultured gentleman, and I learnt how
false had been my view that the race to which he belonged was
uncivilised. I learnt, too, that the Iroquoian tribes were now
increasing in numbers, and must not be looked upon as a diminishing
people. They have kept, against terrible difficulties, and are
determined to keep, their own civilisation and customs, knowing these
to be better for them than those of other races. The lecturer
astonished me by his familiarity with, and understanding of, our
social problems. He spoke, in particular, of the present revolution
among women. This, in his opinion, was due wholly to the unnatural
arrangement of our family relationship, with the father at the head
instead of the mother. There seem to be no sex-problems, no
difficulties in marriage, no celibacy, no prostitution among the
Iroquoians. All the power in the domestic relationship is in the hands
of women. I questioned the lecturer on this point. I asked him if the
women did not at times misuse their rights of authority, and if men
did not rebel? He seemed surprised. His answer was: "Of course the men
follow the wishes of the women; they are our mothers." To him there
seemed no more to be said.
III.--_Further Examples of the Matriarchal Family in Australia, India,
and other countries_
It is only fair to state that the question of the position of women
during the mother-age is a disputed one. Bachofen[135] was the first
to build up in his classical works of Matriarchy, the gynaecocratic
theory which places the chief social power under the system of
mother-descent in the hands of women. This view has been disputed,
especially in recent years, and many writers who acknowledge the
widespread existence of maternal descent deny that it carries with it,
except in 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.[136]
One suspects prejudice here. To approach this question with any
fairness it is absolutely essential to clear the mind from our current
theories regarding the family. The order is not sacred in the sense
that it has always had the same form. It is this belief in the
immutability of our form of the sexual relationship which accounts for
the prejudice with which this question is so often approached. I fully
admit the dark side of the mother-age among many peoples; its sexual
licence, often brutal in practice, its cruelties and sacrifice of
life. But these are evils common to barbarism, and are found existing
under father-right quite as frequently as under mother-right. I
concede, too, that mother-descent was not necessarily or universally a
period of mother-rule. It was not. But that it did in many cases--and
these no exceptional ones--carry with it power for women, as the
transmitters of inheritance and property I am certain that the known
facts prove.[137] Nor do I forget that cruel treatment of women was
not uncommon in matriarchal societies. I have shown how in many tribes
the power rested in the woman's brother or male relations, and in all
such cases mother-descent was really combined with a patriarchal
system, the earlier authority of the mother persisting only as a
habit. But to argue from the cases of male cruelty that mother-descent
did not confer special advantages upon women is, I think, as absurd as
it would be to state that under the fully developed patriarchal rule
(as also in our society to-day) the authority was not in the hands of
men, because cases are not infrequent in which women ill-treat their
husbands. And, indeed, when we consider the position of the husband
and father under this early system, without rights of property and
with no authority over his children, and subject to the rule either of
his wife or of her relatives, no surprise can be felt if sometimes he
resorted to cruelties, asserting his power in whatever direction
opportunity permitted. I may admit that for a long time I found it
difficult to believe in this mother-power. The finding of such
authority held by primitive woman is strange, indeed, to women to-day.
Reverse the sexes, and in broad statement the conditions of the
mother-age would be true of our present domestic and social
relationship. Little wonder, then, that primitive men rebelled,
disliking the inconveniences arising from their insecure and dependent
position as perpetual guests in their wives' homes. It is strange how
history repeats itself.
Women, from their association with the home, were the first organisers
of all industrial labour. A glance back at the mother-age civilisation
should teach men modesty. They will see that woman was the equal, if
not superior, to man in productive activity. It was not until a much
later period that men supplanted women and monopolised the work they
had started. Through their identification with the early industrial
processes women were the first property owners; they were almost the
sole creators of ownership in land, and held in respect of this a
position of great advantage. In the transactions of North American
tribes with the colonial government many deeds of assignment bear
female signatures.[138] A form of divorce used by a husband in ancient
Arabia was: "Begone, for I will no longer drive thy flocks to
pasture."[139] In almost all cases the household goods belonged to the
woman. The stores of roots and berries laid up for a time of scarcity
were the property of the wife, and the husband would not touch them
without her permission. In many cases such property was very
extensive. Among the Menomini Indians, for instance, a woman of good
circumstances would own as many as from 1200 to 1500 birch-bark
vessels.[140] In the New Mexican _pueblo_ what comes from outside the
house, as soon as it is inside is put under the immediate control of
the women. Bandelier, in his report of his tour in Mexico, tells us
that "his host at Cochiti, New Mexico, could not sell an ear of corn
or a string of chilli without the consent of his fourteen-year-old
daughter Ignacia, who kept house for her widowed father."[141]
The point we have now reached is this: while mother-descent did not
constitute or make necessary rule by women, under this system they
enjoyed considerable power as the result (1) of their position as
property-holders, (2) of their freedom in marriage and the social
habits arising from it. This conclusion will be strengthened if we
return to our examination of mother-right customs, as we shall find
them in all parts of the world. I must select a few examples from as
various countries as is possible, and describe them very briefly; not
because these cases offer less interest than the matrilineal tribes of
America, but because of the length to which this part of my inquiry is
rapidly growing.
Let us begin with Australia, where the aboriginal population is in a
more primitive condition than any other race whose institutions have
been investigated. In certain tribes the family has hardly begun to be
distinguished from kin in general. The group is divided into male and
female classes, in addition to the division into clans.[142] This is
so among the tribes of Mount Gambier, of Darling River, and of
Queensland. Marriage within the clan is strictly forbidden, and the
male and female classes of each clan are regarded as brothers and
sisters. But as every man is brother to all the sisters of his clan,
he is husband to all the women of the other clans of his tribe.
Marriage is not an individual act, it is a social condition. The
custom is not always carried out in practice, but any man of one clan
has the right, if he wishes to exercise it, to call any woman
belonging to another clan of his tribe his wife, and to treat her as
such.[143] The children of each group belong naturally to the clan of
the mother, and there is no legal parenthood between them and their
father. In the case of war the son must join the maternal tribe. But
this is not the universal rule, and in many tribes the children now
belong to the paternal clan. The paternal family is beginning to be
established in Australia, and varied artifices are used to escape from
the tribal marriage and to form unions on an individual basis.
Mother-right is still in force in parts of India, though owing to the
influence of Brahmanism on the aboriginal tribes the examples are
fewer than might be expected. This change has brought descent through
the fathers, and has involved, besides, the more or less complete
subjugation of women, with insistence on female chastity, abolition of
divorce, infant marriage, and perpetuation of widowhood.[144] Not
every tribe is yet thus revolutionised. Among the Kasias of south-east
India the husband lives with the wife or visits her occasionally.
"Laws of rank and property follow the strictest maternal rule;
when a couple separate the children remain with the mother, the
son does not succeed his father, but a raja's neglected
offspring may become a common peasant or a labourer; the
sister's son succeeds to rank and is heir to the property."[145]
This may be taken as an extreme example of the conditions among the
unchanged tribes. The Garos tribe have an interesting marriage
custom.[146] The girl chooses her lover and invites him to follow
her; any advance made on his side is regarded as an insult to the
woman's clan, and has to be expiated by presents. This marriage is
very similar to the ceremony of capture, only the actors change parts;
it is here the bridegroom who runs away, and is conducted by force to
his future wife amidst the lamentations of his relations.
Even tribes that have adopted paternal descent preserve numerous
customs of the earlier system. The husband still remains in the wife's
home for a probationary period, working for her family.[147] Women
retain rights which are inconsistent with father-rule. The choice of
her lover often remains with the girl. If a girl fancies a young man,
all she has to do is to give him a kick on the leg at the tribal dance
of the _Karama_, and then the parents think it well to hasten on a
wedding. Among Ghasiyas in United Provinces a wife is permitted to
leave her husband if he intrigues with another woman, or if he become
insane, impotent, blind or leprous, while these bodily evils do not
allow him to put her away.[148] We find relics of the early freedom
enjoyed by women in the licence frequently permitted to girls before
marriage. Even after marriage adultery within the tribal rules is not
regarded as a serious offence. Divorce is often easy, at the wish of
either the woman or the man.[149] This is the case among the Santal
tribes, which are found in Western Bengal, Northern Orissa, Bhagulpur
and the Santal Parganas.[150] It seems probable that fraternal
polyandry must formerly have been practised.
Polyandry must have been common at one time in southern India. It will
be sufficient to give a few examples. The interesting Todas tribe of
the Nil'giri Hills practise fraternal polyandry. The husbands of the
women are usually real brothers, but sometimes they are clan brothers.
The children belong to the eldest brother, who performs the ceremony
of giving the mother a miniature bow and arrow; all offspring, even if
born after his death, are counted as his until one of the other
brothers performs this ceremony. It is also allowed sometimes for the
wife to be mistress to another man besides her husbands, and any
children born of such unions are counted as the children of the
regular marriage. There is little restriction in love of any kind. In
the Toda language there is no word for adultery. It would even seem
that "immorality attaches rather to him who grudges his wife to
another man."[151]
Similarly among a fine tribe of Hindu mountaineers at the source of
the Djemmah fraternal polyandry has been proved to have existed. A
woman of this tribe, when asked how many husbands she had, answered,
"Only four!" "And all living?" "Why not?" This tribe had a high
standard of social conduct; they held lying in horror, and to deviate
from the truth even quite innocently was almost a sacrilege.[152]
To-day the Kammalaus (artisans) of Malabar practise fraternal
polyandry. The wives are said to greatly appreciate the custom; the
more husbands they have the greater will be their happiness.[153]
At another extremity of India, in Ceylon, the polyandric rule is still
common,[154] but it is particularly in lamaic Thibet that fraternal
polyandry is in full vigour, for in this country religion sanctions
the custom, and it is practised by the ruling classes.[155] Its
customs are too well known to need description. "The tyranny of man is
hardly known among the happy women of Thibet; the boot is perhaps upon
the other leg," writes Hartland.[156]
Polyandry is a survival of the group-marriage of the mother-age.[157]
It is not really dependent on, though in many cases it occurs in
connection with, the economic causes of poverty and a scarcity of
women, due to the practice of female infanticide. This form of sexual
association has evident advantages for women when compared with
polygamy. That freedom in love carried with it domestic and social
rights and privileges to women I have no longer to prove.[158]
The case of the Nayars of Malabar, where polyandry exists with the
early system of maternal filiation, is specially instructive. It is
impossible to give the details of their curious customs. The young
girls are married when children by a rite known as tying the _tali_;
but this marriage serves only the purpose of initiation, and is often
performed by a stranger. On the fourth day the fictitious husband is
required to divorce the girl. Afterwards any number of marriages may
be entered upon[159] without any other restrictions than the
prohibitions relative to cast and tribe. These later unions, unlike
the solemn initial rite, have no ceremony connected with them, and are
entered into freely at the will of the women and their families. As a
husband the man of the Nayars cannot be said to exist; he does not as
a rule live with his wife.[160] It is said that he has not the right
to sit down by her side or that of her children, he is merely a
passing guest, almost a stranger. He is, in fact, reduced to the
primitive role of the male, and is simply progenitor. "No Nayar knows
his father, and every man looks upon his sister's children as his
heirs. A man's mother manages his family; and after her death his
eldest sister assumes the direction." The property belongs to the
family and is enjoyed by all in common (though personal division is
coming into practice under modern influences). It is directed and
administered by the maternal uncle or the eldest brother.[161]
The Malays of the Pedang Highlands of Sumatra have institutions
bearing many points of similarity with the Nayars. On marriage neither
husband nor wife changes abode, the husband merely visits the wife,
coming at first by day to help her work in the rice-fields. Later the
visits are paid by night to the wife's house. The husband has no
rights over his children, who belong wholly to the wife's _suku_, or
clan. Her eldest brother is the head of the family and exercises the
rights and duties of a father to her children.[162] The marriage,
based on the _ambel-anak_, in which the husband lives with the wife,
paying nothing, and occupying a subordinate position, may be taken as
typical of the former conditions.[163]
But among other tribes who have come in contact with outside
influences this custom of the husband visiting the wife, or residing
in her house, is modified.
From a private correspondent, a resident in the Malay States, I have
received some interesting notes about the present condition of the
native tribes and the position of the women. In most of the Malay
States exogamous matriarchy has in comparatively modern times been
superseded by feudalism (_i.e._ father-right). But where the old
custom survives the women are still to a large extent in control. The
husband goes to live in the wife's village; thus the women in each
group are a compact unity, while the men are strangers to each other
and enter as unorganised individuals. This is the real basis of the
woman's power. In other tribes where the old custom has changed women
occupy a distinctly inferior position, and under the influence of
Islam the idea of secluding adult women has been for centuries
spreading and increasing in force.
Male kinship prevails among the Arabs, but the late Professor
Robertson Smith discovered abundant evidence that mother-right was
practised in ancient Arabia.[164] We find a decisive example of its
favourable influence on the position of women in the custom of
_beena_[165] marriage. Under such a system the wife was not only freed
from any subjection involved by the payment of a bride-price (which
always places her more or less under the authority of her husband),
but she was the owner of the tent and household property, and thus
enjoyed the liberty which ownership always entails. This explains how
she was able to free herself at pleasure from her husband, who was
really nothing but a temporary lover.[166] Ibn Batua in the fourteenth
century found that the women of Zebid were perfectly ready to marry
strangers. The husband might depart when he pleased, but his wife in
that case could never be induced to follow him. She bade him a
friendly adieu and took upon herself the whole charge of any child of
the marriage. The women in the Jahiliya[167] had the right to dismiss
their husbands, and the form of dismissal was this: "If they lived in
a tent they turned it round, so that if the door faced east it now
faced west, and when the man saw this he knew that he was dismissed
and did not enter." The tent belonged to the woman; the husband was
received there and at her good pleasure.[168]
A further striking example of mother-right is furnished by the Mariana
Islands, where the position of women was distinctly superior.
"Even when the man had contributed an equal share of property on
marriage, the wife dictated everything and the man could
undertake nothing without her approval; but if the woman
committed an offence, the man was held responsible and suffered
the punishment. The women could speak in the assembly, they held
property, and if a woman asked anything of a man, he gave it up
without a murmur. If a wife was unfaithful, the husband could
send her home, keep her property and kill the adulterer; but if
the man was guilty, or even suspected of the same offence, the
women of the neighbourhood destroyed his house and all his
visible property, and the owner was fortunate if he escaped with
a whole skin; and if the wife was not pleased with her husband,
she withdrew and a similar attack followed. On this account many
men were not married, preferring to live with paid women."[169]
A similar case of the rebellion of men against their position is
recorded in Guinea, where religious symbolism was used by the husband
as a way of escape. The maternal system held with respect to the chief
wife.
"It was customary, however, for a man to buy and take to wife a
slave, a friendless person with whom he could deal at pleasure,
who had no kindred that could interfere for her, and to
consecrate her to his Bossum or god. The Bossum wife, slave as
she had been, ranked next to the chief wife, and was
exceptionally treated. She alone was very jealously guarded, she
alone was sacrificed at her husband's death. She was, in fact,
wife in a peculiar sense. And having, by consecration, been made
of the kindred and worship of her husband, her children could be
born of his kindred and worship."[170]
This practice of having a slave-wife who was the property of the
husband became more and more common; and was one of the causes that
led to the establishment of father-right. How this came we have now to
see.
IV.--_The Transition to Father-right_
In the preceding sections of this chapter I have collected together,
with as much exactitude as I could, many examples of the maternal
family. I want now to refer briefly to a few further cases, which will
make clearer the causes which led to the adoption of father-right.
Many countries where the patriarchal system is firmly established
retain practices which can only be explained as survivals of the
earlier custom of mother-descent.[171] It must suffice to mention one
or two examples. In Burma, which offers in this respect a curious
contrast to India, the women have preserved under father-right most of
the privileges of mother-right. This is the more remarkable as the law
of marriage and the relationship of the sexes is founded on the code
of Manu, which proclaims aloud the inferiority of woman. It is
interesting, however, to note that the code recognises only three
kinds of men: the good man, the indifferent man, and the bad man.
Women, though recognised solely in their relation as wives, are placed
in seven classes: the mother-wife, the sister-wife, the daughter-wife,
the friend-wife, the master-wife, the servant-wife, and the
slave-wife. Manu holds that the last of these, the slave-wife, is the
best wife. It is, however, certain that the interpretation of the code
in Burma was entirely opposed to any subjection of the wife. That
mother-right must have been once practised and was very firmly
established is proved by the occurrence of brother-sister marriages.
The queens of the last rulers of the country, Minden-Min and Thebaw,
were either their own or their half-sisters, and the power of
government seems to have been almost wholly in the hands of these
queens. The patriarchal custom, so far as the position of women was
concerned, is but a thread, binding them in their marriage, but
leaving them entirely free in other respects. The Burmese wife is much
more the master than the slave of her husband, though she is clever
enough as a rule not to let him feel any inconvenience from her power,
which, therefore, he accepts. The exceptional position of the women is
clearly indicated by the fact that they enter freely into trade, and,
indeed, carry out most of the business of the country. Nearly all the
shops are kept by women. In the markets, where everything that any one
could possibly want is sold, almost all the dealers are women. All
classes of the Burmese girls receive their training in these markets;
the daughters of the rich sell the costly and beautiful stuffs, the
poorer girls sell the cheaper wares. It is this training which
accounts for the business capacity shown by the women. The boys are
trained by the priests, as every boy is required, "in order to purify
his soul, to acquire a knowledge of sacred things." This explains a
great deal. It would seem that religion enforces the same penalties on
men that in most countries fall upon women. The Burmese women are very
attractive, as is testified by all who know them. The streets of the
towns are thronged with women at all hours of the day, and they show
the greatest delight in everything that is lively and gay.
Given such complete freedom of women, it is self-evident that the
sexual relationships will also be free. Very striking are the
conditions of divorce. The marriage contract can be dissolved freely
at the wish of both, or even of one, of the partners. In the first
case the family property is divided equally between the wife and the
husband, while if only one partner desires to be freed the property
goes to the partner who is left. The children of the marriage remain
with the mother while they are young; but the boys belong to the
father. I wish it were possible for me to give a fuller account of the
Burmese family. The freedom and active work of the women offer many
points of special interest. One thing further must be noted. The
Burmese women would seem not to be wholly satisfied with their power,
disliking the work and responsibility which their freedom entails. For
this reason many of them prefer to marry a Chinese husband; he works
for them, while with a husband of their own country they have to work
for him. This is very instructive. It points to what I believe to be
the truth. The loss of her freedom by woman is often the result of her
own desire for protection and her dislike of work, and is not caused
by man's tyranny. Woman's own action in this matter is not
sufficiently recognised. I must not enter upon this here, as I shall
return to the subject later in this chapter. We must now consider the
traces left by mother-descent in Japan and China.
In Japan, as among the Basques, filiation is subordinated to the
transmission of property. It is to the first-born, whether a boy or a
girl, that the inheritance is transmitted, and he or she is forbidden
to abandon it. At the time of marriage the husband or wife must take
the name of the heir or heiress who marries and personifies the
property. Filiation is thus sometimes paternal and sometimes maternal.
The maternal uncle still bears the name of "second little
father."[172] The children of the same father, but not of the same
mother, were formerly allowed to marry, a decisive proof of
mother-descent. The wife remained with her own relatives, and the
husband had the right of visiting her by night. The word commonly used
for marriage signified _to slip by night into the house_. It was not
until the fourteenth century that the husband's residence was the home
of the wife, and marriage became a continued living together by the
married pair. Even now when a man marries an only daughter he
frequently lives with her family, and the children take her name.
There is also a custom by which a man with daughters, but no son,
adopts a stranger, giving him one of his daughters in marriage; the
children are counted as the heirs of the maternal grandfather.[173]
Similar survivals are frequent in China. The patriarchate is rigidly
established, but there is evidence to show that the family in this
ancient civilisation has passed through the usual stages of
development, having for its starting-point the familial clan, and
passing from this through the stage of mother-right.[174] The Chinese
language itself attests the ancient existence of the earliest form of
marriage, contracted by a group of brothers having their wives in
common, but not marrying their sisters. Thus a Chinaman calls the sons
of his brothers "his sons," but he considers those of his sisters as
his nephews.[175] Certain of the aboriginal tribes still require the
husband to live with his wife's family for a period of seven or ten
years before he is allowed to take her to his home. The eldest child
is given to the husband, the second belongs to the family of the
wife.[176] The authority which the Chinese mother exercises over her
son's marriage and over his wife can only be explained by mother-right
customs. There are many other examples which I must pass over.
In the Island of Madagascar, with whose interesting civilisation, as
it existed before the unfortunate conquest of the country by the
French, I am personally acquainted, mother-right has left much more
than traces.[177] Great freedom in sexual relations was permitted to
the men, and in certain cases to women also. There was no word in the
native language for virgin; the word _mpitovo_, commonly used, means
only an unmarried woman. On certain festive ceremonies the licence was
very great. The hindrances to marriage were much more stringent with
the mother's relations than with the father's. Divorce was frequent
and easy; the power to exercise it rested with the husband; but the
wife could, and often did, run away, and thus compel a divorce. A
Malagasy proverb compared marriage to a knot so lightly tied that it
could be undone by a touch. Such freedom was due to the great desire
for children; every child was welcome in the family, whatever its
origin.[178] The children belonged to the husband, and so complete
was this possession, that in the case of a divorce not only the
children previously born, but any the wife might afterwards bear, were
counted as his.
Among the ruling classes mother-right remained in its early force. The
royal family and nobility traced their descent, contrary to the
general practice, through the mother, and not through the father. The
rights of an unmarried queen were great. She was permitted to have a
family by whomsoever she wished, and her children were recognised as
legitimately royal through her. Among the Hovas not only wealth, but
political dignities, and even sacerdotal functions, were transmitted
to the nephew, in preference to the son.
In the adjacent continent of Africa we find similar privileges enjoyed
by royal women. A delightful example is given by Frazer[179] in
Central Africa, where a small state, near to the Chambezi river, is
governed by a queen, who belongs to the reigning family of Ubemba. She
bears the title _Mamfumer_, "Mother of Kings." The privileges attached
to this dignity are numerous; the husbands may be chosen at will and
from among the common people.
"The chosen man becomes prince consort, without sharing in the
government of affairs. He is bound to leave everything to follow
his royal and often little accommodating spouse. To show that in
these households the rights are inverted and that a man may be
changed into a woman, the queen takes the title of _Monsieur_
and the husband that of _Madame_." A visitor to this state,[180]
who had an interview with the queen, reports that, "she was a
woman of gigantic stature, wearing many amulets."
Battle reported that "Loango was ruled by four princes, the sons of a
former king's sister, since the sons of a king never succeed.[181]
Frazer gives an account of the tyrannical authority of the princesses
in this state.[182]
"The princesses are free to choose and divorce their husbands at
pleasure, and to cohabit at the same time with other men. The
husbands are nearly always plebeians. The lot of a prince
consort is not a happy one, for he is rather the slave and
prisoner than the mate of his imperious princess. In marrying
her he engages never more to look at a woman; when he goes out
he is preceded by guards whose duty it is to drive all females
from the road where he is to pass. If, in spite of these
precautions, he should by ill-luck cast his eyes on a woman, the
princess may have his head chopped off, and commonly exercised,
or used to exercise, the right. This sort of libertinism,
sustained by power, often carries the princesses to the greatest
excesses, and nothing is so much dreaded as their anger."
In Africa descent through women is the rule,[183] though there are
exceptions, and these are increasing. The amusing account given by
Miss Kingsley[184] of Joseph, a member of the Batu tribe in French
Congo, strikingly illustrates the prevalence of the custom. When asked
by a French official to furnish his own name and the name of his
father, Joseph was wholly nonplussed. "My fader?" he said. "Who my
fader?" Then he gave the name of his mother.
The case is the same among the Negroes. The Fanti of the Gold Coast
may be taken as an example. Among them an intensity of affection
(accounted for partly by the fact that the mothers have exclusive care
of the children) is felt for the mother, while the father is hardly
known, or disregarded, notwithstanding that he may be a wealthy and
powerful man and the legal husband of the mother.[185] The practice of
the Wamoima, where the son of a sister is preferred in legacies,
"because a man's own son is only the son of his wife," is
typical.[186] The Bush husband does not live with his wife, and often
has wives in different places. The maternal uncle supplies his place
in the family.
Wherever mother-right has progressed towards father-right, as is the
condition, broadly speaking, in the African continent, the supreme
authority is vested in the maternal uncle. The tribal duty of
blood-revenge falls to him, even against the father. Thus, in some
cases, if a woman is murdered, the duty of revenge is undertaken by
her kinsman.[187] In the state of Loango among the common people the
uncle is addressed as _tate_ (father). He has even the power to sell
his sister's children.[188] The child is so entirely the property of
the kin that he may be given in pledge for their debts. Among the
Bavili the mother has the right to pawn the child, but she must first
consult the father, so that he may have a chance of giving her goods
to save the pledging.[189] This is very plainly a step towards
father-right. There is no distinction between legitimate and
illegitimate children. Similar conditions prevail among the Alladians
of the Ivory Coast, but here the mother cannot pledge her children
without the consent of her brother or other male head of the family.
The father has the right to ransom the child.[190] An even stronger
example of the property value of children is furnished by the custom
found among many tribes, by which the father has to make a present to
the wife's kin when a child dies: this is called "buying the
child."[191]
These cases, with the inferences they suggest, show that though
mother-descent may be strongly established in Africa, this does not
confer (except to the royal princesses) any special distinction upon
women. This is explained if we recognise that a transitional period
has been reached, when, under the pressure of social, and particularly
of military activities, the government of the tribe has passed to the
male kindred of the women. It wants but a step further for the
establishment of father-right.
There are many cases pointing to this new father-force asserting
itself and pushing aside the earlier order. Again I can give one or
two examples only. Among Wayao and Mang'anja of the Shire highlands,
south of Lake Nyassa, a man on marrying leaves his own village and
goes to live in that of his wife; but, as an alternative, he is
allowed to pay a bride-price, in which case he takes his wife away to
his home.[192] Whenever we find the payment of a bride-price, there is
sure indication of the decay of mother-right: woman has become
property. Among the Bassa Komo of Nigeria marriage is usually effected
by an exchange of sisters or other female relatives. The women are
supposed to be faithful to their husbands. If, however, as frequently
happens, there is a preliminary courtship period, during which the
marriage is considered as provisional, considerable licence is granted
to the woman. Chastity is only regarded as a virtue when the woman has
become the property of the husband. The men may marry as many wives as
they have sisters or female relatives to give in exchange. In this
tribe the women look after the children, but the boys, when four years
old, go to work and live with their fathers.[193] The husbands of the
Bambala tribe (inhabiting the Congo states between the rivers Inzia
and Kwilu) have to abstain from visiting their wives for a year after
the birth of each child, but they are allowed to return to her on the
payment to her father of two goats.[194] Among the Basanga on the
south-west of Lake Moeru the children of the wife belong to the
mother's kin, but the children of slaves are the property of the
father.[195]
It is rendered clear by such cases as these, that the rise of
father-right was dependent on property and had nothing to do with
blood relationship. The payment of a bride-price, the giving of a
sister in exchange, as also marriage with a slave, gained for the
husband the control over his wife and ownership of her children. I
could bring forward much more evidence in proof of this fact did the
limits of my space allow me to do this; such cases are common in all
parts of the world where the transitional stage from mother-right to
father-right has been reached. But I believe that the causes by which
the father gained his position as the dominant partner in marriage
must be clear to every one from the examples I have given. I will,
therefore, quote only one final and most instructive case. It
illustrates in a curious way the conflict between the old rights of
the woman and the rising power of the male force in connection with
marriage. It occurs among the Hassanyeh Arabs of the White Nile, where
the wife passes by contract for only a portion of her time under the
authority of her husband.
"When the parents of the man and the woman meet to settle the
price of the woman, the price depends on how many days in the
week the marriage tie is to be strictly observed. The woman's
mother first of all proposes that, taking everything into
consideration, with due regard to the feelings of the family,
she could not think of binding her daughter to a due observance
of that chastity which matrimony is expected to command for more
than two days in the week. After a great deal of apparently
angry discussion, and the promise on the part of the relations
of the man to pay more, it is arranged that the marriage shall
hold good as is customary among the first families of the tribe,
for four days in the week, viz. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday, and in compliance with old established custom, the
marriage rites during the three remaining days shall not be
insisted on, during which days the bride shall be perfectly
free to act as she may think proper, either by adhering to her
husband and home, or by enjoying her freedom and independence
from all observance of matrimonial obligation."[196]
We have at length concluded our investigation of this first period of
organised society, and have ascertained many facts that we can use as
a touchstone to try the truth of the various theories that are put
forward with regard to woman and her position in the family and in the
State. The importance of the mother-age to women is evident. Thus I
offer no apology for the length at which I have treated the subject.
It has seemed to me after careful revision that no one of the examples
given can be omitted. Facts are of so much more importance than
opinions if we are to come to the truth.
Without attempting to trace exhaustively the history or even to
enumerate the peoples living, or who have lived, under mother-right
customs, we have examined many and varied cases of the actual working
of this system, with special reference to the position held by women.
The examples have been chosen from all parts of the world, so as to
prove (what is sometimes denied) that mother-right has not been
confined to any one race, that it is not a local custom under special
conditions, but that it has been a necessary stage of growth of human
societies. My aim has been to illustrate the stages through which
society passed from mother-right to father-right. It has not been
possible to arrange the evidence in any exact progressive sequence,
but I hope the cases given will make clear what I believe to have
been the general trend of growth: at first the power in the hands of
the women, but this giving way to the slow but steady usurping of the
mother's authority by the ever-assertive male.
I shall now conclude this study of the mother-age by attempting to
formulate the general truths, which, it seems to me, may be drawn from
the examples we have examined.
I. The first effort of primitive society was to establish some form of
order, and in that order the women of the group were the more stable
and predominant partners in the family relationship.
II. Impelled by the conditions of motherhood to a more settled life
than the men of the tribe, women were the first agriculturists,
weavers, dyers and dressers of skins, potters, the domesticators of
animals, the first architects, and sometimes the primitive doctors--in
a word, the inventors and organisers of the peaceful art of life.[197]
Primitive women were strong in body[198] and capable in work. The
power they enjoyed as well as their manifold activities were a result
of their position as mothers, this function being to them a source of
strength and not a plea of weakness.
III. Moral ideas, as we understand them, hardly existed. The oldest
form of marriage was what is known as "group marriage," which was the
union of two tribal groups or clans, the men of one _totem_ group
marrying the women of another, and _vice versa_, but no man or woman
having one particular wife or husband.
IV. The individual relationship between the sexes began with the
reception of temporary lovers by the woman in her own home. But as
society progressed, a relationship thus formed would tend under
favourable circumstances to be continued, and, in some cases,
perpetuated. The lover thus became the husband, but he was still
without property right, 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.
V. The social organisation which followed this custom was in most
cases--and always, I believe, in their primitive form--favourable to
women. Kinship was recognised through the mother, and the continuity
of the family thus depending solely on the woman, it followed she was
the holder of all property. Her position and that of her children was,
by this means, assured, and in the case of a separation it was the man
who departed, leaving her in possession. The woman was the head of the
household, and in some instances held the position of tribal chief.
VI. This early power of women, arising from the recognition alone of
womb-kinship, with the resulting freedom in sexual relationships
permitted to women, could not continue. 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.
VII. It is important to note that the causes which led to the change
in the position of the sexes had no direct connection with moral
development; it was not due, as many have held, to the recognition of
fatherhood. The cause was quite different and was founded on property.
It arose, in the first instance, through a property value being
connected with women themselves. As soon as the women's kin began to
see in their women a means by exchange of obtaining wives for
themselves, and also the possibility of gaining worldly goods, both in
the property held by women, and by means of the service and presents
that could be claimed from their lovers, we find them exercising more
or less strict supervision over the alliances of their female
relatives.
VIII. At first, and for a long time, the early freedom of women
persisted in the widely spread custom of a preliminary period before
marriage of unrestricted sexual relationships. But permanent unions
became subject to the consent of the woman's kindred.
It was in this way, I am certain, and for no moral considerations that
the stringency of the sexual code was first tightened for women.
IX. At a much later date virginity came to have a special
market-value, from which time a jealous watch began to be kept upon
maidenhood.
It seems to me of very great importance that women should grasp firmly
this truth: the virtue of chastity owes its origin to property. Our
minds fall so readily under the spell of such ideas as chastity and
purity. There is a mass of real superstition on this question--a
belief in a kind of magic in purity. But, indeed, chastity had at
first no connection with morals. The sense of ownership has been the
seed-plot of our moral code. To it we are indebted for the first germs
of the sexual inhibitions which, sanctified by religion and supported
by custom, have, under the unreasoned idealism of the common mind,
filled life with cruelties and jealous exclusions, with suicides and
murders and secret shames.
X. This intrusion of economics into the sexual relationships brought
about the revolution in the status of women. As soon as women became
sexually marketable, their early power was doomed. First came what I
hold to have been the transitional stage of the mother-age. This will
explain how it is that, even where matrilineal descent is in full
force, we may find the patriarchal subjection of women. The mother's
authority has been usurped by her male kindred, usually her brother.
XI. We have noted the alien position of the father even among peoples
at a stage of development where paternity was fully established. This
subjection, which, perhaps, would not be felt in the earlier stage of
mother-right, must have been increased by the intrusion of the
authority of the wife's male kindred. The impulse to dominate by
virtue of strength or of property possessions has manifested itself in
every age. As society advanced property would increase in value, and
the social and political significance of its possession would also
increase. It is clear that such a position of insecurity for the
husband and father would tend to become impossible.
XII. One way of escape--which doubtless took place at a very early
stage--was by the capture of women. Side by side with the customary
marriages in which the husband resided in the home of the wife,
without rights and subject to her clan-kindred, we find the practice
of a man keeping one or more captive wives in his own home for his use
and service. It will be readily seen that the special rights in the
home over these owned wives (rights, moreover, that were recognised by
the tribe) would come to be desired by other men. But the capture of
wives was always difficult as it frequently led to a quarrel and even
warfare with the woman's tribe, and for this reason was never widely
practised. It would, therefore, be necessary for another way of escape
to be found. This was done by changing the conditions of the customary
marriage. Nor do I think it unlikely that such change may have been
received favourably by women. The captive wives may even have been
envied by the regular wife. An arrangement that would give a more
individual relationship to marriage and the protection of a husband
for herself and the children of their union may well have been
preferred by woman to her position of subjection that had now arisen
to the authority of her brother or other male relative. The alteration
from the old custom may thus be said to have been due, in part, to the
interests of the husband, but also, in part, to the inclination of the
wife.
XIII. The change was gained by elopement, by simulated capture, by the
gift or exchange of women, and by the payment of a bride-price. The
bride-price came to be the most usual custom, gradually displacing the
others. As we have seen, it was often regarded as a condition, not of
the marriage itself, but of the transfer of the wife to the home of
the husband and of the children to his kin.
XIV. It was in this way, for economic reasons, and the personal needs
of both the woman and the man, and not, I believe, specially through
the fighting propensities of the males, and certainly not by any
unfair domination or tyranny on the part of the husband that the
position of the sexes was reversed.
XV. But be this as it may, to woman the result was no less
far-reaching and disastrous. She had become the property of one
master, residing in her husband's tribe, which had no rights or duties
in regard to her, where she was a stranger, perhaps speaking a
different language. 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 under the earlier custom. Woman's early power rested in her
organised position among her own kin: this was now lost.
XVI. The change was not brought about quickly. For long the mother's
influence persisted as a matter of habit. We have its rather empty
shadow with us to-day.
XVII. But, under the pressure of the new conditions, the old custom of
tracing descent and the inheritance of property in the female line (so
favourable to women) died. Mother-right passed away, remaining only as
a tradition, or practised in isolated cases among primitive peoples.
The patriarchal age, which still endures, succeeded. Women became
slaves, who of old had been dominant.
One final word more.
The opinion that the subjection of women arose from male mastery, or
was due to any special cruelty, must be set aside. To me the history
of the mother-age does not teach this. I believe this charge could not
have arisen, at all events it would not have persisted, if women, with
the power they then enjoyed, had not desired the gaining of a closer
relationship with the father of their children. With all the evils
that father-right has brought to woman, we have got to remember that
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 on kinship,
but rested on the quite different and insecure basis of property) had
to be established. Without this being done, the family in its full and
perfect development was impossible. We women need to remember this,
lest bitterness stains our sense of justice. It may be that progress
social and moral could not have been accomplished otherwise; that the
cost of love's development has been the enslavement of woman. 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 at last to
understand the truth) better fitted for their refound freedom.
Neither mother-right alone, nor father-right alone, can satisfy the
new ideals of the true relationship of the sexes. The spiritual force,
slowly unfolding, that has uplifted, and is still uplifting,
womanhood, is the foundation of woman's claim that the further
progress of humanity is bound up with her restoration to a position of
freedom and human equality. But this position she must not take from
man--that, indeed, would be a step backwards. No, she is to share it
with him, and this for her own sake and for his, and, more than all,
for the sake of their children and all the children of the race.
This replacement of the mother side by side with the father in the
home and in the larger home of the State is the true work of the
Woman's Movement.
FOOTNOTES:
[97] It is abundantly evident to any one who looks carefully into the
past that sex occupied a large share of the consciousness of primitive
races. The elaborate courtship rites and sex festivals alone give
proof of this. It is, unfortunately, impossible for me to follow this
question and give examples. I must refer the reader to H. Ellis's
_Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III. pp. 34-44, where a number of typical
cases are given of the courtship customs of the primitive peoples. See
also Thomas, _Sex and Society_, chapter on "The Psychology of
Exogamy," pp. 175-179.
[98] This is the mistake that Westermark--in his valuable _History of
Human Marriage_--as well as many writers have fallen into; assuming
that because monogamy is found among man's nearest ancestors, the
anthropoid apes, primitive human groups must have had a tendency
towards monogamy. Whereas the exact opposite of this is true. There
is, it would seem, a deeply rooted dislike in studying sex matters to
face truth. This habit of fear explains the many elaborate efforts
undertaken to establish the theory that primitive races practised a
stricter sexual code than the facts prove. Letourneau, in _The
Evolution of Marriage_, appears to adopt this view, and forces
evidence in trying to prove the non-existence of a widespread early
period of promiscuity (pp. 37-44). Mention may be made, on the other
side, of Iwan Bloch, who, writing from a different standpoint and much
deeper psychology, has no doubt at all of the early existence of, and
even the continued tendency towards, promiscuity.--_The Sexual Life of
Our Times_, pp. 188-195.
[99] Our knowledge of the habits of primitive races has increased
greatly of late years. The classical works of Bachofen, Waitz,
Kulischer, Giraud-Teulon, von Hellwald, Krauss, Ploss-Bartels and
other ethnologists, and the investigation of Morgan, McLennan, Mueller,
and many others, have opened up wide sources of information.
[100] Thomas, _Sex and Society_, p. 68, and Letourneau, _Evolution of
Marriage_, pp. 269-270, 320.
[101] Lubbock, _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 9.
[102] This opinion is founded on the anthropological investigations
during the past half century. See Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_,
Vol. I. pp. 256-257; H. Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. pp.
390-382, and "The Changing Status of Women," _Westminster Review_,
October 1886; Thomas, _Sex and Society_, p. 58, and Bloch, _Sexual
History of our Times_, pp. 190-196.
[103] For a full and illuminative treatment of this subject I would
refer my readers to the essays of Professor Karl Pearson, _The Chances
of Death_, Vol. II.--"Woman as Witch: Evidences of Mother-Right in the
Customs of Mediaeval Witchcraft"; "Ashiepattle, or Hans Seeks his
Luck"; "Kindred Group Marriage," Part I.; "The Mother-Age
Civilisation," Part II.; "General Words for Sex and Kinship," Part
III.; "Special Words for Sex and Relationship." In these suggestive
essays Professor Pearson has brought together a great number of facts
which give a new and charming significance to the early position of
women. Perhaps the most interesting essay is that of "Woman as Witch,"
in which he shows that the beliefs and practices connected with
mediaeval witchcraft were really perverted rites, survivals of
mother-age customs.
[104] Bede, II. 1-7.
[105] F. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Pt. I. _The Magic Art_, Vol. II. pp.
282-283. Canute's marriage was clearly one of policy: Emma was much
older than he was, she was then living in Normandy, and it is doubtful
if the Danish king had ever seen her. Such marriages with the widow of
a king were 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 new ways of reckoning descent.
[106] Strabo, IV. 5, 4. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. II. p.
132. It must not be thought that mother-descent was always accompanied
by promiscuity, or even with what we should call laxity of morals. We
shall find that it was not. But the early custom of group marriages
was frequent, in which women often changed their mates at will, and
perhaps retained none of them long. We shall see that this freedom,
whatever were its evils, carried with it many privileges for women.
[107] H. Ellis, citing Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, _The Welsh People_, p.
214.
[108] Gen. xxiv. 5-53.
[109] Gen. xxxi. 41, 43.
[110] Judges xv. 1.
[111] Num. xxxii. 8-11.
[112] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 326.
[113] Num. xxxvi. 4-8.
[114] Gen. xii.
[115] 2 Sam. xiii. 16.
[116] Exod. vi. 20.
[117] Gen. xi. 26-29.
[118] See Thomas, _Sex and Society_, pp. 63-64.
[119] Morgan, _House and House-life of the American Aborigines_, p.
64. This example of mother-descent may be taken as typical of Indian
life in all parts of America at the epoch of European discovery.
[120] Morgan, _Anc. Soc._, 62, 71, 76; Hartland, _Primitive
Paternity_, Vol. I. p. 298, Vol. II. p. 65.
[121] McLennan, _Studies_, I. p. 271. Thus among the Choctas, if a boy
is to be placed at school, his uncle, instead of his father, takes him
to the mission and makes arrangements.
[122] Report of an Official for Indian Affairs on two of the Iroquoian
tribes, cited by Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 298. McLennan
attributes the arrangement of the marriages to the mothers (_Studies_,
ii. p. 339). This would be the earlier custom and is still practised
among several tribes.
[123] Charlevoix, V. p. 418, quoted by Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II.
p. 66.
[124] The customs of the Senecas have been noted by the Rev. A.
Wright, who was a missionary for many years amongst them, and was
familiar with their language and habits. His account is quoted by
Morgan, _House and House-life of the American Aborigines_.
[125] We seem here to have a suggestion of the modern plan of
co-operative dwelling-houses. It is extraordinary how many of our new
(!) ideas seem to have been common in the mother-age. Was it because
women, who are certainly more practical and careful of detail than men
are, had part in the social arrangements? This would explain the
revival of the same ideas to-day, when women are again taking up their
part in the ordering of domestic and social life.
[126] Powell, _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, I, p. 63.
[127] Owen, _Musquakies_, p. 72, quoted by Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol.
II. pp. 68-69.
[128] I have summarised the account of the Wyandot government as given
by Hartland, who quotes from Powell's "Wyandot Government," _First
Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1879-1880_, pp. 61
ff.
[129] "The Beginning of Marriage," _American Anthropologist_, Vol. IX.
p. 376. _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, XVII. p. 275.
[130] This is supposed by McGee to suggest a survival of a vestigial
polyandry.
[131] Mrs. Stevenson, _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, XXIII. pp. 290, 293. Cushing,
_Zuni Folk Tales_, p. 368, cited by Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II. pp.
73, 74.
[132] _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, XIII. p. 340. Solberg, _Zeits. f. Ethnol._,
XXXVII. p. 269. Voth, _Traditions of the Hopi_, pp. 67, 96, 133.
Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II. pp. 74-76.
[133] _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, IX. p. 19. Hartland, _Ibid._, pp. 76-77. It
would seem in some cases, the husband, after a period of residence
with his wife's family, provides a separate house.
[134] _Sex and Society_, pp. 65-66.
[135] Bachofen's work was foreshadowed by an earlier writer, Father
Lafiteau, who published his _Moeurs des sauvages americains_ in 1721.
_Das Mutterrecht_ was published in 1861. McLennan, ignorant of
Bachofen's work, followed immediately after with his account of the
Indian Hill Tribes. He was followed by Morgan, with his knowledge of
Iroquois, and many other investigators.
[136] Lord Avebury, for example, says: "I believe that communities in
which women have exercised supreme power were quite exceptional,"
_Marriage, Totemism and Religion_, p. 51. See also Letourneau,
_Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 281-282.
[137] In this opinion I am glad to have the support of so high an
authority as Mr. Havelock Ellis. See his admirable summary of this
question, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. pp. 390-393; also the essay
already referred to, "Changing Status of Women," _Westminster Review_,
Oct. 1886.
[138] Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, Vol. II. p. 130; see Thomas, _op.
cit._, chapter on "Sex and Primitive Industry."
[139] Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 65.
[140] Hoffman, "The Menomini Indians," _Fourteenth Rep. of the Bur. of
Am. Ethno._, p. 288.
[141] Papers of the _Arch. Inst. of Am._, Vol. II. p. 138.
[142] Fison and Howitt, _Native Tribes of Australia_; also _Kamilaroi_
and _Kurnai_, pp. 33, 65, 66. See also Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. I.
p. 294.
[143] Letourneau, _op. cit._, pp. 44, 271-274. Thomas, _op. cit._, p.
61.
[144] Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. II. pp. 155-156, 39-41.
[145] Dalton, _Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 54; also Tylor, "The
Matriarchal System," _Nineteenth Century_, July 1896, p. 89.
[146] Dalton, _op. cit._, p. 63, cited by Hartland. I would suggest
that Mr. Bernard Shaw may have had this marriage custom in his mind
when he created Ann. See p. 66.
[147] This custom prevails, for instance, among the Kharwars and
Parahiya tribes, and is common among the Ghasiyas, and is also
practised among the Tipperah of Bengal. Among the Santals this
service-marriage is used when a girl is ugly or deformed and cannot be
married otherwise, while the Badagas of the Nil'giri Hills offer their
daughters when in want of labourers.
[148] Crooke, _Tribes and Castes_, iii. p. 242.
[149] Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II. pp. 156, 157.
[150] Risley, _The Tribes and Castes of Bengal_, Vol. I. pp. 228, 231.
[151] Rivers, _The Todas_; Schrott, _Tras. Ethno. Soc._ (New Series),
Vol. VIII. p. 261.
[152] Letourneau, quoting Skinner, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 78.
[153] Thurston, _Ethnographic Notes in Southern India_, p. 114.
Polyandry has flourished not only among the primitive races of India.
The Hindoo populations also adopted it, and traces of the custom may
be found in their sacred literature. Thus in the _Mahaebhaerata_ the
five Pandava brothers marry all together the beautiful Druaupadi, with
eyes of lotus blue (_Mahaebhaerata_, trad. Fauche, t. II. p. 148). For
an account of polyandry in ancient India the reader should consult
Jolly, _Gundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde_.
[154] Davy, _Ceylon_, p. 286; Sachot, _L'Ile de Ceylon_, p. 25.
[155] Turner, _Thibet_, p. 348, and _Hist. Univ. des, Voy._, Vol.
XXXI. p. 434; Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 36.
[156] Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II. p. 164.
[157] This is the opinion of Bernhoeft, quoted by Iwan Bloch. Marshall
points out that among the Todas group-marriages occur side by side
with polyandry. Bloch also notes that in the common cases where the
husband has a claim on his wife's sister, and even her cousins and
aunts, we find polygamy developed out of group-marriage. The practice
of wife lending and wife exchange is also connected with the early
communal marriage (_Sexual History of Our Times_, pp. 193-194). It is
possible that prostitution may be a relic of this early sexual
freedom. What is moral in one stage of civilisation often becomes
immoral in another, when the reasons for its existing have changed.
[158] Havelock Ellis writing on this subject ("Changing Status of
Women," _Nineteenth Century_, Oct. 1886) says: "It seems that in the
dawn of the race an elaborate social organisation permitted a more or
less restricted communal marriage, every man in the tribe being at the
outset the husband of every woman, first practically, then
theoretically, and that the social organisation which had this point
of departure was particularly favourable to women."
[159] It is a matter of dispute whether a woman may have more than one
husband at a time. The older accounts state this, while later it has
been denied. The probability is that this was the custom, but that it
is dying out under modern influences. Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p.
267.
[160] In north Malabar a custom has arisen by which after a special
ceremony the bridegroom is allowed to take the bride to live in his
house, but in the case of his death she must at once return to her own
family.
[161] _J.A.I._, XII. p. 292; Hartland, _op. cit._, p. 288. Letourneau,
apparently quoting Bachofen, says that the women control property.
This was probably an earlier custom, when the power was more truly in
the hands of women, and had not passed to their male relatives.
[162] Wilken, _Verwantschap_, p. 678; _Bijdragen_, XXXI. p. 40.
[163] Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 291. A second
form of marriage, known as Jujur, was also practised. It was much more
elaborate, and shows very instructively the rise of father-right. By
it the authority of the husband over his wife is asserted by a very
complicated system of payments; his right to take her to his home, and
his absolute property in her depending wholly on these payments. If
the final sum is paid (but this is not commonly claimed except in the
case of a quarrel between the families) the woman becomes to all
intents the slave of the man; but if on the other hand, as is not at
all uncommon, the husband fails or has difficulty in making the main
payment, he becomes the debtor of his wife's family and is practically
a slave, all his labour being due to his creditor without any
reduction in the debt, which must be paid in full, before he regains
liberty. (See Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, pp. 225, 235, 257, 262,
for an account of both marriages.)
[164] _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia._
[165] Havelock Ellis, _op. cit._, pp. 391-392, quoting Robertson
Smith.
[166] Barlow, _Semitic Origins_, p. 45.
[167] Robertson Smith, _op. cit._, p. 65.
[168] This kind of union for a term is said to have been recognised by
Mahommed, though it is irregular by Moslem law. The cases of _beena_
marriage are very frequent among widely different peoples. (See
Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. II. pp. 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 24,
27, 30-36, 38, 41-43, 51, 53, 55, 60-63, 67-72, 76, 77.) Frazer
(_Academy_, March 27, 1886) cites an interesting example among the
tribes on the north frontier of Abyssinia, partially Semitic peoples,
not yet under the influence of Islam, who preserve a system of
marriage closely resembling the _beena_ marriage, but have as well a
purchase marriage, by which a wife is acquired by payment of a
bride-price and becomes the property of her husband. (Quoted by Ellis,
_op. cit._, p. 392 _note_.)
[169] Thomas, _Sex and Society_, pp. 73-74. Quoting Waitz-Gerland,
_Anthropologie der Naturvoelker_, Vol. V. p. 107.
[170] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, p. 235.
[171] Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 75, points out that this survival of
woman's power after the rise of father-right is similar to the
assertion of male-power under mother-right in the person of the
woman's brother or male relative.
[172] Letourneau, _op. cit._, p. 323, who quotes Lubbock, _Orig.
Civil._, p. 177.
[173] Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 14, citing Morgan, _Systems of
Consanguinity_.
[174] Letourneau, _op. cit._, p. 323.
[175] Morgan, _Systems of Consanguinity_ ("Smithsonian
Contributions"), Vol. XVII. pp. 416-417.
[176] Hartland, Vol. II. p. 45, quoting Gray, _China_, Vol. II. p.
304.
[177] This is the opinion of Hartland. He quotes Ellis, _History of
Madagascar_, and Sibree, _The Great African Island_. I am able to
speak as to the truths of the facts given in their books from my
knowledge of the Malagasy before the French occupation of the island.
Madagascar is my birth-place, and my father was a missionary in the
country at the same time as Mr. Ellis and Mr. Sibree.
[178] As an instance of the importance attached to children, I may
mention the fact that, after my birth my father was not announced to
preach under his own name, but as "the father of Keteka," the Malagasy
equivalent of my name.
[179] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Pt. I. _The Magical Art_, Vol. II. p.
277.
[180] Father Guilleme, Missiones Catholiques, XXXIV. (1902), p. 16.
[181] Lubbock, _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 151.
[182] Frazer, _Ibid._, p. 276.
[183] "Birth," we are told by a keen observer, who has lived for many
years in intimate converse with the natives, "sanctifies the child;
birth alone gives him status as a member of his mother's family"
(Dennett, _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I. p. 265).
[184] _Travels_, p. 109.
[185] Hartland, quoting Mr. Sarbah, a native barrister, _op. cit._,
Vol. I. p. 286.
[186] Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte_, Vol. II. p. 57.
[187] This is done among the Beni Amer on the shores of the Red Sea
and in the Barka valley, which is the more remarkable as
mother-descent has fallen into desuetude under the influence of
Islamism. (Hartland, Vol. I. p. 274, quoting Munzinger,
_Ostafrikanische studien_.)
[188] Bastian, _Loango-Kueste_, I. p. 166.
[189] Dennett, _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I. p. 266.
[190] _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I. p. 412. See Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. I,
pp. 275-288.
[191] A similar custom prevails among Maori people of New Zealand.
When a child dies, or even meets with an accident, the mother's
relations, headed by her brother, turn out in force against the
father. He must defend himself until wounded. Blood once drawn the
combat ceases; but the attacking party plunders his house and
appropriates the husband's property, and finally sits down to a feast
provided by him (_Old New Zealand_, p. 110). This case is the more
extraordinary as the Maori reckon descent through the father; it is
doubtless a custom persisting from an earlier time.
[192] Macdonald, _Africana_, Vol. I. p. 136.
[193] _Jour. Afr. Soc._, VIII. pp. 15-17. This tribe now traces
descent through the father.
[194] Torday and Joyce, _J.A.I._, XXXV. p. 410.
[195] Arnot, _Garenganze_, p. 242.
[196] Spencer, _Descriptive Sociology_, Vol. V. p. 8, citing
Petherick, _Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa_, pp. 140-144. This
case is quoted by Thomas, _op, cit._, pp. 85, 86.
[197] For fuller information on this important subject the reader is
referred to Professor Otis Mason, who gives a picturesque summary of
the work done by women among the primitive tribes of America
(_American Antiquarian_, January 1889, "The Ulu, or Woman's Knife of
the Eskimo," _Report of the United States National Museum_, 1890). H.
Ellis, _Man and Woman_, pp. 1-17, and Thomas, _Sex and Society_, pp.
123-146, give interesting accounts of the division of labour among
primitive people, showing the important part women took in the start
of industrialism. For direct examples from primitive peoples, the
works of Fison and Howit, James Macdonald, Professor Haddow, Hearn,
Morgan, Bancroft, Lubbock, Ratzel, Schoolcroft and other
anthropologists should be consulted.
[198] It is an entirely mistaken view, founded on insufficient
knowledge, that in early civilisations women were a source of weakness
to the men of the tribe or group, and, thus, liable to oppression. The
very reverse is the truth. Fison and Howit, who discuss the question,
say of the Australian women, "In time of peace they are the hardest
workers and the most useful members of the community." In time of war,
"they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves at all times,
and so far from being an encumbrance on the warriors, they will fight,
if need be, as bravely as the men, and with even greater ferocity"
(_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 133-147, 358). This is no exceptional
case, and is confirmed by the reports of investigators of widely
different peoples. I may mention the ancient Iberian women of Northern
Spain, whose bravery in battle is testified to by Strabo: the
descendants of these women still carry on the greater part of the
active labour connected with agriculture (_Spain Revisited_, pp.
191-292). In our own day we have the witness to the same truth in the
heroic part taken by women in the Balkan army.
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER VII
WOMAN'S POSITION IN THE GREAT CIVILISATIONS OF ANTIQUITY
I.--_In Egypt_
The importance of estimating woman's position in the great
civilisations of the ancient world--The Egyptian
civilisation--Women more free and more honoured than in any
country to-day--The account given by Herodotus--The Egyptian
woman never confined to the home--No restraint upon her
actions--She entered into commerce in her own right and made
contracts for her own benefit--Abundant material in proof of
the high status of Egyptian women--Marriage contracts--Their
importance and interest--Numerous examples--The proprietary
rights of the wife--An early period of mother-rule--Property
originally in the hands of women--The marriage contracts a
development of the early system--The Egyptians solved the
difficult problem of the fusion of mother-right with
father-right--The statement of Dioderus that among the
Egyptians the woman rules over the man--The conditions of
marriage dependent on the birth of children--M. Paturet's view
the Egyptian woman the equal of man--The high status of woman
proved by the fact that her child was never illegitimate--The
position of the mother secure in every relationship between the
sexes--This made possible by the free conditions of the
marriage contracts--Polygamy allowed--This practice in Egypt
very different from polygamy in a patriarchal society--The
husband a privileged guest in the home of the wife--The high
ideal of the domestic relationship--Illustrations from the
inscriptions of the monuments--Reasons which explain this
civilised and human organisation--The Egyptians an agricultural
and a conservative people--They were also a pacific race--The
significance of the Maxims of the Moralists--Honour to the wife
and the mother strongly insisted on--The health and character
of the Egyptian mother--Some reflections in the Egyptian
Galleries of the British Museum.
II.--_In Babylon_
Traces of mother-right in primitive Babylon--The honour paid to
women--The position of women in later Babylonian history,
though still at an early period--Their rights more
circumscribed--The marriage code of Hammurabi--Polygamy
permitted, though restricted, by the code--The exacting
conditions of divorce--The position of the wife as subject to
her husband--The later Neo-Babylonian periods--The position
of women continuously improving--They obtain a position equal
in law with their husbands--Their freedom in all social
relations--They conduct business transactions in their own
right--Illustrations from the contract tablets--Remarks and
conclusion.
III.--_In Greece_
Traces of mother-right traditions in Greek literature and
history--The women of the Homeric period--Dangers arising
from the patriarchal subjection of women--Illustrations and
various reflections--Historic Greece--The social organisation
of Sparta--Their marriage system--The laws of Lycurgus--The
freedom of the Spartan girls--The wise care for the health of
the race--Plato's criticism of the Spartan system--He accuses
the women of ruling their husbands--The Athenian women--Their
subjection under the strict patriarchal rule--The insistence
on chastity--Reasons for this--The degraded position of the
wife--The _hetairae_--They the only educated women in
Athens--Aspasia--She leads the movement to raise the position
of the Athenian women--Plato's estimate of women--Remarks on
the sexual penalties for women that are always found under a
strict patriarchal regime--The ideal relationship between the
wife and the husband--Euripides voices the sorrows of
women--He foreshadows their coming triumph.
IV.--_In Rome_
Little known of the position of women in Rome in prehistoric
times--Indications of an early period of mother-rule--The
patriarchal system formerly established when Roman history
opens--The Roman marriage law--The woman regarded as the
property first of her father and afterwards of her
husband--The patrician marriage of _confarreatio_--The form
known as _coemptio_--Marriage by _usus_--The inequality of
divorce--The subjection of the woman--The terrible right of
the husband's _manus_--The way of escape--The development of
the early marriage by _usus_--The new free marriage by
consent--Free divorce--A revolution in the position of
women--The patriarchal rule of women dwindled to a mere
thread--They gained increasingly greater liberty until at
last they gained complete freedom--The public entry of women
into the affairs of State--Illustrations to show the fine use
made by the Roman matrons of their freedom--An examination
into the supposed licentiousness of Roman women--This opinion
cannot be accepted--The effect of Christianity--The view of
Sir Henry Maine--Some concluding remarks on the position of
women in the four great civilisations examined in this
chapter.
CHAPTER VII
WOMAN'S POSITION IN THE GREAT CIVILISATIONS OF ANTIQUITY
I.--_In Egypt_
"If we consider the status of woman in the great empires of
antiquity, we find on the whole that in their early stage, the
stage of growth, as well as in their final stage, the stage of
fruition, women tend to occupy a favourable position, while in
their middle stage, usually the stage of predominating military
organisation on a patriarchal basis, women usually occupy a less
favourable position. This cyclic movement seems to be almost a
natural law of development of great social
groups."--HAVELOCK ELLIS.
The civilisations through which I am now going to follow the history
of woman, in so far as they offer any special features of interest to
our inquiry into woman's character and her true place in the social
order, belong to the great civilisations of the ancient world,
civilisations, moreover, that have deeply influenced human culture. It
forms the second part of our historical investigation. There can be no
doubt of its interest to us, for if we can prove that women have
exercised unquestioned and direct authority in the family and in the
State, not only among primitive peoples, but in stable civilisations
of vital culture, we shall be in a position to answer those who wish
to set limits to women's present activities.
It is necessary to enter into this inquiry with caution: the
difficulties before me are very great. Again, it is not in any
scarcity of evidence, but in its superabundance that the trouble
rests. It is hard to condense the social habits of peoples into a few
dozen pages. Nothing would be easier than from the mass of material
available to pile up facts in furnishing a picture of the high status
of woman that would unnerve any upholders of female subordination. It
is just possible, on the other hand, to interpret these facts from a
fixed point of thought, and then to argue that, in spite of her power,
woman was still regarded as the inferior of man.[199] I wish to do
neither. It is my purpose to outline the domestic relationships and
the family law and customs as they existed in Egypt and in Babylon, in
Greece and in Rome; to touch the features of social life only in so
far as they illustrate this, and so to discover to what extent the
mother was still regarded as the natural transmitter of property and
head of the household. The subject is an immensely complicated and
seductive one, so that I must keep strictly to the path set by this
inquiry.
Let us turn first to Egypt.
We have so rich a collection of the remains of the ancient Egyptian
civilisation, and so careful and industrious a scholarship has been
given to interpret them, that we can with confidence reconstruct in
outline the legal status and proprietary rights enjoyed by women,
which gave them a position more free and more honoured than they have
in any country of the world to-day. This is not an overestimate of the
facts. The security of her proprietary rights made the Egyptian woman
the legal head of the household, she inherited equally with her
brothers, and had full control of her own property. She was
juridically the equal of man, having the same rights, with the same
freedom of action, and being honoured in the same way.
The position of woman in Egypt is, indeed, full of surprises to the
modern believer in woman's subjection. Herodotus, who was a keen
observer, was the first to record his astonishment. He writes--
"They have established laws and customs opposite for the most
part to those of the rest of mankind. With them the women go to
market and traffic; the 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."[200]
There is probably some exaggeration in this account, but it is certain
that the wide activities of the free Egyptian women were never
confined to the home. An important part was taken by her in industrial
and commercial life. In these relations and in social intercourse it
is allowed on all hands woman's position was remarkably free.[201] The
records of the monuments show her to have been as actively concerned
in all the affairs of her day, war alone excepted, as her father, her
husband, or her sons.[202] No restraint was placed upon her actions,
she appears eating and also drinking freely, and taking her part in
equal enjoyment with men in social scenes and religious ceremonies.
She was able to enter into commerce in her own right and to make
contracts for her own benefit. She could bring actions, and even plead
in the courts. She practised the art of medicine. As priestess she had
authority in the temples. Frequently as queen she was the highest in
the land. One of the greatest monarchs of Egypt was Hatschepsut,[203]
B.C. 1550. "The mighty one!" "Conqueror of all Lands!" Queen in her
own right by the will of her father, Thothmes I.
The material in proof of this high status of Egyptian women is
abundant. It consists partly of the descriptions of Greek travellers,
partly of the numerous and interesting marriage contracts, and partly
of inscriptions and passages in the writings of the moralists, all of
which testify to the beautiful and happy family relationships and
usual honour in which women were held, which is further illustrated by
incidents in the ancient stories. Of these the marriage contracts are
the most important for our purpose.
The fullest information relates to the latest period of independent
Egyptian history, when the position of women stood highest, but some
of the contracts reach back to the time of King Bocchoris, and there
are a few of an even earlier date. I wish that I had space to quote
some of these marriage contracts in full: they are very instructive,
and open out many paths of new suggestion.[204] I would commend their
study to all those who are questioning the institution of marriage as
it stands to-day on the rights of the patriarchal family system, by
which the woman is considered the inferior, and submits herself and is
subordinate to the man as the ruler of the family. The issue really
rests at its root upon this--is the mother or the father to be
regarded as the natural transmitter of property and head of the
family. Our decision here will affect our outlook on the entire
relation of the sexes. The Egyptians decided on the right of the
mother. Their marriage contracts seem to have been entirely in favour
of women. There was no sale of the bride by her parents, but the
bride-price went to her; her own property also remained in her own
charge and was at her own disposal. The husband stipulates in the
contracts how much he will give as a yearly allowance for her support,
and the entire property of the husband is pledged as security for
these payments, whilst the wife is further protected by a dowry[205]
or charge on the husband, to be paid to her in the event of his
sending her away.
It will readily be seen how advantageous these proprietary rights must
have been to the wife. She was able to claim either the fidelity of
her husband or freedom for herself to leave him--and in some cases for
both together, her property being secured to her and her children. In
one contract by which the husband gives his wife one-third of all his
property, present and to come, he values the movables she brought with
her, and promises her the equivalent in silver. "If thou stayest, thou
stayest with them, if thou goest away, thou goest away with
them."[206] The importance of this right of free separation to women
can hardly be over-estimated. Nietzold says the wife has absolutely
nothing to lose, even when she is the guilty party.[207] Some of the
marriage contracts are even more favourable to women; in these the
husband literally endows his wife with all his worldly goods,
"stipulating only that she is to maintain him while living, and
provide for his burial when dead."[208] M. Paturet distinguishes two
forms of marriage settlements, one which secures to the wife an annual
pension of specified amount--usually one-third of the property of the
husband--and the other, probably the older custom, which established a
complete community of goods. The earlier contracts are much less
detailed, due probably to the fact that the position of the
established wife was then fixed by custom; but there seems no doubt
that the equal lawful wife, she whose proper title is "lady of the
house," was also joint ruler and mistress of the family heritage.[209]
There is a very curious early contract of the time of Darius I, in
which the usual stipulation of latter contracts are reversed, the wife
speaking of the man being established as her husband, acknowledging
the receipt of a sum of money as dowry, and undertaking that if she
deserts or disposes of him, a third part of all her goods, present and
to come, shall be forfeited to him.[210]
The high honour, freedom and proprietary rights enjoyed by the
Egyptian wife can only be explained as being traceable to an early
period of mother-right. Here the ancient privileges of women have
persisted, not as an empty form, but would seem to have been adopted
because of their advantage in the family relationship, and been
incorporated with father-right. This would account for the last-named
contract. Its very ancient date seems clearly to point to this. It is
unlikely that, if it were an exceptional form, it should have chanced
to be one of the very few early contracts that have been
preserved.[211] It would rather seem that property was originally
entirely in the hands of women, as is usual under the matriarchal
system. The Egyptian marriage law was simply a development of this,
enforcing by agreement what would occur naturally under the earlier
custom. The interests of the children's inheritance was the chief
object of the settlement of property on the wife. In the earlier
stage, the daughter inheriting property from her parents, would
marry--the husband would then become its joint administrator, but not
its owner; it would pass by custom to the children with the eldest as
administrator, but if the wife dismissed the husband, as under this
system she could and often did, she would of right retain the family
property in control for the children.[212] As society advanced this
older custom would tend to break up in favour of individual ownership,
property would come to belong to the husband and father, and it would
then be necessary to ensure the position of the wife and children by
contract. The Egyptian marriage may thus be regarded as a development
of the individual relationship arising from father-right modified to
conform with the mother-right custom of transmitting property through
the woman. Under the earlier system the inheritance of the husband
would pass to the children of his sister, and not to his own children.
The contract was, therefore, made to prevent this. The husband's
property was passed over to the wife (at first entirely and later in
part) to secure its inheritance by the children of the marriage. Hence
the formula common to these contracts by which the husband declares to
the wife, "My eldest son, thy eldest son, shall be the heir to all my
property present and to come." The only difference to the earlier
custom was the prominence given to the eldest child (a son) in the
contract.
This gift by the husband of his property to the wife, which made her a
joint partner with him in all the family transactions, while at the
same time she retained complete control over her own property, clearly
placed the woman and her children in the same position of security as
she had held during the mother-age; and added to this she gained the
individual protection and support of the father in the family
relationship. Doubtless it was this freedom and right over property,
which explains the frequent cases in which the Egyptian women
conducted business transactions, and also their active participation
in the administration of the social organisation. Equal partners with
their husbands in the administration of the home, they became partners
with men in the wider administration of the State. It was in such wise
way that the Egyptians arranged the difficult problem of the fusion of
mother-right with father-right.
One result of these marriage contracts, giving apparently great power
to the wife, arose out of the mortgage on the husband's property as
security for the wife's settlement; her consent became necessary to
all his acts. Thus it is usual for the husband's deeds to be endorsed
by the wife, while he did not endorse hers. In some cases the wife's
consent seems to have been necessary even in the case of the initial
mortgage, when the only possible explanation is that the wife was
regarded as co-proprietor with the husband, and therefore had to be
party to any act disposing of the joint estate.[213]
Such a custom was apparently so wholly in favour of the wife,
reversing the customary position of the man and the woman in the
marriage partnership, that in the light of these contracts we
understand the statement of Diodorus, when he says that "among the
Egyptians the woman rules over the man"; though plainly he has not
understood their true significance, when he goes on to say that "it
is stipulated between married couples, by the terms of the
dowry-contract that the man shall obey the woman."[214]
If the view is accepted, as I think it must be, that these contracts
were made to add the advantages of father-right to the natural
privileges of mother-right, and thus to secure the enjoyment of the
family property to all its members, it will become evident that,
however surprising such an agreement might seem from the one-sided
patriarchal view (which always accepts the subjection of the woman),
it was entirely a wise and just arrangement. It was certainly one that
was entered into voluntarily by both partners of the marriage; there
was no compulsion of law. All the evidence that has come down to us is
witness to the success in practice of these marriage contracts. No
other nation has yet developed a family relationship so perfect in its
working as the Egyptians. The reason is not far to seek. It was based
on the equal freedom and responsibility of the mother with the father.
There was no question, it seems to me, of one sex ruling or obeying
the other, rather it was the co-operation of the two for the welfare
of both and of the children.
So far we have dealt only with the position of the established wife.
All the written marriage contracts refer to the "taking" and
"establishing" a wife as two distinct steps, and in some cases the
second stage, which seems to have conveyed the proprietary rights, was
not taken until after the birth of children. There would thus be wives
not necessarily holding the position of "lady of the house," but
capable of being raised to such rank by later contract.[215] It is
probable, as M. Revillout suggests,[216] that "the taking to wife" was
a comparatively informal matter, but needing ratification by contract
for any lasting establishment, which commonly would be done after the
birth of a child to ensure the rights of the father's inheritance,
passing through the mother to the children. All the evidence is in
favour of this wise arrangement. There are many examples of contracts
being entered into by the husband for the benefit of a woman, who had
been "with him as a wife to him." Relations between the sexes of an
even less binding character than this were not ignored.[217] It seems
clear that little regard was paid to pre-nuptial chastity for women,
and in no marriage contract is any stress laid on virginity, which, as
Havelock Ellis[218] says, clearly indicates the absence of any idea of
women as property. "It is the glory of Egyptian morality to have been
the first to express the dignity of woman."[219]
M. Paturet takes the view that it was not so much as the mother, but
as woman, and being the equal of man, that the Egyptians honoured
their women. Perhaps the truth rather is that there was no separation
between the woman and the mother. This is the view that I would take;
to me it is the right and natural one. But be this as it may, Egyptian
morality placed first the rights of the mother. No religious or moral
superiority seems to have attached to the established wife. Even when
there had been no betrothal, and no intention of marriage, law or
custom recognises the claim of any mother of children to some kind of
provision at their father's expense. "Nothing proves the high status
of woman so clearly as this: her child was never illegitimate;
illegitimacy was not recognised even in the case of a slave woman's
child."[220]
There is a curious deed of the Ptolemaic period by which a man cedes
to a woman a number of slaves; and--in the same breath--recognises her
as his lawful wife, and declares her free _not_ to consider him as her
husband.[221] A byssus worker at the factory of Amon promises to the
wife he is about to establish, one-third of all his acquisitions
thenceforward: "my eldest son, thy eldest son, _among the children
born to thee previously_ and those thou shalt bear to me in future
shall be master of all I possess now or shall hereafter acquire." Even
when such arrangements were not entered into voluntarily, public
opinion seems always to have been in favour of the woman. A case is
recorded where four villagers of the town of Arsinoee pledged
themselves to the priest, scribe, and mayor that a fellow villager of
theirs will become the friend of the woman who has been as his wife,
and will love her as a woman ought to be loved.[222]
Most significant of all is the well-known precept of Petah Hotep,
which refers to the expected conduct of a man to a prostitute or
outcast--
"If thou makest a woman ashamed, wanton of heart, whom her
fellow townspeople know to be under two laws" (_i.e._ in an
ambiguous position), "be kind to her for a season, send her not
away, let her have food to eat. The wantonness of her heart
appreciateth guidance."
I know of nothing finer than this wide understanding of the ties of
sex. It is an essential part of morality, as I understand it, that it
accepts responsibility, not alone in the regular and permanent
relationships between one man and one woman, but also in those that
are temporary and are even considered base. Only in this way can the
human passions be unified with love.
The freedom of the Egyptian marriage made this possible. Law, at least
as we understand it, did not interfere with the domestic
relationships; there was no one fixed rule that must be followed.
Marriage was a matter of mutual agreement by contract. All that was
required (and this was enforced by custom and by public opinion) was
that the position of the woman and the children was made secure. Each
party entered on the marriage without any constraint, and each party
could cancel the contract and thereby the marriage. No legal judgment
was required for divorce. It is a significant fact that in all the
documents cancelling the marriage contracts that have come down to us,
no mention is made of the reason which led to the annulling of the
contract, only in one case it is suggested that "some evil daimon" may
be at the bottom of it.[223]
Polygamy was allowed in Egypt, though, as in all polygamous countries,
its practice was confined to the rich. This has been thought by some
to exclude the idea of the woman's power in the family.[224] But such
an opinion seems to me to arise from a want of understanding of the
Egyptian conception of the sexual tie. Under polygamy each wife had a
house, her proprietary rights and those of her children were
established, the husband visiting her there as a privileged guest on
equal footing.[225] This is very different from polygamy in a
patriarchal society, and would carry with it no social dishonour to
the woman. It would seem, too, in later Egyptian history that
polygamy, though legal in theory, in practice died out, the fidelity
of the husband, as we have seen, being claimed by the wife in the
conditions of the marriage contract.[226]
That the Egyptians had a high ideal of the domestic relations--and had
this, let it be remembered, more than four thousand years ago--is
abundantly illustrated by their inscriptions. In one epitaph of the
Hykos period, the speaker, who boasts a family of sixty children, says
of himself, "I loved my father, I honoured my mother, my brothers and
my sisters loved me."[227] The commonest formula, which continued in
use as long as Egyptian civilisation survived, was one describing the
deceased as "loving his father, reverencing his mother, and being
beloved by his brothers," and there can be no doubt that this
sentiment represented the maturest convictions of the Egyptians as to
the sentiments necessary for the felicitous working of the family
relationships.[228] It is, indeed, significant to find this reversal
of the usual sentiments towards the father and the mother--the former
to be loved and the latter to be reverenced. It would seem as if "they
assumed that fathers would be sufficiently reverenced if they were
loved, and mothers loved if they were honoured." How true here is the
understanding of affection and of the sexes!
If we pause for a moment to seek the reason why the Egyptians had, as
Herodotus so strikingly states, established in their domestic
relationships laws and customs different from the rest of mankind--the
answer is easy to find. The Egyptians were an agricultural and a
conservative people. They were also a pacific race. They would seem
not to have believed in that illusion of younger races--the glory of
warfare. I have seen it stated that in battle they were known for the
habit of running away. This may, of course, be thought to count
against them as a people. It depends entirely on the point of view
that is taken. But if, as I believe, the fighting activities belong to
an early and truly primitive stage of social development, then the
view would be very different. Races begin with the building up of
society, then there follows the period of warfare--the patriarchal
period which leads on to a later stage, much nearer in its working to
the first--a final period, as Havelock Ellis says, "the stage of
fruition." Woman's place and opportunity for the true expression of
the powers that are hers belong to the first and last of these stages;
in the middle stage she must tend to fall into a position of more or
less complete dependence on the fighting male. Here is, I think, the
explanation of the power and privilege of the Egyptian women. The
Egyptians, due to their pacific and conservative temperament, seem to
have escaped the patriarchal stage, and passed on from the first to
final stage. Through the long centuries of their civilisation they
devoted their energies to the building up and preserving of their
social organisation. Thus, it may be, came about that solving of the
problem of the sexes, which they among all races seem to have
accomplished. The relationships of their family life and domestic
administration were entirely civilised and humane.
Nowhere, except in Egypt, is so much stress laid upon the truth, that
authority is sustained by affection. Their monuments and the
inscriptions that have come down to us abundantly testify the value
set upon affection: it is always the love of the husband for the wife,
the wife for the husband, or the parent for the child, that is
recorded. The frequency and detail with which such affections are
described, prove the high estimation in which the purely domestic
virtues were held, as forming the best and chief title of the dead to
remembrance and honour. It is clear, moreover, that these affectionate
relations between the members of a family are counted among the
pleasures and joy of life. The inscriptions urge and warn the
survivors to miss none of the joys of life, since the disembodied dead
sleep in darkness, and this is the worst of their grief, "they know
neither father nor mother, they do not awake to behold their brethren,
their heart yearns no longer after wife and child."[229] There is a
delightful inscription on the sepulchral tablet of the wife of a high
priest of Memphis,[230] in which she urges the duty of happiness for
her husband. It says--
"Hail, my brother, husband, friend, ... let not thy heart cease
to drink water, to eat bread, to drink wine, to love women, to
make a happy day, and to suit thy heart's desire by day and by
night. And set no care whatsoever in thy heart: are the years
which (we pass) upon the earth so many (that we need do this)?"
Such a conception, with its clear idea of the right of happiness,
stands as witness to the high ideal of love which regulated the
Egyptian family relationships.
It is necessary to remember, in this connection, that the domestic
ties of the Egyptians were firmly based on proprietary considerations.
No surprise need be felt that this was so, when we recall the wise
arrangements of the marriage contracts, whereby both parties of the
union secured equal freedom and an equal share in the family property.
The antagonism between ownership and affection which so frequently
destroys domestic happiness must thus have been unknown. "There was no
marriage without money or money's worth, but to marry _for_ money, in
the modern sense, was impossible where individual ownership was
abolished by the act of marriage itself."[231]
This in itself explains the fact, proved by these inscriptions, that
the Egyptian woman remained to the end of life, "the beloved of her
husband and the mistress of the house." "Make glad her heart during
the time that thou hast," was the traditional advice given to the
husband. To this effect runs the precept of Petah Hotep[232]--
"If thou wouldst be a wise man, rule thy house and love thy wife
wholly and constantly. Feed her and clothe her, love her
tenderly and fulfil her desires as long as thou livest, for she
is an estate which conferreth great reward upon her lord.[233]
Be not hard to her, for she will be more easily moved by
persuasion than by force. Observe what she wisheth, and that on
which her mind runneth, thereby shalt thou make her to stay in
thy house. If thou resisteth her will it is ruin."
The maxims of Ani,[234] written six dynasties later, give the same
advice with fuller detail--
"Do not treat rudely a woman in her house when you know her
perfectly; do not say to her, 'Where is that? bring it to me!'
when she has set it in its place where your eye sees it, and
when you are silent you know her qualities. It is a joy that
your hand should be with her. The man who is fond of heart is
quickly master in his house."
Honour to the mother was strongly insisted on. The sage
Kneusu-Hetep[235] thus counsels his son--
"Thou shalt never forget thy mother and what she has done for
thee. From the beginning she has borne a heavy burden with thee
in which I have been unable to help her. Wert thou to forget
her, then she might blame thee, lifting up her arms unto God,
and he would hearken to her. For she carried thee long beneath
her heart as a heavy burden, and after thy months were
accomplished she bore thee. Three long years she carried thee
upon her shoulder and gave thee her breast to thy mouth, and as
thy size increased her heart never once allowed her to say, 'Why
should I do this?' And when thou didst go to school and wast
instructed in the writings, daily she stood by thy master with
bread and beer from the house."
I would note in passing that in this passage we have a conclusive
testimony to health and character of the Egyptian mother. The
importance of this is undoubted, when we remember the active part
taken by women in business and in social life. It is, I am sure, an
entirely mistaken view to hold that motherhood is a cause of weakness
to women. In a wisely ordered society this is not so. It is the
withdrawal of one class of women from labour--the parasitic wives and
daughters of the rich (which of these women could feed and carry her
child for three years?), as the forcing of other women into work under
intolerable conditions that injures motherhood. But on these questions
I shall speak in the final part of my inquiry.
When I had written thus far in this chapter, I went from the
reading-room of the British Museum, where all day I had been working,
to spend a last quiet hour in the Egyptian Galleries. I knew one at
least of these galleries well, but as a rule I had hurried through it,
as so many of the reading-room students do, to reach the
refreshment-room which is placed there. I found I had never really
seen anything. This time it was different, for my thoughts were aflame
with the life of this people, whose wonderful civilisation speaks in
all these sculptured remains through the silence of the centuries.
Some fresh thought came to me as I waited to look at first one statue
and then another. I sought for those which represented women. There is
a small statue in green basalt of Isis holding a figure of Osiris
Un-nefer, her son.[236] The goddess is represented as much larger than
the young god, who stands at her feet. The marriage of Isis with her
brother Osiris did not blot out her independent position, her
importance as a deity remained to the end greater than his. Think for
a moment what this placing of the goddess, rather than the god, in the
forefront of Egyptian worship signifies; very clearly it reflects the
honour in which the sex to whom the supreme deity belongs was held. In
the third Egyptian room is a seated statuette of Queen Teta-Khart, a
wife of Aaehmes I (1600 B.C.), whose title was "Royal Mother," and
another figure of Queen Amenartas of the XXVth Dynasty 700 B.C.; near
by is a beautiful head of the stone figure of a priestess.[237] There
is something enigmatic and strangely seductive in the Egyptian faces;
a joy and calmness which are implicit in freedom. And the impression
is helped by the fixed attitudes, usually seated and always facing the
spectator, and also by the great size of many of the figures; one
seems to realise something of the simplicity and strength of the
tireless enduring power of these women and men.
But I think what interested me most of all was the little difference
manifested in the representations of the two sexes. The dress which
each wears is very much the same; the attitudes are alike, and so
often are the faces, even in the figures there seems no accentuation
of the sexual characters. Often I did not know whether it was at a man
or a woman, a god or a goddess, I was looking, until the title of the
statue told me. How strange this seemed to me, and yet how significant
of the beautiful equality of partnership between the woman and the
man. It is in the statues which represent a husband and wife together,
seated side by side, that this likeness is most evident. There are
several of these domestic groups. One very interesting one is of early
date, and belongs to the IVth Dynasty 3750 B.C.[238] It is in painted
limestone, and shows the portrait figures of Ka-tep, "a royal kinsman"
and priestly official, and his wife Hetep-Heres, "a royal kinswoman."
The figures are small and of the same size; the faces are clearly
portraits. The one, which I take to be the woman, though I am uncertain
whether I am right, has her arm around the man, embracing him. There
is another group[239] in white limestone of very fine work, portraits
of a high official and his wife. The figures resemble each other
closely, but that of the man is a little larger, showing his rank.
The man holds the hand of the woman. This statue belongs to the XIXth
Dynasty. On the right-hand side of the North Gallery is a second group
of an earlier period.[240] The husband and wife are seated, and the
figures are of the same size, showing that their rank was equal; their
arms are intertwined, and between them, standing at their feet, is a
small figure of their son. It was before this family group I waited
longest: it pleased me by its completeness and its sincerity. Once
more I should have had difficulty in identifying which figure was the
father and which the mother, but the man wears a small beard. In all
these statue groups there is this great resemblance between the sexes.
Were the sexes, then, really alike in Egypt? I do not know. Such a
conception opens up biological considerations of the deepest
significance. It is so difficult to be certain here. Is the great
boundary line which divides the two halves of life, with the intimate
woman's problems that depend upon it, to remain for ever fixed? In sex
are we always to be faced with an irresolvable tangle of disharmonies?
Again, I do not know. Yet, looking at these seated figures of the
Egyptian husband and wife, I felt that the answer might be with them.
Do they not seem to have solved that secret which we are so painful in
our search of? The statues thus took on a kind of symbolic character,
which eloquently spoke of a union of the woman and the man that in
freedom had broken down the boundaries of sex, and, therefore, of
life that was in harmony with love and joy. And the beautiful words of
the Egyptian _Song of the Harper_ came to my memory, and now I
understood them--
"Make (thy) day glad! Let there be perfumes and sweet odours for
thy nostrils, and let there be flowers and lilies for thy
beloved sister (_i.e._ wife) who shall be seated by thy side.
Let there be songs and music of the harp before thee, and
setting behind thy back unpleasant things of every kind,
remember only gladness, until the day cometh wherein thou must
travel to the land which loveth silence."
II.--_In Babylon_
"The modern view of marriage recognises a relation that love has
known from the outset. But this is a relation only possible
between free self-governing persons."--HOBHOUSE.
If we turn now to the very ancient civilisation of Babylon we shall
find women in a position of honour similar in many ways to what we
have seen already in Egypt: there are ever indications that the
earliest customs may have gone beyond those of the Egyptians in
exalting women. The most archaic texts in the primitive language are
remarkable for the precedence given to the female sex in all formulas
of address: "Goddess" and gods, women and men, are mentioned always in
that order, which is in itself a decisive indication of the high
status of women in this early period.[241]
There are other traces all pointing to the conclusion that in the
civilisation of primitive Babylon mother-right was still very much
alive. It is significant that the first rulers of Sumer and
Akkad--the oldest Babylonian cities--frequently made boast of their
unknown parentage, which can only be explained by the assumption that
descent through the father was not recognised. Thus Sargon,[242] one
of the earlier rulers, says: "My mother was a princess, my father I
know not ... my mother, the princess, conceived me, in a secret place
she brought me forth." A little monument in the Hague museum has an
inscription which has been translated thus: "Gudea patesi of Sirgulla
dedicates thus to Gin-dung-nadda-addu, his wife." The wife's name is
interpreted "maid of the god Nebo." It is thought that Gudea reigned
in her right. The inscription goes on to say: "Mother I had not, my
mother was the water deep. A father I had not, my father was the water
deep." The passage is obscure, but it is explained if we regard this
as one of the legends of miraculous birth so frequent in primitive
societies under mother-descent.[243] Another relic of some interest is
an ancient statue of a Babylonian woman, not a goddess or a queen, who
is presented alone and not with her husband, as was common in Egypt;
such a monument may suggest, as is pointed out by Simcox, that women
at this period possessed wealth in their own right.
As in Egypt, the mother, the father, and the eldest son seem to have
been the essential members of the family. We find that the compound
substantive translated "family" means literally "children household."
This is very interesting and may betoken a conception of marriage and
the family like that of the Egyptians, in which the union of the wife
and the husband is only fully established by the birth of
children.[244] In the house the wife is "set in honour," "glad and
gladdening like the mid-day sun." The sun-god Merodach is thus
addressed: "Like a wife thou behavest thyself, cheerful and
rejoicing." The sun-god himself is made to say, "May the wife whom
thou lovest come before thee with joy." These examples, and also many
others, such, for instance, as the phrase, "As a woman fashioned for a
mother made beautiful," show that the Babylonians shared the Egyptian
idealism in their conception of the wife and mother and her relation
to the family. Many of the Summerian expressions throw beautiful light
on the happiness of the domestic relationships. The union of the wife
and husband is spoken of as "the undivided half," the idiogram for the
mother signifies the elements "god" and "the house," she is "the
enlarger of the family," the father is "one who is looked up to."
The information that has come down to us is not so full as our
knowledge of the Egyptian family, or, at least, the facts which relate
to women have not yet been so firmly established. We may, however,
accept the statement of Havelock Ellis when he says that "in the
earliest times a Babylonian woman enjoyed complete independence and
equal rights with her brothers and husband."[245]
Later in Babylonian history--though still at an early period--women's
rights were more circumscribed, and we find them in a position of some
subordination. How the change arose is not clear, but it is probable
that in Babylon civilisation followed the usual order of social
development, and that with the rise of military activities, bringing
the male force into prominence, women fell to a position of inferior
power in the family and in the State.
That this was the condition of society in Babylon in the time of
Hammurabi (_i.e._ probably between 2250 B.C. and 1950 B.C.) is proved
by the marriage code of this ruler, which in certain of its
regulations affords a marked contrast with the Egyptian marriage
contracts, always so favourable to the wife. Marriage, instead of an
agreement made between the wife and the husband, was now arranged
between the parents of the woman and the bridegroom and without
reference to her wishes. The terms of the marriage were a modified
form of purchase, very similar to the exchange of gifts common among
primitive peoples. It appears from the code that a sum of money or
present was given by the bridegroom to the woman's father as well as
to the bride herself, but this payment was not universal; and, on the
other side of the account, the father made over to his daughter on her
marriage a dowry, which remained her own property in so far that it
was returned to her in the case of divorce or on the death of her
husband, and that it passed to her children and, failing them, to her
father.[246]
Polygamy, though permitted, was definitely restricted by the code.
Thus a man might marry a second wife if "a sickness has seized" his
first wife, but the first wife was not to be put away. This is the
only case in which two equal wives are recognised by the code. But it
was also possible--as the contracts prove--for a man to take one or
more secondary wives or concubines, who were subordinate to the chief
wife. In some cases this appears to have been done to enable the first
wife to adopt the children of the concubine "as her children."[247]
It is worth while to note the exact conditions of divorce in the
reference to women as given in the clauses of Hammurabi's code--
"137. If a man has set his face to put away his concubine, who
has granted him children, to that woman he shall return his
marriage portion, and shall give her the _usufruct_ of field,
garden, and goods, and shall bring up her children. From the
time that her children are grown up, from whatever is given to
her children, they shall give her a share like that of one son,
and she shall marry the husband of her choice."
"138. If a man shall put away his bride, who has not borne him
children, he shall give her money as much as her bride-price."
"139. If there was no bride-price he shall give her one mina of
silver."
"140. If he is a poor man he shall give one third of a mina of
silver."
So far the position of the wife is secured in the case of the
infidelity of the husband. But if we turn to the other side, when it
is the woman who is the unfaithful partner it is evident how strongly
the patriarchal idea of woman as property has crept into the family
relations. We find that a woman "who has set her face to go out and
has acted the fool, has wasted her house or has belittled her
husband," may either be divorced without compensation or retained in
the house as the slave of a new wife.
I would ask you to contrast this treatment with the free right of
separation granted to the Egyptian wife, whose position, as also that
of her children, in all circumstances was secure, and to remember that
this difference in the moral code for the two sexes is always present,
in greater or lesser force, against woman wherever the property
considerations of father-right have usurped the natural law of
mother-right. Conventional morality has doubtless from the first been
on the side of the supremacy of the male. To me it seems that this
alone must discredit any society formed on the patriarchal basis.
The Babylonian wife was permitted to claim a divorce under certain
conditions, namely, "if she had been economical and had no vice," and
if she could prove that "her husband had gone out and greatly
belittled her." But the proof of this carried with it grave danger to
herself, for if on investigation it turned out that "she has been
uneconomical or a gad-about, that woman one shall throw into the
water." Probably such penalty was not really carried out, but even if
the expression be taken figuratively its significance in the
degradation of woman is hardly less great. The position of the wife as
subject to her husband is clearly marked by the manner in which
infidelity is treated. The law provides that both partners may be put
to death for an act of unfaithfulness, but while the king may pardon
"his servant" (the man), the wife has to receive pardon from "her
owner" (_i.e._ the husband). The lordship of the husband is seen also
in his power to dispose of his wife as well as his children for
debt.[248] The period for debt slavery was, however, confined to the
years of Hammurabi.[249]
From this time onwards we find the position of the wife continuously
improving, and in the later Neo-Babylonian periods she again acquired
equal rights with her husband. The marriage law was improved in the
woman's favour. Contracts of marriage by purchase became very rare. It
appears from the later contracts that a wife could protect herself
from divorce or the taking of another wife by special penalties
imposed on the husband by the conditions of the deed, thus giving her
a position of security similar to that of the Egyptian wife.
In all social relations the Babylonian women had remarkable freedom.
They could conduct business in their own right. Their power to dispose
of property is proved by numerous contract tablets, and, at any rate
in later periods, they were held to possess a full legal personality
equal in all points with their husbands. In many contracts husband and
wife are conjoined as debtors, creditors, and as together taking
pledges. The wife, as in Egypt, is made a party to any action of the
husband in which her dowry is involved. The wife could also act
independently; women appear by themselves as creditors, and in some
contracts we find a wife standing in that relation to her husband. In
one case a woman acts as security for a man's debts to another woman.
In a suit about a slave a woman, who was proved by witnesses to have
made a wrongful claim, was compelled to pay a sum of money equivalent
to the value of the slave. We find, too, a married woman joining with
a man to sell a house. In another case, in which a mother and son had
a sum of money owing to them, the debt was cancelled by giving a bill
on the mother. The rich woman, by name Gugua, disposes her property
among her children, but she reserves the right of taking it back into
her own hands if she should so wish, and stipulates that it may not be
mortgaged to any one without her consent.[250] There is another
interesting deed[251] by which a father who, it is suggested, was a
spendthrift, assigns the remnant of his property to his daughter under
the stipulation "thou shalt measure to me, and as long as thou livest
give me maintenance, food, ointment and clothing."
It would be easy to multiply such cases.[252] All these contract
tablets have interest for us. The active participation of the
Babylonian women in property transactions is the more instructive when
we consider that in the development of commercial enterprise the
Babylonians were in advance of all the rest of the world. One is
tempted to suggest that the assistance of women may have brought an
element into commerce beneficial to its growth. There is ample
evidence to show the administrative and financial ability of women.
This quality is noted by Lecky in the chapter on "Woman Questions" in
his _Democracy and Liberty_. He says:
"How many fortunes wasted by negligence or extravagance have
been restored by a long minority under female management?"
He notes, too, the financial ability of the French women.
"Where can we find in a large class a higher level of business
habits and capacity than that which all competent observers have
recognised in French women of the middle classes?"
The estimate of J.S. Mill on this question is too well known to call
for quotation. We may recall also the superior ability in trade of the
women of Burma. It is not necessary, however, to seek for proof of
women's ability in finance. Against one woman who mismanages her
income at least six men may be placed who mismanage theirs, not from
any special extravagance, but from sheer male inability to adapt
expenditure to income. A woman who has had any business training will
discriminate better than a man between the essential and the
non-essential in expenditure.
The civilisation of a people is necessarily determined to a large
extent by the ideas of the relations of the sexes, and by the
institutions and conventions that arise through such ideas. One of the
most important and debatable of these questions is whether women are
to be considered as citizens and independently responsible, or as
beings differing in all their capacities from men, and, therefore, to
be set in positions of at least material dependence to an individual
man. It is the answer to this question we are seeking. The Babylonians
decided for the civic equality of their women, and this decision must
have affected all their actions from the larger matters of the State
down to the smallest points of family conduct. The wisdom which, by
giving a woman full control over her own property, recognised her
right and responsibility to act for herself, was not, as we have seen,
at once established. This recognition of the equality and fellowship
between women and men as the finest working idea for the family
relationship was only developed slowly through the long centuries of
their civilisation.
III.--_In Greece_
"Of all things upon earth that breathe and grow
A herb most bruised is woman. We must pay
Our store of gold, hoarded for that one day
To buy us some man's love, and lo, they bring
A master of our flesh. There comes the sting
Of the whole shame, and then the jeopardy
For good or ill, what shall that master be?
Reject she cannot, and if she but stays
His suit, 'tis shame on all that woman's days.
So thrown amid new laws, new places, why,
'Tis magic she must have to prophesy.
Home never taught her that--how best to guide
Towards peace this thing that sleepeth at her side,
And she, who, labouring long, shall find some way
Whereby her lord may bear with her, nor fray
His yoke too fiercely, blessed is the breath
That woman draws! Else let her pray for death.
Her lord, if he be wearied of her face
Within doors, gets him forth; some merrier place
Will ease his heart; but she waits on, her whole
Vision enchained on a single soul.
And then, forsooth, 'tis they that face the call
Of war, while we sit sheltered, hid from all
Peril. False mocking. Sooner would I stand
Three times to face their battles, shield in hand,
Than bear our child."--EURIPIDES.
If we turn now from eastern civilisation to ancient Greece, the
picture there presented to us is in many ways in sharp contrast to
anything we have yet examined. The Greeks founded western
civilisation, but their rapid advance in general culture was by no
means accompanied by a corresponding improvement in the position of
women. The fineness of their civilisation and their exquisite
achievement in so many directions makes it the more necessary to
remember this.
At one time there would seem to have been in prehistoric Greece a
period of fully developed mother-rights, as is proved by numerous
survivals of the older system so frequently met with in Greek
literature and history. This was at an earlier stage of civilisation,
before the establishment of the patriarchal system. There is little
doubt, however, that the influence of mother-right remained as a
tradition for long after the actual rights had been lost by
women.[253] It will be remembered how great was the astonishment of
the Greek travellers at the free position of the Egyptian women, in
particular the apparent subjection of the husband to his wife. Now,
such surprise is in itself sufficient to prove a different conception
of the relation of the sexes. The patriarchal view whereby the woman
is placed under the protection and authority of the man was already
clearly established in the Hellenic belief. Yet, in spite of this
fact, the position of the woman was striking and peculiar, and in some
directions remarkably free, and thus offering many points of interest
not less important in their significance to us than what we have seen
already in Egypt and in Babylon.
In speaking of the Hellenic woman I can select only a few facts; to
deal at all adequately with so large a subject in briefest outline is,
indeed, impossible. I shall not even try to picture the marriage and
family relationships, which offer in many and varied ways a wide and
fascinating study; all that I can do is to point to some of the
conditions and suggest the conclusions which seem to arise from them.
Glancing first at the women of the Homeric[254] period we find them
represented as holding a position of entire dependence, without rights
or any direct control over property; under the rule of the father, and
afterwards of the husband, and even in some cases humbly submissive to
their sons. Telemachus thus rebukes his mother: "Go to thy chamber;
attend to thy work; turn the spinning wheel; weave the linen; see that
thy servants do their tasks. Speech belongs to men, and especially to
me, who am the master here." And Penelope allows herself to be
silenced and obeys, "bearing in mind the sage discourse of her
son."[255] This is the fully developed patriarchal idea of the duties
of the woman and her patient submission to the man.
Now, if we look only at the outside of such a case as this it would
appear that the position of the Homeric woman was one of almost
complete subjection. Whereas, as every one knows, the facts are far
different. The protection of the woman was a condition made necessary
in an unstable society of predominating military activity. Apart from
this wardship, women very clearly were not in a subordinate position
and, moreover, never regarded as property. The very reverse is the
case. Nowhere in the whole range of literature are women held in
deeper affection or receive greater honour. To take one instance,
Andromache relates how her father's house has been destroyed with all
who were in it, and then she says: "But now, Hector, thou art my
father and gracious mother, thou art my brother, nay, thou art my
valiant husband."[256] It is easy to see in this speech how the early
ideas of relationships under mother-right had been transferred to the
husband, as the protector of the woman, conditioned by father-right.
Again and again we meet with traces of the older customs of the
mother-age. The influence of woman persists as a matter of habit; even
the formal elevation of woman to positions of authority is not
uncommon, with an accompanying freedom in action, which is wholly at
variance with the patriarchal ideal. Thus it is common for the husband
to consult his wife in all important concerns, though it was her
special work to look after the affairs of the house. "There is
nothing," says Homer, "better and nobler than when husband and wife,
being of one mind, rule a household."[257] Penelope and Clytemnestra
are left in charge of the realms of their husbands during their
absence in Troy; the beautiful Chloris ruled as queen in Pylos.[258]
Arete, the beloved wife of Alcinous, played an important part as
peacemaker in the kingdom of her husband. It is to her Nausicaea brings
Ulysses on his return, bidding him kneel to her mother if he would
gain a welcome and succour from her father.[259]
We find the Homeric women moving freely among men. They might go where
they liked, and do what they liked.[260] As girls they were educated
with their brothers and friends, attending together the classes of the
bards and dancing with them in the public dancing-places which every
town possessed. Homer pictures the youths and the maidens pressing the
vines together. They mingled together at marriage feasts and at
religious festivals. Women took part with men in offering the
sacrifices to the gods; they also went alone to the temples to present
their offerings.[261] Nor did marriage restrict their freedom. Helen
appears on the battlements of Troy, watching the conflict, accompanied
only by her maidens.
This freedom insured to the Homeric women that vigour of body and
beauty of person for which they are renowned. Health was the first
condition of beauty. The Greeks wanted strong men, therefore the
mothers must be strong, and this, as among all peoples who have
understood the valuation of life more clearly than others, made
necessary a high physical development of woman. Yet, I think, that an
even more prominent reason was the need by the woman herself for the
protection of the male, which made it her first duty to charm the man
whom destiny brought to be her companion. This is a point that must
not be overlooked. To me it is very significant that in all the
records of the Egyptians, showing so clearly the love and honour in
which woman was held, we find no insistence on, and, indeed, hardly a
reference to, the physical beauty of woman. It is love itself that is
exalted; a husband wishing to honour his lost wife says: "she was
sweet as a palm tree in her love," he does not tell us if she were
beautiful.[262] I cannot follow this question further. Yet it is clear
that danger lurks for woman and her freedom, when to safeguard her
independence, she has no other resources than the seduction of her
beauty to gain and to hold the love she is able to inspire. Sex
becomes a defensive weapon, and one she must use for self-protection,
if she is to live. It seems clear to me that this economic use of sex
is the real cancer at the very root of the sexual relationship. It is
but a step further and a perfectly logical one, that leads to
prostitution. At a later period of Hellenic civilisation we find
Aristotle warning the young men of Athens against "the excess of
conjugal tenderness and feminine tyranny which enchains a man to his
wife."[263] Can any surprise be felt; does one not wonder rather at
the blindness of man's understanding? That such warning against women
should have been spoken in Egypt is incredible. Woman's position and
liberty of action was in no way dependent on her power of
sex-fascination, not even directly on her position as mother, and this
really explains the happy working of their domestic relationships.
Nature's supreme gifts of the sexual differences among them were freed
from economic necessities, and woman as well as man was permitted to
turn them to their true biological ends--the mutual joy of each other
and the service of the race. For this is what I want to make clear; it
is men who suffer in quite as great a degree as women, wherever the
female has to use her sexual gifts to gain support and protection from
the male. It is so plain--one thing makes the relations of the sexes
free, that both partners shall themselves be free, knowing no bondage
that is outside the love-passion itself. Then, and then only, can the
woman and the man--the mother and father, really love in freedom and
together carry out love's joys and its high and holy duties.
The conditions that meet us when we come to examine the position of
women in historic Greece are explained in the light of this valuation
of the sexual relationship. We are faced at once by a curious
contrast; on one hand, we find in Sparta, under a male social
organisation, the women of AEolian and Dorian race carrying on and
developing the Homeric traditions of freedom, while the Athenian
women, on the contrary, are condemned to an almost Oriental seclusion.
How these conditions arose becomes clear, when we remember that the
prominent idea regulating all the legislation of the Greeks was to
maintain the permanence and purity of the State. In Sparta the first
of these motives ruled. The conditions in which the State was placed
made it necessary for the Spartans to be a race of soldiers, and to
ensure this a race of vigorous mothers was essential. They had the
wisdom to understand that their women could only effectively discharge
the functions assigned to them by Nature by the free development of
their bodies, and full cultivation of their mental faculties. Sappho,
whose "lofty and subtle genius" places her as the one woman for whose
achievement in poetry no apology on the grounds of her sex ever needs
to be made, was of AEolian race. The Spartan woman was a huntress and
an athlete and also a scholar, for her training was as much a care of
the State as that of her brothers. Her education was deliberately
planned to fit her to be a mother of men.
It was the sentiment of strict and zealous patriotism which inspired
the marriage regulations that are attributed to Lycurgus. The
obligation of marriage was legal, like military service.[264] All
celibates were placed under the ban of society.[265] The young men
were attracted to love by the privilege of watching (and it is also
said assisting in) the gymnastic exercise of naked young girls, who
from their earliest youth entered into contests with each other in
wrestling and racing and in throwing the quoit and javelin.[266] The
age of marriage was also fixed, special care being taken that the
Spartan girls should not marry too soon; no sickly girl was permitted
to marry.[267] In the supreme interest of the race love was regulated.
The young couple were not allowed to meet except in secret until after
a child was born.[268] Brothers might share a wife in common, and wife
lending was practised. It was a praiseworthy act for an old man to
give his wife to a strong man by whom she might have a child.[269] The
State claimed a right over all children born; each child had to be
examined soon after birth by a committee appointed, and only if
healthy was it allowed to live.[270]
Such a system is no doubt open to objections, yet no other could have
served as well the purpose of raising and maintaining a race of
efficient warriors. The Spartans held their supremacy in Greece
through sheer force and bravery and obedience to law; and the women
had equal share with the men in this high position. Necessarily they
were remarkable for vigour of character and the beauty of their
bodies, for beauty rests ultimately on a biological basis.
Women took an active interest in all that concerned the State, and
were allowed a freedom of action even in sexual conduct equal and, in
some directions, greater than that of men. The law restricted women
only in their function as mothers. Plato has criticised this as a
marked defect of the Spartan system. Men were under strict regulation
to the end of their days; they dined together on the fare determined
by the State; no licence was permitted to them; almost their whole
time was occupied in military service. No such regulations were made
for women, they might live as they liked. One result was that many
wives were better educated than their husbands. We find, too, that a
great portion of land passed into the hands of women. Aristotle states
that they possessed two-fifths of it. He deplores the Spartan system,
and affirms that in his day the women were "incorrigible and
luxurious"; he accuses them of ruling their husbands. "What
difference," he says, "does it make whether the women rule or the
rulers are ruled by women, for the result is the same?"[271] This
gynaecocracy was noticed by others. "You of Lacedaemon," said a strange
lady to Gorgo, wife of Leonidas, "are the only women in the world that
rule the men." "We," she answered, "are the only women who bring forth
men."[272] Such were the Spartan women.
In Athens the position of women stands out in sharp contrast. Athens
was the largest of the city-states of Greece, and, for its stability,
it was ruled that no stranger might enter into the rights of its
citizens. Restrictions of the most stringent nature and punishments
the most terrible were employed to keep the citizenship pure. As is
usual, the restrictions fell most heavily upon women. It would seem
that the sexual virtue of the Athenian women was not trusted--it was
natural to women to love. Doubtless there were many traces of the
earlier sexual freedom under mother-right. Women must be kept in
guard to ensure that no spurious offspring should be brought into the
State. This explains the Athenian marriage code with its unusually
strict subordination of the woman to her father first, and then to her
husband. It explains also the unequal law of divorce. In early times
the father might sell his daughters and barter his sisters. This was
abolished by Solon, except in the case of unchastity. There could,
however, be no legitimate marriage without the assignment of the bride
by her guardian.[273] The father was even able to bequeath his
unmarried daughters by will.[274] The part assigned by the Athenian
law to the wife in relation to her husband was very similar to that of
the married women under ancient Jewish law.
Women were secluded from all civic life and from all intellectual
culture. There were no regular schools for girls in Athens, and no
care was taken by the State, as in Sparta, for the young girls'
physical well-being. The one quality required from them was chastity,
and to ensure this women were kept even from the light of the sun,
confined in special apartments in the upper part of the house. One
husband, indeed, Ischomachus, recommends his wife to take active
bodily exercise as an aid to her beauty; but she is to do this "not in
the fresh air, for that would not be suitable for an Athenian matron,
but in baking bread and looking after her linen."[275] So strictly was
the seclusion of the wife adhered to that she was never permitted to
show herself when her husband received guests. It was even regarded as
evidence of the non-existence of a regular marriage if the wife had
been in the habit of attending the feasts[276] given by the man whom
she claimed as husband.
The deterioration of the Athenian citizen-women followed as the
inevitable result. It is also impossible to avoid connecting the swift
decline of the fine civilisation of Athens with this cause. Had the
political power of her citizens been based on healthier social and
domestic relationships, it might not have fallen down so rapidly into
ruin. No civilisation can maintain itself that neglects the
development of the mothers that give it birth.
As we should expect we find little evidence of affection between the
Athenian husband and wife. The entire separation between their work
and interests would necessarily preclude ideal love. Probably
Sophocles presents the ordinary Greek view accurately, when he causes
one of his characters to regret the loss of a brother or sister much
more than that of a wife. "If a wife dies you can get another, but if
a brother or sister dies, and the mother is dead, you can never get
another. The one loss is easily reparable, the other is
irreparable."[277] We could have no truer indication than this as to
the degradation into which woman had fallen in the sexual
relationship.
That once, indeed, it had been far otherwise with the Athenian women
the ancient legends witness. Athens was the city of Pallas Athene, the
goddess of strength and power, which in itself testifies to a time
when women were held in honour. The Temple of the Goddess, high on the
Acropolis, stood as a relic of matriarchal worship. Year by year the
secluded women of Athens wove a robe for Athene. Yet, so complete had
become their subjection and their withdrawal from the duties of
citizens, that when in the Theatre of Dyonysus men actors personated
the great traditional women of the Greek Heroic Age, no woman was
permitted to be present.[278] What wonder, then, that the Athenian
women rebelled against the wastage of their womanhood. That they did
rebel we may be certain on the strength of the satirical statements of
Aristophanes, and even more from the pathos of the words put here and
there into the mouths of women by Euripides--
"Of all things upon earth that breathe and grow
A herb most bruised is woman. We must pay
Our store of gold, hoarded for that one day
To buy us some man's love, and lo, they bring
A Master of our flesh. There comes the sting
Of the whole shame."[279]
The debased position of the Athenian citizen woman becomes abundantly
clear when we find that ideal love and free relationship between the
sexes were possible only with the _hetairae_. Limitation of space
forbids my giving any adequate details of these stranger-women, who
were the beloved companions of the Athenian men. Prohibited from legal
marriage by law, these women were in all other respects free; their
relations with men, either temporary or permanent, were openly
entered into and treated with respect. For the Greeks the _hetaira_
was in no sense a prostitute. The name meant friend and companion. The
women to whom the name was applied held an honourable and independent
position, one, indeed, of much truer honour than that of the wife.
These facts may well give us pause. It was not the women who were the
legal wives, safeguarded to ensure their chastity, restricted to their
physical function of procreation, but the _hetairae_, says Donaldson,
"who exhibited what was best and noblest in woman's nature."
Xenophon's ideal wife was a good housekeeper--like her of the
Proverbs. Thucydides in the famous funeral oration which he puts in
the mouth of Pericles, exhorts the wives of the slain warriors, whose
memory is being commemorated, "to shape their lives in accordance with
their natures," and then adds with unconscious irony, "Great is the
glory of that woman who is least talked of by men, either in the way
of praise or blame." Such were the barren honours granted to the legal
wife. The _hetairae_ were the only educated women in Athens. It was
only the free-companion who was a fit helpmate for Pericles, or
capable of sustaining a conversation with Socrates. We know that
Socrates visited Theodota[280] and the brilliant Diotima of Mantinea,
of whom he speaks "as his teacher in love."[281] Thargalia, a Milesian
stranger, gained a position of high political importance.[282] When
Alcibiades had to flee for his life, it was a "companion" who went
with him, and being present at his end performed the funeral rites
over him.[283] Praxiteles carved a statue of Phryne in gold, and the
work stood in a place of honour in the temple of Apollo at Delphi.
Apelles painted a portrait of Lais, and, for his skill as an artist,
Alexander rewarded him with the gift of his favourite concubine;
Pindar wrote odes to the _hetairae_; Leontium, one of the order, sat at
the feet of Epicurus to imbibe his philosophy.[284]
Among all these free women Aspasia of Miletus[285] stands forward as
the most brilliant--the most remarkable. There is no doubt as to the
intellectual distinction of the beloved companion of Pericles.[286]
Her house became the resort of all the great men of Athens. Socrates,
Phidias and Anaxagoras were all frequent visitors, and probably also
Sophocles and Euripides. Plato, Xenophon and AEschines have all
testified to the cultivated mind and influence of Aspasia. AEschines,
in his dialogue entitled "Aspasia," puts into the mouth of that
distinguished woman an incisive criticism of the mode of life
traditional for her sex.[287]
The high status of the _hetairae_ is proved conclusively from the fact
that the men who visited Aspasia brought their wives with them to her
assemblies, that they might learn from her.[288] This breaking through
the accepted conventions is the more significant if we consider the
circumstances. Here, indeed, is your contrast--the free companion
expounding the dignity of womanhood to the imprisoned mothers! Aspasia
points out to the citizen women that it is not sufficient for a wife
to be merely a mother and a good housekeeper; she urges them to
cultivate their minds so that they may be equal in mental dignity with
the men who love them. Aspasia may thus be regarded, as Havelock Ellis
suggests, as "a pioneer in the assertion of woman's rights." "She
showed that spirit of revolt and aspiration" which tends to mark "the
intellectual and artistic activity of those who are unclassed or
dubiously classed in the social hierarchy."
It is even probable that the movement to raise the status of the
Athenian women, which seems to have taken place in the fourth century
B.C., was led by Aspasia, and perhaps other members of the _hetairae_.
Ivo Bruns, whom Havelock Ellis quotes, believes that "the most certain
information we possess concerning Aspasia bears a strong resemblance
to the picture which Euripides and Aristophanes present to us of the
leaders of the woman's movement."[289]
It was this movement of awakening which throws light on the justice
which Plato accords to women. He may well have had Aspasia in his
thoughts. Contact with her cultivated mind may have brought him to see
that "the gifts of nature are equally diffused in both sexes," and
therefore "all the pursuits of man are the pursuits of woman also, and
in all of these woman is only a weaker man." Plato did not believe
that women were equally gifted with men, only that all their powers
were in their nature the same, and demanded a similar expression. He
insists much more on woman's duties and responsibilities than on her
rights; more on what the State loses by her restriction within the
home than on any loss entailed thereby to herself. Such a fine
understanding of the need of the State for women as the real ground
for woman's emancipation, is the fruitful seed in this often quoted
passage. May it not have arisen in Plato's mind from the contrast he
saw between Aspasia and the free companions of men and the restricted
and ignorant wives? A vivid picture would surely come to him of the
force lost by this wastage of the mothers of Athens; a force which
should have been utilised for the well-being of the State.
Sexual penalties for women are always found under a strict patriarchal
regime. The white flower of chastity, when enforced upon one sex by
the other sex, has its roots in the degradation of marriage. Men find
a way of escape; women, bound in the coils, stay and waste. There is
no escaping from the truth--wherever women are in subjection it is
there that the idols of purity and chastity are set up for worship.
The fact that Greek poets and philosophers speak so often of an ideal
relationship between the wife and the husband proves how greatly the
failure of the accepted marriage was understood and depreciated by the
noblest of the Athenians. The bonds of the patriarchal system must
always tend to break down as civilisation advances, and men come to
think and to understand the real needs and dependence of the sexes
upon each other. Aristotle says that marriage besides the propagation
of the human race, has another aim, namely, "community of the entire
life." He describes marriage as "a species of friendship," one,
moreover, which "is most in accordance with Nature, as husband and
wife mutually supply what is lacking in the other." Here is the ideal
marriage, the relationship between one woman and the one man that
to-day we are striving to attain. To gain it the wife must become the
free companion of her husband.
It is Euripides who voices the sorrows of women. He also foreshadows
their coming triumph.
"Back streams the waves of the ever running river,
Life, life is changed and the laws of it o'ertrod.
* * * * * * *
And woman, yea, woman shall be terrible in story;
The tales too meseemeth shall be other than of yore;
For a fear there is that cometh out of woman and a glory,
And the hard hating voices shall encompass her no more."[290]
IV.--_In Rome_
"The character of a people is only an eternal becoming.... They
are born and are modified under the influence of innumerable
causes."--JEAN FINOT.
Of the position of women in Rome in the pre-historic period we know
almost nothing. We can accept that there was once a period of
mother-rule.[291] Very little evidence, however, is forthcoming;
still, what does exist points clearly to the view that woman's actions
in the earliest times were entirely unfettered. Probably we may accept
as near to reality the picture Virgil gives to us of Camilla fighting
and dying on the field of battle.
In the ancient necropolis of Belmonte, dating from the iron age,
Professor d'Allosso has recently discovered two very rich tombs of
women warriors with war chariots over their remains. "The importance
of this discovery is exceptional, as it shows that the existence of
the Amazon heroines, leaders of armies, sung by the ancient poets, is
not a poetic fiction, but an historic reality." Professor d'Allosso
states that several details given by Virgil coincide with the details
of these tombs.[292]
From the earliest notices we have of the Roman women we find them
possessed of a definite character of remarkable strength. We often say
this or that is a sign of some particular period or people; when nine
times out of ten the thing we believe to be strange is in reality
common to the progress of life. In Rome the position of woman would
seem to have followed in orderly development that cyclic movement so
beautifully defined by Havelock Ellis in the quotation I have placed
at the beginning of the first section of this chapter.
The patriarchal rule was already strongly established when Roman
history opens; it involved the same strict subordination of woman to
the one function of child-bearing that we have found in the Athenian
custom. The Roman marriage law developed from exactly the same
beginning as did the Greek; the woman was the property of her father
first and then of her husband. The marriage ceremony might be
accomplished by one or two forms, but might also be made valid without
any form at all. For in regard to a woman, as in regard to other
property, possession or use continued for one year gave the right of
ownership to the husband. This marriage without contract or ceremony
was called _usus_.[293] The form _confarreatio_, or patrician
marriage, was a solemn union performed by the high Pontiff of Jupiter
in the presence of ten witnesses, in which the essential act was the
eating together by both the bride and bridegroom of a cake made of
flour, water and salt.[294] The religious ceremony was in no way
essential to the marriage. The second and most common form, was called
_coemptio_, or purchase, and was really a formal sale between the
father or guardian of the bride and the future husband.[295] Both
these forms transferred the woman from the _potestas_ (power) of her
father into the _manus_ (hand) of her husband to whom she became as a
daughter, having no rights except through him, and no duties except to
him. The husband even held the right of life and death over the woman
and her children. It depended on his will whether a baby girl were
reared or cast out to die--and the latter alternative was no doubt
often chosen. As is usual under such conditions, the right of divorce
was allowed to the husband and forbidden to the wife. "If you catch
your wife," was the law laid down by Cato the Censor, "in an act of
infidelity, you would kill her with impunity without a trial; but if
she were to catch you she would not venture to touch you with a
finger, and, indeed, she has no right." It is true that divorce was
not frequent.[296] Monogamy was strictly enforced. At no period of
Roman history are there any traces of polygamy or concubinage.[297]
But such strictness of the moral code seems to have been barren in its
benefit to women. The terrible right of _manus_ was vested in the
husband and gave him complete power of correction over the wife. In
grave cases the family tribunal had to be consulted. "Slaves and
women," says Mommsen, "were not reckoned as being properly members of
the community," and for this reason any criminal act committed by them
was judged not openly by the State, but by the male members of the
woman's family. The legal right of the husband to beat his wife was
openly recognised. Thus Egnatius was praised when, surprising his wife
in the act of tasting wine,[298] he beat her to death. And St. Monica
consoles certain wives, whose faces bore the mark of marital
brutality, by saying to them: "Take care to control your tongues....
It is the duty of servants to obey their masters ... you have made a
contract of servitude."[299] Such was the marriage law in the early
days of Rome's history.
Now it followed almost necessarily that under such arbitrary
regulations of the sexual relationship some way of escape should be
sought. We have seen how the Athenian husbands found relief from the
restrictions of legal marriage with the free _hetairae_. But in Rome
the development of the freedom of love, with the corresponding
advancement of the position of woman, followed a different course. The
stranger-woman never attained a prominent place in Roman society. It
is the citizen-women alone who are conspicuous in history. Here,
relief was gained for the Roman wives as well as for the husbands, by
what we may call a clever escape from marriage under the right of the
husband's _manus_. This is so important that I must ask the reader
deeply to consider it. The ideal of equality and fellowship between
women and men in marriage can be realised only among a people who are
sufficiently civilised to understand the necessity for the development
and modification of legal restrictions that have become outworn and
useless. Wherever the laws relating to marriage and divorce are
arbitrary and unchanging there woman, as the weaker partner, will be
found to remain in servitude. It can never be through the
strengthening of moral prohibitions, but only by their modification to
suit the growing needs of society that freedom will come to women.
The history of the development of marriage in Rome illustrates this
very forcibly. Even in the days of the Twelve Tables a wholly
different and free union had begun to take the place of the legally
recognised marriage forms. It was developed from the early marriage by
_usus_. We have seen that this marriage depended on the cohabitation
of the man and the woman continued for one year, which gave the right
of ownership to the husband in exactly the same way as possession for
a year gave the right over others' property. But in Rome, if the
enjoyment of property was broken for any period during the year, no
title to it arose out of the _usufruct_. This idea was cleverly
applied to marriage by _usus_. The wife by passing three nights in the
year out of the conjugal domicile broke the _manus_ of the husband and
did not become his property.
When, or how, it became a custom to convert this breach of
cohabitation into a system and establish a form of marriage, which
entirely freed the wife from the _manus_ of the husband, we do not
know. What is certain is that this new form of free marriage by
consent rapidly replaced the older forms of the _coemptio_, and even
the solemn _confarreatio of the patricians_.
It will be readily seen that this expansion of marriage produced a
revolution in the position of woman. The bride now remained a member
of her own family, and though nominally under the control of her
father or guardian, she was for all purposes practically free, having
complete control over her own property, and was, in fact, her own
mistress.
The law of divorce evolved rapidly, and the changes were wholly in
favour of women. Marriage was now a private contract, of which the
basis was consent; and, being a contract, it could be dissolved for
any reason, with no shame attached to the dissolution, provided it was
carried out with the due legal form, in the presence of competent
witnesses. Both parties had equal liberty of divorce, only with
certain pecuniary disadvantages, connected with the forfeiting of the
wife's dowry, for the husband whose fault led to the divorce.[300] It
was expressly stated that the husband had no right to demand fidelity
from his wife unless he practised the same himself. "Such a system,"
says Havelock Ellis, "is obviously more in harmony with modern
civilised feeling than any system that has ever been set up in
Christendom."[301]
Monogamy remained imperative. The husband was bound to support the
wife adequately, to consult her interests and to avenge any insult
inflicted upon her, and it is expressly stated by the jurist Gaius
that the wife might bring an action for damages against her husband
for ill-treatment.[302] The woman retained complete control of her
dowry and personal property. A Roman jurist lays it down that it is a
good thing that women should be dowered, as it is desirable they
should replenish the State with children. Another instance of the
constant solicitude of the Roman law to protect the wife is seen in
the fact that even if a wife stole from her husband, no criminal
action could be brought against her. All crimes against women were
punished with a heavy hand much more severely than in modern times.
Women gained increasingly greater liberty until at last they obtained
complete freedom. This fact is stated by Havelock Ellis, whose remarks
on this point I will quote.
"Nothing is more certain than that the status of women in Rome
rose with the rise of civilisation exactly in the same way as in
Babylon and in Egypt. In the case of Rome, however, the growing
refinement of civilisation and the expansion of the Empire were
associated with the magnificent development of the system of
Roman law, which in its final forms consecrated the position of
women. In the last days of the Republic women already began to
attain the same legal level as men, and later the great Antonine
jurisconsults, guided by their theory of natural law, reached
the conception of the equality of the sexes as the principle of
the code of equity. The patriarchal subordination of women fell
into complete discredit, and this continued until, in the days
of Justinian, under the influence of Christianity the position
of women began to suffer."[303]
Hobhouse gives the same estimate as to the high status of women.
"The Roman matron of the Empire," he says, "was more fully her
own mistress than the married woman of any earlier civilisation,
with the possible exception of a certain period of Egyptian
history, and, it must be added, the wife of any later
civilisation down to our own generation."[304]
It is necessary to note that this freedom of the Roman woman was prior
to the introduction of Christianity, and that under its influence
their position began to suffer.[305] I cannot follow this question,
and can only say how entirely mistaken is the belief that the Jewish
religion, with its barbaric view of the relationship between the
sexes, was beneficial to the liberty of women.
The Roman matrons had now gained complete freedom in the domestic
relationship, and were permitted a wide field for the exercise of
their activities. They were the rulers of the household; they dined
with their husbands, attended the public feasts, and were admitted to
the aristocratic clubs, such as the _Gerousia_ is supposed to have
been. We find from inscriptions that women had the privilege of
forming associations and of electing women presidents. One of these
bore the title of _Sodalitas Pudicitiae Servandrae_, or "Society for
Promoting Purity of Life." At Lanuvium there was a society known as
the "Senate of Women." There was an interesting and singular woman's
society existing in Rome, with a meeting-place on the Quirinal, called
_Conventus Matronarum_, or "Convention of Mothers of Families." This
seems to have been a self-elected parliament of women for the purpose
of settling questions of etiquette. It cannot be said that the
accounts that we have of this assembly are at all edifying, but its
existence shows the freedom permitted to women, and points to the
important fact that they were accustomed to combine with one another
to settle their own affairs. The Emperor Heliogabalus took this
self-constituted Parliament in hand and gave it legal powers.[306]
The Roman women managed their own property; many women possessed great
wealth: at times they lent money to their husbands, at more than
shrewd interest. It appears to have been recognised that all women
were competent in business affairs, and, therefore, the wife was in
all cases permitted to assume complete charge of the children's
property during their minority, and to enjoy the _usufruct_. We have
instances in which this capacity for affairs is dwelt on, as when
Agricola, the general in command in Britain, shows such confidence in
his wife as a business woman that he makes her co-heir with his
daughter and the Emperor Domitian. Women were allowed to plead for
themselves in the courts of law. The satirists, like Juvenal, declare
that there were hardly any cases in which a woman would not bring a
suit.
There are many other examples which might be brought forward to show
the public entry of women into the affairs of the State. There would
seem to have been no limits set to their actions; and, moreover, they
acted in their own right independently of men. On one occasion, when
the women of the city rose in a body against an unfair taxation, they
found a successful leader in Hortensia, the daughter of the famous
orator Hortensus, who is said to have argued their case before the
Triumvirs with all her father's eloquence. We find the wives of
generals in camp with their husbands. The _graffitti_ found at Pompeii
give several instances of election addresses signed by women,
recommending candidates to the notice of the electors. We find, too,
in the municipal inscriptions that the women in different
municipalities formed themselves into small societies with
semi-political objects, such as the support of some candidate, the
rewards that should be made to a local magistrate, or how best funds
might be collected to raise monuments or statues.
It is specially interesting to find how fine a use many of the Roman
women made of their wealth and opportunities. They frequently bestowed
public buildings and porticoes on the communities among which they
lived; they erected public baths and gymnasia, adorned temples, and
put up statues. Their generosity took other forms. In Asia Minor we
find several instances of women distributing large sums of money among
each citizen within her own district. Women presided over the public
games and over the great religious festivals. When formally appointed
to this position, they paid the expenses incurred in these displays.
In the provinces they sometimes held high municipal offices. Ira
Flavia, an important Roman settlement in Northern Spain, for instance,
was ruled by a Roman matron, Lupa by name.[307] The power of women was
especially great in Asia Minor, where they received a most marked
distinction, and were elected to the most important magistracies.
Several women obtained the highest Priesthood of Asia, the greatest
honour that could be paid to any one.[308]
There is one final point that has to be mentioned. We have seen how
the liberty and power of the Roman women arose from, and may be said
to have been dependent on, the substituting of a laxer form of
marriage with complete equality and freedom of divorce. In other words
it was the breaking down of the patriarchal system which placed women
in a position of freedom equal in all respects with men. Now, it has
been held by many that, owing to this freedom, the Roman women of the
later period were given up to licence. There are always many people
who are afraid of freedom, especially for women. But if our survey of
these ancient and great civilisations of the past has taught us
anything at all, it is this: the patriarchal subjection of women can
never lead to progress. We must give up a timid adherence to past
traditions. It is possible that the freeing of women's bonds may lead
in some cases to the foolishness of licence. I do not know; but even
this is better than the wastage of the mother-force in life. The child
when first it tries to walk has many tumbles, yet we do not for this
reason keep him in leading strings. We know he must learn to walk; how
to do this he will find out by his many mistakes.
The opinion as to the licentiousness of the Roman woman rests mainly
on the statements of two satirical writers, Juvenal and Tacitus.
Great pains have been taken to refute the charges they make, and the
old view is not now accepted. Dill,[309] who is quoted by Havelock
Ellis, seems convinced that the movement of freedom for the Roman
woman caused no deterioration of her character; "without being less
virtuous or respected, she became far more accomplished and
attractive; with fewer restraints, she had greater charm and
influence, even in social affairs, and was more and more the equal of
her husband."[310] Hobhouse and Donaldson[311] both support this
opinion; the latter writer considers that "there was no degradation of
morals in the Roman Empire." The licentiousness of pagan Rome was
certainly not greater than the licentiousness of Christian Rome. Sir
Henry Maine, in his valuable _Ancient Law_ (whose chapter on this
subject should be read by every woman), says, "The latest Roman law,
so far as it is touched by the constitution of the Christian Emperors,
bears some marks of reaction against the liberal doctrines of the
great Antonine jurisconsults." This he attributes to the prevalent
state of religious feeling that went to "fatal excesses" under the
influence of its "passion for asceticism."
At the dissolution of the Roman Empire the enlightened Roman law
remained as a precious legacy to Western civilisations. But, as Maine
points out, its humane and civilising influence was injured by its
fusion with the customs of the barbarians, and, in particular, by the
Jewish marriage system. The legislature of Europe "absorbed much more
of those laws concerning the position of women which belong peculiarly
to an imperfect civilisation. The law relating to married women was
for the most part read by the light, not of Roman, but of Christian
Canon Law, which in no one particular departs so widely from the
enlightened spirit of the Roman jurisprudence than in the view it
takes of the relations of the sexes in marriage." This was in part
inevitable, Sir Henry Maine continues, "since no society which
preserves any tincture of Christian institutions is likely to restore
to married women the personal liberty conferred on them by the middle
Roman law."
It is not possible for me to follow this question further. One thing
is incontrovertibly certain, that woman's position and her freedom can
best be judged by the equity of the moral code in its bearing on the
two sexes. Wherever a different standard of moral conduct is set up
for women from men there is something fundamentally wrong in the
family relationship needing revolutionising. The sexual passions of
men and women must be regulated, first in the interests of the social
body, and next in the interests of the individual. It is the
institution of marriage that secures the first end, and the remedy of
divorce that secures the second. It is the great question for each
civilisation to decide the position of the sexes in relation to these
two necessary institutions. In Rome an unusually enlightened public
feeling decided for the equality of woman with man in the whole
conduct of sexual morality. The legist Ulpian expresses this view when
he writes--"It seems to be very unjust that a man demands chastity
from his wife while he himself shows no example of it."[312] Such deep
understanding of the unity of the sexes is assuredly the finest
testimony to the high status of Roman women.
I have now reached the end of the inquiry set before us at the opening
of this chapter. I am fully aware of the many omissions, probable
misjudgments, and the inadequacy of this brief summary. We have
covered a wide field. This was inevitable. I know that to understand
really the position of woman in any country it is necessary to inquire
into all the customs that have built up its civilisation, and to gain
knowledge upon many points outside the special question of the sexual
relationships. This I have not been able even to attempt to do. I have
thrown out a few hints in passing--that is all. But the practical
value of what we have found seems to me not inconsiderable. I have
tried to avoid any forcing of the facts to fit in with a narrow and
artificial view of my own opinions. To me the truth is plain. As we
have examined the often-confused mass of evidence, as it throws light
on the position of woman in these four great civilisations of
antiquity, we find that, in spite of the apparent differences which
separate their customs and habits in the sexual relationships, the
evidence, when disentangled, all points in one and the same direction.
In the face of the facts before us one truth cries out its message:
"Woman must be free face to face with man." Has it not, indeed, become
clear that a great part of the wisdom of the Egyptians and the wisdom
of the Babylonians, as also of the Romans, and, in a different
degree, of the Greeks, rested in this, _they thought much of the
mothers of the race_. Do not the records of these old-world
civilisations show us the dominant position of the mother in relation
to the life of the race? In all great ages of humanity this has been
accepted as a central and sacred fact. We learn thus, as we look
backwards to those countries and those times when woman was free, by
what laws, habits and customs the sons of mothers may live long and
gladly in all regions of the earth. The use of history is not alone to
sum up the varied experiences of the past, but to enlarge our vision
of the present, and by reflections on that past to point a way to the
future.
FOOTNOTES:
[199] This is the position taken up, for instance, by Letourneau,
_Evolution of Marriage_, p. 176.
[200] _Herodotus_, Bk. II. p. 35.
[201] Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Vol. I. p. 189.
[202] Maspero, Preface to _Queens of Egypt_, by J.R. Buttles, q. v.
[203] For an account of the reign of Hatschepsut, as well as of the
other queens who ruled in Egypt, I must refer the reader to the
excellent and careful work of Miss Buttles. It is worth noting that
the temple built by Queen Hatschepsut is one of the most famous and
beautiful monuments of ancient Egypt. On the walls are recorded the
history of her prosperous reign, also the private events of her life:
"Ra hath selected her for protecting Egypt and for rousing bravery
among men."
[204] We owe our knowledge of the Egyptian marriage contracts chiefly
to M. Revillout, whose works should be consulted. See also Paturet
(the pupil of Revillout), _La Condition juridique de la femme dans
l'ancienne Egypte_; Nietzold, _Die Ehe in Aegypten_; Greenfel, _Greek
Papyri_; Amelineau, _La Morale Egyptienne_; Mueller, _Liebespoesie der
alten Aegypten_, and the numerous works of M. Maspero and Flinders
Petrie. Simcox, writing on "Ownership in Egypt," gives a good summary
of the subject, _Primitive Civilisations_, Vol. I. pp. 204-211; also
Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Vol. I. p. 182, _et seq._
[205] Hobhouse regards this dowry as being the original property of
the wife in the forms of the bride-price. Revillout and Mueller accept
the much more probable view, that the dowry was fictitious, and was
really a charge on the property of the husband to be paid to the wife
if he sent her away.
[206] Paturet, _La Condition juridique de la femme dans l'ancienne
Egypte_; p. 69.
[207] Nietzold, _Die Ehe in Aegypten_, p. 79.
[208] _Etudes egyptologiques_, livre XIII. pp. 230, 294; quoted by
Simcox, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 210.
[209] Simcox, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 204.
[210] Simcox, _op. cit._; Vol. I. pp. 210-211, citing Revillout;
_Cours de droit_, p. 285.
[211] This is the view of Simcox, _op. cit._, pp. 210-211.
[212] Hobhouse, Vol. I. p. 185 (_Note_).
[213] _Les obligations en droit egyptien_, p. 82; quoted by Simcox,
_op. cit._, Vol. I. pp. 209-210.
[214] Diodorus, bk. i. p. 27. The whole passage is: "Contrary to the
received usage of other nations the laws permit the Egyptians to marry
their sisters, after the example of Osiris and Isis. The latter, in
fact, having cohabited with her brother Osiris, swore, after his
death, never to suffer the approach of any man, pursued the murderer,
governed according to the laws, and loaded men with benefits. 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." The brother-sister
marriages, referred to by Diodorus, which were common, especially in
early Egyptian history, are further witness to the persistence among
them of the customs of the mother-age.
[215] Simcox, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 205.
[216] _Revue egyptologique_, I. p. 110.
[217] Revillout, _Cours de droit_, Vol. I. p. 222.
[218] _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 393.
[219] Amelineau, _La morale egyptienne_, p. 194.
[220] Ellis, citing Donaldson, _Woman_, p. 196. This is also the
opinion of Mueller.
[221] Revillout, _Revue egyptologique_, Vol. I. p. 113.
[222] Simcox, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 207.
[223] Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 244-245, citing Nietzold, p. 79.
[224] Letourneau (_Evolution of Marriage_, p. 176) takes this view.
[225] This is, of course, a survival of the old matriarchal custom.
[226] Hobhouse, _op. cit._, Vol. L. pp. 5-186. Herodotus (Bk. II. p.
42) states that many Egyptians, like the Greeks, had adopted monogamy.
[227] Burgsch, _Hist._, Vol. I. p. 262, quoted by Simcox.
[228] Simcox, Vol. I. p. 198-199. I take this opportunity of
acknowledging the help I have received from this writer's careful and
interesting chapter on "Domestic Relationships and Family Law" among
the Egyptians.
[229] Maspero, _Hist._ (German tr.), p. 41; see Simcox, _op. cit._, p.
199.
[230] This tablet is in the British Museum, London. S. Egyptian
Gallery, Bay 29, No. 1027.
[231] Simcox, Vol. I. pp. 218, 219.
[232] Petah Hotep was a high official in the reign of Assa, a king of
the IVth Dynasty, about 3360 B.C. His precepts consist of aphorisms of
high moral worth; there is a late copy in the British Museum. I have
followed the translation given in the _Guide to the Egyptian
Collection_ p. 77.
[233] This passage in other translations reads: "she is a field
profitable to its owner."
[234] The Maxims of Ani are preserved in the Egyptian Museum at Cairo.
The work inculcates the highest standard of practical morality and
gives a lofty ideal of the duty of the Egyptians in all the relations
of life.
[235] From the Boulak Papyrus (1500 B.C.). I have followed in part the
translation given by Griffiths, _The World's Literature_, p. 5340, and
in part that of Maspero given in _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_
(trans. by Alice Morton, p. 16).
[236] Southern Egyptian Gallery, Bay 28, No. 964. This statue belongs
to later Egyptian history. It was dedicated by Shashanq, a high
official of the Ptolemaic period.
[237] Wall case 102, Nos. 187, 38, and 430.
[238] Vestibule of North Egyptian Gallery, East doorway, No. 14.
[239] South Gallery, No. 565.
[240] No. 375. This group belongs to the XVIIIth Dynasty: the husband
was a warden of the palace and overseer of the Treasury; the wife a
priestess of the god Amen.
[241] Simcox, _Primitive Civilisation_, Vol. I. pp. 9, 271.
[242] Hommel, _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, p. 271.
[243] Simcox, who quotes Hommel, _op. cit._, p. 320.
[244] Simcox, Vol. I. p 361.
[245] _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 393. Ellis quotes Revillout,
"La femme dans l'antiquite," _Journal Asiatique_, 1906, Vol. VII. p.
57.
[246] I quote these facts from Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Vol.
I. p. 179.
[247] Hobhouse, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 181.
[248] Hobhouse, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 180.
[249] There is one case as late as the thirteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar in which a wife is bought for a slave for one and a
half gold minas.
[250] Simcox, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 374, citing _Les Obligations_, p.
346; also _Revue d'Assyriologie_.
[251] This deed was translated by Dr. Peiser, _Keilinschriftliche
Aktenstuecke aus babylonischen Staedte_, p. 19.
[252] See Simcox, Chapters, "Commercial Law and Contract Tablets" and
"Domestic Relations and Family Law," _op. cit._, Vol. I. pp. 320-379.
[253] To give a few examples, Plutarch mentions that the relations
between husband and wife in Sparta were at first secret (Plutarch,
_Lycurgas_). The story told by Pausanias about Ulysses' marriage
points to the custom of the husband going to live with his wife's
family (_Pausanias_, III. 20 (10), Frazer's translation). The legend
of the establishment of monogamy by Cecrops, because, before his time,
"men had their wives in common and did not know their fathers," points
clearly to a confused tradition of a period of mother-descent.
(_Athenaeus_, XIII. 2). Herodotus reports that mother-descent was
practised by the Lycians, and states that "if a free woman marry a man
who is a slave their children are free citizens; but if a free man
marry a foreign woman or cohabit with a concubine, even though he be
the first person in the state, the children forfeit all rights of
citizenship" (_Herodotus_, Bk. I. 173). The wife of Intaphernes, when
granted by Darius permission to claim the life of a single man of her
kindred, chose her brother, saying that both husband and brother and
children could be replaced (_Herodotus_, Bk. III. 119). Similarly the
declaration of Antigone in Sophocles (line 905 ff) that neither for
husband nor children would she have performed the toil she undertook
for Polynices clearly shows that the tie of the common womb was held
as closer than the tie of marriage.
[254] For a full account of the Homeric woman the reader is referred
to Lenz, _Geschichte des Weiber im Heroischen Zeitalter_, an admirable
work. The fullest English account will be found in Mr. Gladstone's
_Homeric Studies_, Vol. II. See also Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 11-23,
where an excellent summary of the subject is given.
[255] _Odyssey_, I. 2.
[256] _Iliad_, VI. 429-430.
[257] _Odyssey_, VI. 182.
[258] Gladstone, _Homeric Studies_, Vol. II. p. 507.
[259] _Odyssey_, VII. 142 ff.
[260] Donaldson, _Woman_, p. 18-19.
[261] _Odyssey_, III. 450; _Iliad_, VI. 301.
[262] Simcox, _Primitive Civilisation_, Vol. I. p. 199. Reference may
also be made to the love-charm translated by M. Revillout in his
version of the _Tales of Selna_, p. 37.
[263] 2 _Nic. Ethics_, VIII. 14; _Econom._ I. p. 94.
[264] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 195.
[265] _Lycurgus_, XXXVII.
[266] _Ibid._, XXVI.
[267] Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 28-29.
[268] Plutarch, _Apophthegms of the Lacedemonians_.--_Demandes
Romaines_, LXV.
[269] Lycurgus, Polybius, XII. 6. Xenophon, _Rep. Laced._ I.
Aristotle, _Pol._ II. 9. Aristotle notes especially the sexual liberty
allowed to women.
[270] Donaldson, _op. cit._, p. 28.
[271] _Polit._ II. 9.
[272] Plutarch, _Life of Agis_; Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 34, 35.
[273] Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Vol. I. p. 208.
[274] Thus Demosthenes bequeathed his two daughters, aged seven and
five years, and also their mother, to his nephews, classing them with
his property in the significant phrase "all these things" (Letourneau,
_op. cit._, p. 196).
[275] Xenophon, _Economicus_, VII.-IX.
[276] Isaeus _de Pyrrhi Her._, Sec. 14.
[277] _Antig._ 905-13. These verses are probably interpolated, but the
interpolation was as early as Aristotle. The same views are placed by
Herodotus in the mouth of the wife of Intarphernes (3. 119). _See_
Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 53, 54 and note.
[278] "The Position of Women in History"; Essay in the volume _The
Position of Woman, Actual and Ideal_, p. 37.
[279] _Medea._
[280] Theodota, _Xen. 'Mem.'_, III. II. Socrates conversed with
Theodota on art and discussed with her how she could best find true
friends.
[281] _Symposium._
[282] _Pericles_, 24. Thargalia used her influence over the Greeks to
win them over to the cause of the King of Persia.
[283] Timandra, Plut., _Alcib._, c. 39.
[284] Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), _Chapters on Human Love_, p.
152.
[285] We do not know the circumstances which induced Aspasia to come
to Athens. Plutarch suggests that she was led to do so by the example
of Thargalia. For full accounts of the career of Aspasia see Gomperz,
_Greek Thinkers_, Vol. III.; Ivo Bruns, _Frauenemancipation in Athen_;
the fine monograph, _Aspasie de Milet_, by Becq Fouquieres;
Donaldson's _Woman_, pp. 60-67; also Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol.
VI. p. 308.
[286] Pericles at the time of his meeting Aspasia was married, but
there was incompatibility of temper between him and his wife. He
therefore made an agreement with his wife to have a divorce and get
her remarried. Aspasia then became his companion and they remained
together until the death of Pericles. Their affection for one another
was considered remarkable. Plutarch tells us, as an extraordinary
trait in the habits of a statesman who was remarkable for his
imperturbability and control, that Pericles regularly kissed Aspasia
when he went out and came in. When Pericles died Aspasia is said to
have formed a friendship with Lysicles, and through her influence
raised him to the position of foremost politician in Athens
(Donaldson, _op. cit._, pp. 60, 61 and 63).
[287] Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, Vol. III. p. 124.
[288] _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 308; Donaldson, _op. cit._, p.
62.
[289] _Frauenemancipation in Athen_, p. 19.
[290] _Medea_, Mr. Gilbert Murray's translation.
[291] Frazer thinks that the Roman kingship was transmitted in the
female line; the king being a man of another town or race, who had
married the daughter of his predecessor and received the crown through
her. This hypothesis explains the obscure features of the traditional
history of the Latin kings; their miraculous birth, and the fact that
many of the kings from their names appear to have been of plebeian and
not patrician families. The legends of the birth of Servius Tullius
which tradition imputes to a look, or that Coeculus the founder of
Proneste was conceived by a spark that leaped into his mother's bosom,
as well as the rape of the Sabines, may be mentioned as traces
pointing to mother-descent (_Golden Bough_, Pt. I. _The Magic Art_,
Vol. II. pp. 270, 289, 312).
[292] Quoted from _Position of Woman, Actual and Ideal_; Essay on "The
Position of Woman in History," p. 38.
[293] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 120, 201. The _usus_
was similar to the Polynesian marriage, and was the consecration of
the free union after a year of cohabitation. By it the wife passed as
completely under the _manum mariti_ as if she had eaten of the sacred
cake.
[294] Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Vol. I. p. 210. The eating of
the cake would seem to the ancient mind to have been connected with
magic, and was regarded as actually effacious in establishing a unity
of the man and the woman.
[295] _Coemption_ became in time purely symbolic. The bride was
delivered to the husband, who as a formality gave a few pieces of
silver as payment; but the ceremony proves how completely the woman
was regarded as the property of the father.
[296] Romulus, says Plutarch, gave the husband power to divorce his
wife in case of her poisoning his children, or counterfeiting his
keys, or committing adultery (Romulus, XXXVI.). Valerius Maximus
affirms that divorce was unknown for 520 years after the foundation of
Rome.
[297] Hobhouse, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 211 (_note_). He states, "The
concubinate we hear of in Roman Law is a form of union bereft of some
of the civil rights of marriage, not the relation of a married man to
a secondary wife or slave-girl."
[298] Donaldson, _op. cit._, p. 88. He remarks in a note, "The story
may not be historical, but the Romans regarded it as such." Wives were
prohibited from tasting wine at the risk of the severest penalties.
[299] St. Augustine, _Confessions_, Bk. IX. Ch. IX.
[300] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 244, 245. In the
ancient law, when the crime of the woman led to divorce she lost all
her dowry. Later, only a sixth was kept back for adultery, and an
eighth for other crimes. In the last stages of the law the guilty
husband lost the whole dowry, while if the wife divorced without a
cause, the husband retained a sixth of the dowry for each child, but
only up to three-sixths.
[301] _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI. p. 396.
[302] Hecker, _History of Women's Rights_, p. 12.
[303] Ellis, _op. cit._, p. 395.
[304] Hobhouse, _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 213.
[305] Maine, _Ancient Law_, Ch. V.
[306] McCabe, _The Religion of Women_, p. 26 _et seq._
[307] _Santiago_ (Mediaeval Towns Series), p. 21.
[308] Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 124-125.
[309] _Roman Society_, p. 163.
[310] _Morals in Evolution_, Vol. I. p. 216.
[311] _Woman_, p. 113.
[312] _Digest_, XLVIII. 13, 5.
PART III
MODERN SECTION
PRESENT-DAY ASPECTS OF THE WOMAN PROBLEM
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER VIII
SEX DIFFERENCES
The practical application of the truths arrived at--A question to
be faced--The organic differences between the sexes--Resume
of the facts already established--The error in the common
opinion of the true relationship of the sexes--The male
active and seeking--The female passive and receiving--Is this
true?--An examination of the passivity of the female--The
delusion that man is the active partner in the sexual
relationship--The economic factor in marriage--The
conventional modesty of woman--Concealments and evasions--The
feeling of shame in love--Woman's right of selection--How
this must be regained by women--The new Ethic--The pre-natal
claims of the child--The question of parenthood as a
religious question--The responsibility of the mother as the
child's supreme parent--The mating of the future--Another
question--Woman's superior moral virtue--Its fundamental
error--Woman's imperative need of love--The maternal
instinct--Nature's experiments--The establishment of two
sexes--The feminine and masculine characters are an inherent
part of the normal man and woman--The female as the giver of
life--The deep significance of this--The atrophy of the
maternal instinct--Modern woman preoccupied with herself--The
right position of the mother--Sex attraction and sex
antagonism--Woman's relation to sexuality--The duel of the
sexes--The prostitution of love--Man's fear of
woman--Misogyny--The rebellion of woman against man--Coercive
differentiation of the sexes in consequence of
civilisation--The ideal of a one-sexed world--Woman as the
enemy of her own emancipation--The attempt to establish a
third sex--The danger of ignoring sex--The future progress of
love.