Produced by MWS, Les Galloway and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)






                          Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other
spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

The precise location of footnote 256 is speculative since it is not
indicated in the original.

Italics are represented thus _italic_.




                         The Sexes in Science
                                  and
                                History

                 An Inquiry into the Dogma of Woman’s
                          Inferiority to Man

                                  By

                           Eliza Burt Gamble

            _A revised edition of “The Evolution of Woman”_


                          G. P. Putnam’s Sons
                          New York and London
                        The Knickerbocker Press
                                 1916




                            COPYRIGHT, 1893
             Under the title _The Evolution of Woman_, by
                          G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

                            COPYRIGHT, 1916
                      for the revised edition, by
                          G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

                   The Knickerbocker Press, New York




PREFACE TO NEW EDITION


This volume is a revised edition of _The Evolution of Woman_ published
by G. P. Putnam’s Sons in 1894.

In this later work much added evidence appears going to prove the
correctness of the theory advanced in the former work. In it the
subject of sex-development has been brought down to the present time
and in this later investigation it is found that each and every fact
connected with the biological and sociological development of the last
twenty years is in strict accord not only with the facts set forth in
_The Evolution of Woman_ but with the conclusions therein arrived at.

In the concluding chapters of this volume the results of the separate
development of the two diverging lines of sex demarcation are set
forth. I have endeavoured to show that present conditions are the
legitimate outcome of the ascendency gained during the later ages of
human history by the egoistic or destructive agencies over the higher
or constructive forces developed in human nature.

  E. B. G.




PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION


After a somewhat careful study of written history, and after an
investigation extending over several years of all the accessible facts
relative to extant tribes representing the various stages of human
development, I had reached the conclusion, as early as the year 1882,
that the female organism is in no wise inferior to that of the male.
For some time, however, I was unable to find any detailed proof that
could consistently be employed to substantiate the correctness of this
hypothesis.

In the year 1885, with no special object in view other than a desire
for information, I began a systematized investigation of the facts
which at that time had been established by naturalists relative to the
development of mankind from lower orders of life. It was not, however,
until the year 1886, after a careful reading of _The Descent of Man_,
by Mr. Darwin, that I first became impressed with the belief that
the theory of evolution, as enunciated by scientists, furnishes much
evidence going to show that the female among all the orders of life,
man included, represents a higher stage of development than the male.
Although at the time indicated, the belief that man has descended from
lower orders in the scale of being had been accepted by the leading
minds both in Europe and America, for reasons which have not been
explained, scientists, generally, seemed inclined to ignore certain
facts connected with this theory which tend to prove the superiority of
the female organism.

Scarcely considering at the outset whether my task would eventually
take the form of a magazine article, or whether it would be extended to
the dimensions of a book, I set myself to work to show that some of the
conclusions of the savants regarding the subject of sex-development are
not in accord with their premises.

While writing the first part of this volume, and while reasoning on the
facts established by scientists in connection with the observations
which have been made in these later years relative to the growth of
human society and the development of human institutions, it seemed
clear to me that the history of life on the earth presents an unbroken
chain of evidence going to prove the importance of the female; and,
so struck was I by the manner in which the facts of science and those
of history harmonize, that I decided to embrace within my work some
of the results of my former research. I therefore set about the task
of tracing, in a brief manner, the growth of the primary characters
observed in the two diverging sex-columns, according to the facts and
principles enunciated in the theory of natural development.

It is not perhaps singular, during an age dominated by theological
dogmatism, and in which no definite knowledge relative to the
development of life on the earth had been gained, that man should
have regarded himself as an infinitely superior being. Neither is it
remarkable that woman, who was supposed to have appeared later on the
scene of action than did her male mate, and who owed her existence to
a surgical operation performed upon him, should have been regarded
simply as an appendage, a creature brought forth in response to the
requirements of the masculine nature.

The above doctrines when enunciated by theologians need cause little
surprise, but with the dawn of a scientific age it might have been
expected that the prejudices resulting from those doctrines might
disappear. When, however, we turn to the most advanced scientific
writings of the present century, we find that the prejudices which
throughout thousands of years have been gathering strength are by no
means eradicated, and any discussion of the sex question is still
rare in which the effects of these prejudices may not be traced. Even
Mr. Darwin, notwithstanding his great breadth of mental vision and
the important work which he accomplished in the direction of original
inquiry, whenever he had occasion to touch on the mental capacities
of women, or more particularly on the relative capacities of the
sexes, manifested the same spirit which characterizes the efforts
of an earlier age; and throughout his entire investigation of the
human species, his ability to ignore certain facts which he himself
adduced, and which all along the line of development tend to prove the
superiority of the female, is truly remarkable.

We usually judge of a man’s fitness to assume the rôle of an original
investigator in any branch of human knowledge, by noting his powers
of observation and generalization, and by observing his capacity to
perceive connections between closely related facts; also, by tracing
the various processes by which he arrives at his conclusions. The
ability, however, to collect facts, and the power to generalize and
draw conclusions from them, avail little, when brought into direct
opposition to deeply rooted prejudices.

The indications are strong that the time has at length arrived when
the current opinions concerning sex capacity and endowment demand a
revision, and when nothing short of scientific deductions, untainted by
the prejudices and dogmatic assumptions of the past, will be accepted.

As has been stated, the object of this volume is to set forth the
principal data brought forward by naturalists bearing on the subject
of the origin and development of the two lines of sexual demarcation,
and by means of the facts observed by explorers among peoples in the
various stages of development, to trace, so far as possible, the
effect of such differentiation upon the individual, and upon the
subsequent growth of human society.

  E. B. G.




CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE

  PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION                                          iii

  PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION                                             v


                                PART I

                       _THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION_

  CHAPTER

  I.—DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANISM                                       3

  II.—THE ORIGIN OF SEX DIFFERENCES                                   14

  III.—MALE ORGANIC DEFECTS                                           35

  IV.—THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL INSTINCTS AND THE MORAL SENSE     63

  V.—THE SUPREMACY OF THE MALE                                        74


                                PART II

                         _PREHISTORIC SOCIETY_

  I.—METHOD OF INVESTIGATION                                          95

  II.—THE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES AMONG EARLY MANKIND                 104

  III.—THE GENS WOMEN UNDER GENTILE INSTITUTIONS                     123

  IV.—THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE                                         159

  V.—THE MOTHER-RIGHT                                                203

  VI.—THEORIES TO EXPLAIN WIFE-CAPTURE                               215


                               PART III

                       _EARLY HISTORIC SOCIETY_

  I.—EARLY HISTORIC SOCIETY FOUNDED ON THE GENS                      243

  II.—WOMEN IN EARLY HISTORIC TIMES                                  269

  III.—ANCIENT SPARTA                                                285

  IV.—ATHENIAN WOMEN                                                 318

  V.—ROMAN LAW, ROMAN WOMEN, AND CHRISTIANITY                        347

  VI.—THE RENAISSANCE                                                367

  VII.—CONCLUSION                                                    380

  INDEX                                                              403




                   The Sexes in Science and History




                                PART I

                        The Theory of Evolution




CHAPTER I

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANISM


Sex is not only the basic fact underlying physical life but it is also
the fundamental principle involved in the origin and development of
religion. Throughout the history of mankind, the God-idea has ever
been, male or female, according to the relative importance of the two
sex principles in human affairs.

Scientists declare that they are now able to trace the development
of the two diverging lines of sex-demarcation from the time of their
separation, or from the time when these principles were confined within
one and the same individual. In order to understand the origin of sex,
it becomes necessary to recall, briefly, the theory of the development
of life on the earth as set forth by the savants.

As science deals only with matter, a mechanical theory of the universe
is inevitable. As science is wholly materialistic, it is perfectly
consistent in its declaration that the senses and the intellect
constitute the only means whereby truth may be discovered. Modern
philosophy, on the other hand, which deals less with matter itself
than with the causes which underlie the development of matter, affirms
that a character has been developed in human beings which in its
capacity to discern truth, far transcends the intellect. That character
is intuition. But as we are dealing only with scientific observations,
philosophical speculations do not here concern us.

 The fundamental idea, which must necessarily lie at the bottom of all
 natural theories of development, is that of a gradual development of
 all (even the most perfect) organisms out of a single, or out of a
 very few, quite simple, and quite imperfect original beings, which
 came into existence, not by supernatural creation, but by spontaneous
 generation.[1]

[1] Haeckel, _History of Creation_, 1884, vol. i., p. 75.

According to the theory of evolution as elaborated by scientists, the
history of man begins with small animated particles, or Monera, which
appeared in the primeval sea. These marine specks were albuminous
compounds of carbon, generated by the sun’s heat, which made their
appearance as soon as the mists which enveloped the earth were
sufficiently cleared away to permit the rays of the sun to penetrate
them and reach the surface of the globe. Concerning the origin of
the principle of life which these particles contained, or regarding
the development of organic bodies from inorganic substances, the
more timid among naturalists declare that in the present state of
human knowledge it is impossible to know anything, while others of
them, more bold, or more confident of the latent powers of the human
intellect, after having elaborated a natural or mechanical explanation
for the development of all organic forms, are not disposed to accept
a supernatural theory for the beginning of life. For example, since
organic structures represent the development of matter according to
laws governing the chemical, molecular, and physical forces inherent
in it, it is believed that the gulf separating organic and inorganic
substances is not so difficult to span as has hitherto been supposed.
Among those who hold this view may be ranked the celebrated naturalist,
Ernst Haeckel.

Regarding the phenomena of life this writer observes: “We can
demonstrate the infinitely manifold and complicated physical and
chemical properties of the albuminous bodies to be the real cause
of organic or vital phenomena.”[2] Indeed, in whatever manner the
vital force within them originated, naturalists agree that from these
particles have been derived all the forms, both animal and vegetable,
which have ever existed upon the earth.

[2] _History of Creation_, vol. i., p. 331.

As speculations concerning the origin of matter lie without the
domain of natural or scientific inquiry, they form no part of the
investigations of the naturalist. So far as is known, matter is
eternal, and all that may be learned concerning it must be gleaned
by observing the changes, chemical and molecular, through which it
is manifested. By those who have observed the laws which govern the
manifold changes in matter, the fact is declared that the various
manifestations in form and substance constitute the only creation
of which we may have any knowledge; and, moreover, that the genesis
of existence is going on as actively in our time as at any previous
period in the history of matter. So far as human knowledge extends, no
particle of matter has ever been created and none ever destroyed. This
continuous process of transmutation of substance and change of form, in
other words the phenomena designated Life, may have been in operation
during all the past, and may continue forever.

As all speculations concerning the origin of matter have been
unavailing, so all attempts to solve the problem of the origin of
life have proved futile. The experiments recently carried on in
the Rockefeller Institute, in which by means of chemical processes
detached organs from the bodies of animals have been made to perform
their normal functions, are interesting and instructive, but these
experiments furnish no clue to the origin of the force which animates
living organic matter. Why the nucleated cells which we call a heart
should pulsate whilst those which we call a liver should secrete bile,
nobody knows.

That all life on the earth has been derived from one, or at most from a
few original forms, is said to be proved by ontogeny, or the history
of the germ, which in its development passes through a number of the
forms which mark the ascending scale of life.

Through the study of comparative anatomy, the fact has been discovered
that the individuals composing the various orders of the great
vertebrate series are all moulded “on the same general plan”; that up
to a certain stage in the development of the several germs—for instance
those of the man, the ape, the horse, the dog, etc.,—they are not
distinguishable the one from the other, and that it is only at a later
stage of development that they take on the peculiarities belonging to
their own special kind. The number and variety of forms which appear
in the animal and vegetable world make it difficult to conceive of the
idea that all have sprung from one, or at most from a few original
types, yet the chain of evidence in support of this theory seems quite
complete.

Natural Selection, by which it is demonstrated that organized matter
must move forward simply through the chemical and physical forces
inherent in it, furnishes a key to all the phenomena of life, both
animal and vegetable, which have ever appeared on the earth. Natural
Selection, we are told, depends for its operation on the interaction of
two processes or agencies, namely, Inheritance and Adaptation. Through
Inheritance germs receive from their parents a plastic form which, as
all development is a function of external physical conditions, is
itself nothing more than a “manifestation of the remains of antecedent
physical impressions.” This inherited form causes them to go forward
in a predestined course, while through Adaptation there is a constant
tendency to change that predestined form imposed upon them by their
parents to one better suited to their changing physical conditions.

According to the theory of Natural Selection, organic structures vary
to meet the requirements of changed conditions; or, when existing
circumstances are such that they are forced into new and unusual modes
of life, they branch off into different directions; thus new varieties
are formed, or possibly new species. Such portions of a group, however,
as remain sheltered from conditions unsuited to their present line
of development, retain their ancient forms. This change of structure
by which organisms or portions of organic bodies are modified so as
to perform more complicated functions, or those better suited to
their environment, is denominated differentiation; hence the degree
of differentiation attained by a structure determines the stage of
development which it has reached.

But to return to our single-celled animal—the simplest form of life
on the earth. Except that by the action of the surrounding forces its
surface has become somewhat hardened, this little animal is the same
throughout, in other words, it is homogeneous. The hardening of the
outer portion constitutes the first process of differentiation, and
therefore the first step in the order of progress.

Comparing the simplest form of life, the little carbon-sac found in the
sea, with the germ from which animals and plants are derived, Haeckel
says:

 Originally every organic cell is only a single globule of mucus, like
 a Moneron, but differing from it in the fact that the homogeneous
 albuminous substance has separated itself into two different parts, a
 firmer albuminous body, the cell-kernel (nucleus), and an external,
 softer albuminous body, the cell-substance or body (protoplasma).[3]

[3] _History of Creation_, 1884, vol. i., p. 187.

From its body, which, when at rest, is nearly spherical, it is almost
constantly casting forth certain “finger-like processes” which are
as quickly withdrawn, only to reappear on some other portion of its
surface. The small particles of albuminous matter with which it
comes in contact adhere to it, or are drawn into its semi-fluid body
by displacement of the several albuminous particles of which it is
composed, and are there digested, being “absorbed by simple diffusion.”
Its only activity consists in supplying itself with nourishment, and
even during this process it is said to display a negative or passive
quality rather than real action. The particles absorbed that are not
assimilated, are expelled through the surface of the body in the same
manner as they are taken into it.

At first, we are told, our animal is only a simple cell, in fact that
it is not a perfect cell, for as yet the cell-kernel or nucleus has
not been separated from the cell-substance or protoplasm. When its
limit of size has been reached it multiplies by self-division, or by
simply breaking into parts, each part performing the same functions
of nutrition and propagation as its predecessor. Later, however, when
a parent cell bursts, the newly developed cells no longer separate
from it, but, by cohering to it and to each other, form a cluster of
nucleated cells, while around this aggregation of units is formed a
wall. Still its food is absorbed. Subsequently, however, a mouth and
prehensile organs for seizing its food are developed, and the divisions
between the cells are converted into channels or pipes through which
nourishment is conveyed to every part of the body. In process of time,
limbs for locomotion appear, together with bones for levers, and
muscles for moving them. Finally, a brain and a heart are evolved, and
although at first the heart appears as only a simple pulsating vessel,
later this animal finds itself the possessor of a perfect system of
digestion, circulation, and excretion, by which food, after having been
changed into blood and aërated or purified by processes carried on in
the system, is pumped to every part of the body. With the formation
of different chemical combinations, and the development, through
increasing specialization of the various kinds of tissues, and finally
of the various organs, that intimate relationship observed between
the parts in homogeneous and less differentiated structures no longer
exists; hence, in response to the demand for communication between
the various organs, numberless threads or fibres begin to stretch
themselves through the muscles, and collecting in knots or centres in
the brain and spine, establish instantaneous communication between the
different parts, and convey sensation and feeling throughout the entire
organism.

A division of labour has now been established, and each organ, being
in working order and fashioned for its own special use, performs its
separate functions independently, although its activity is co-ordinated
with that of all other organs in the structure.

This far in the history of life on the earth sex has not been
developed, or, more correctly stated, as the two sexes have not been
separated, our animal is still androgynous or hermaphrodite—the
reproductive functions being confined in one and the same individual.
Within this little primeval animal, the progenitor of the human race,
lay not only all the possibilities which have thus far been realized by
mankind, but within it were embodied also the “promise and potency” of
all that progress which is yet to come, and of which man himself, in
his present undeveloped state, may have only a dim foreshadowing.

From the time of the appearance of life on the earth to that of the
separation of the sexes, myriads of centuries may have intervened.
Only when through a division of labour these elements became detached,
and the special functions of each were confided to two distinct and
separate individuals, did the independent history of the female and
male sexes begin.

No fact is more patent, at the present time, than that sex constitutes
the underlying principle throughout nature. Although it may not be
said of the simplest forms of life that sexual difference has been
established, yet we are assured that among the ciliated Infusorians
“male and female nuclear elements have been distinguished.” This
primitive condition, however, is supposed to be rather a state
antecedent to sex than a union of sexes in one organism. Among all the
higher orders of life, whether animal or vegetable, the sex elements,
female and male, are recognized as the two great factors in creation.

As, among all the animals in which there has been a separation of
sexes, there has been established a division of labour, the consequent
specialization of organs and the differentiation of parts form the
true line of demarcation in the march of the two diverging columns.
Doubtless in the future, when our knowledge of the history of life on
the earth has become more extended, it will be found that it is only
by tracing the processes of differentiation throughout the two entire
lines of development that we may hope to unravel all the mysteries
bound up in the problem of sex, or to understand the fundamental
differences in character and constitution caused by this early division
of labour.




CHAPTER II

THE ORIGIN OF SEX DIFFERENCES


We have observed that, according to naturalists, the earliest forms of
life which appeared on the earth were androgynous or hermaphrodite,
that the two elements necessary for reproduction were originally
confined within one and the same individual within which were carried
on all the functions of reproduction. Later, however, a division of
labour arose, and these two original functions became detached, after
which time the reproductive processes were carried on only through the
commingling of elements prepared by, or developed within, two separate
and distinct individuals.

As the belief is entertained by our guides in this matter that
greater differentiation, or specialization of parts, denotes higher
organization, it is believed that the division of labour by which the
germ is prepared by one individual and the sperm by another individual,
as is the case at the present time with all the higher orders of life,
constitutes an important step in the line of progress. Here this line
of argument ceases, and, until very recent times, concerning the
course of development followed by each sex little has been heard. This
silence on a subject of such vital importance to the student of biology
is not perhaps difficult to understand; the conclusion, however,
is unavoidable that the individual which must nourish and protect
the germ, and by processes carried on within her own body provide
nourishment for the young during its prenatal existence, and sometimes
for years after birth, must have the more highly specialized organism,
and must, therefore, represent the higher stage of development. Indeed,
it is admitted by scientists that the advance from the egg-layers to
the milk-givers indicates one of the most important steps in the entire
line of development; and yet the peculiar specialization of structure
necessary for its accomplishment was for the most part carried on
within the female organism.

Concerning the origin of sex in the individual organism little seems
to be known; as a result, however, of observations on the development
of the reproductive organs in the higher vertebrates, and especially
in birds, it is believed that there exists a “strict parallelism
between the individual and the racial history,”—that the three main
stages in the development of the chick, viz.: (1) germi-parity, (2)
hermaphroditism, and (3) differentiated unisexuality, correspond to the
three great steps of historic evolution.

By a careful investigation of the facts connected with the development
of unisexual forms, we are enabled to discover the early beginnings of
the characteristics which distinguish the two sexes throughout their
entire course. We are told that with animals which have their sexes
separate, in addition to strictly sexual difference

 the male possesses certain organs of sense or locomotion, of which the
 female is quite destitute, or has them more highly developed, in order
 that he may readily find or reach her; or again the male has special
 organs of prehension for holding her securely. These latter organs, of
 infinitely diversified kinds, graduate into those which are commonly
 ranked as primary.[4]

[4] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 207.

The female, on the other hand, in addition to those sexual characters
which are strictly primary, has “organs for the nourishment or
protection of her young, such as the mammary glands of mammals, and
the abdominal sacks of the marsupials.” In addition to these she is
frequently provided with organs for the defence of the community;
for instance, “the females of most bees are provided with a special
apparatus for collecting and carrying pollen, and their ovipositor is
modified into a sting for the defence of the larvæ and the community.”
We are assured by Mr. Darwin that many similar cases could be given.[5]

[5] _Ibid._, p. 208.

Here, then, with almost the first or primary step toward sexual
differentiation, may be observed the establishment of that peculiar
bias which upon investigation will be seen to extend all along the two
lines of sexual demarcation, and which (to anticipate the conclusions
of our argument), as soon as mankind is reached, appears in the male as
extreme egoism or selfishness, and in the female as altruism or care
for other individuals outside of self.

We are assured, however, that it is not alone to the reproductive
organs and their functions that we are to look for the chief
differences in the constitution and character of the sexes. Neither is
it entirely to Natural Selection that we are to seek for the causes
which underlie the specialization peculiar to the two diverging lines
of sexual demarcation; in addition to primary sexual divergences, there
are also “secondary sexual characters” which are of great importance to
their possessor. Indeed, from the prominence given to Sexual Selection
by Mr. Darwin, it would seem that it played a part in the development
of males quite equal to that of Natural Selection itself.

Now the difference between Natural Selection and Sexual Selection is
that, whereas, in the former, characters are developed and preserved
which are of use to the individual in overcoming the unfavourable
conditions of environment, by the latter, only those characters are
acquired and preserved which assist the individual in overcoming the
obstacles to reproduction; or, to use Mr. Darwin’s own language:

 [Sexual Selection] depends on the advantage which certain individuals
 have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of
 reproduction.... [Where] the males have acquired their present
 structure, not from being better fitted to survive in the struggle
 of existence, but from having gained an advantage over other males,
 and from having transmitted this advantage to their male offspring
 alone, sexual selection must here have come into action.... A slight
 degree of variability leading to some advantage, however slight,
 in reiterated deadly contests would suffice for the work of sexual
 selection; and it is certain that secondary sexual characters are
 eminently variable. Just as man can give beauty, according to his
 standard of taste, to his male poultry, or more strictly can modify
 the beauty originally acquired by the parent species, can give to
 the Sebright bantam a new and elegant plumage, an erect and peculiar
 carriage—so it appears the female birds in a state of nature, have by
 a long selection of the more attractive males, added to their beauty
 or other attractive qualities.[6]

[6] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, pp. 209-211.

Thus, according to Mr. Darwin, it is through a long selection by
females of the more attractive males that the present structure of the
latter has been acquired. If, in a short time, a man can give elegant
carriage and beauty to his bantams, according to his standard of
beauty, he can see no reason to doubt that female birds, by selecting
during thousands of generations the most melodious or beautiful males,
according to their standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect.
He says:

 To sum up on the means through which, as far as we can judge, sexual
 selection has led to the development of secondary sexual characters.
 It has been shown that the largest number of vigorous offspring will
 be reared from the pairing of the strongest and best armed males,
 victorious in contests over other males, with the most vigorous and
 best-nourished females, which are the first to breed in the spring. If
 such females select the more attractive, and at the same time vigorous
 males, they will rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded
 females, which must pair with the less vigorous and less attractive
 males.... The advantage thus gained by the more vigorous pairs in
 rearing a larger number of offspring has apparently sufficed to render
 sexual selection efficient.[7]

[7] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 220.

Although the belief is common among naturalists that the appearance of
secondary sexual characters belonging to males is greatly influenced
by female choice, a majority of writers upon this subject are not
in sympathy with Mr. Darwin’s theory concerning the origin of these
variations. It is believed by them that Sexual Selection “may account
for the perfecting, but not for the origin, of these characters.”

It is useless, however, to rehearse the opinions of the various writers
who have dealt with this subject. It is perhaps sufficient to state
that the great beauty of males has usually been accepted as evidence
of their superiority over the females.

In his chapter, “The Male generally more Modified than the Female,”
Mr. Darwin remarks: “Appearances would indicate that not the male
which is most attractive to the female is chosen, but the one which
is least distasteful.” He says that the aversion of female birds for
certain males renders the season of courtship one of great anxiety and
discomfiture, not only to many of the more poorly endowed aspirants,
but to those also which are more magnificently attired—that the pairing
ground becomes a field of battle, upon which, while parading their
charms to the best advantage, is sacrificed much of the gorgeous
plumage of the contestants. On the wooing ground are displayed
for the admiration and approval of the females, all the physical
attractions of the males, as well as the mental characters correlated
with them, namely, courage, and pugnacity or perseverance. According
to Mr. Darwin, with the exception of vanity, no other quality is in
any considerable degree manifested by male birds, but to such an
extent has love of display been developed in many of them, notably
the pea-fowl, that, “in the absence of females of his own species,
he will show off his finery before poultry and even pigs.” We are
assured that the higher we ascend in the animal kingdom the more
frequent and more violent become two desires in the male: “the desire
of appearing beautiful, and that of driving away rivals.” According
to Mr. Darwin’s theory of development, because of the indifference
of the female among the lower orders of life to the processes of
courtship, it has been necessary for the male to expend much energy
or vital force in searching for her—in contending with his rivals for
possession of her person, and in performing various acts to please
her and secure her favours. While excessive eagerness in courtship is
the one all-absorbing character of male fishes, birds, and mammals,
we are assured that with the females, pairing is not only a matter of
indifference, but that courtship is actually distasteful to them, and,
therefore, that the former must resort to the various means referred to
in order to induce the latter to submit to their advances.

We are informed that the female is sometimes charmed through the power
of song; that at other times she is captivated by the diversified
means which have been acquired by male insects and birds for producing
various sounds resembling those proceeding from certain kinds of
musical instruments; and not unfrequently she is won by means of
antics or love dances performed on the ground or in the air. On the
pairing-ground, combs, wattles, elongated plumes, top-knots, and
fancy-coloured feathers are paraded for the admiration and approval of
the females. Led by the all-absorbing instinct of desire,

 the males display their charms with elaborate care and to the best
 effect; and this is done in the presence of the females.... To suppose
 that the females do not appreciate the beauty of the males, is to
 admit that their splendid decorations, and all their pomp and display,
 are useless; and this is incredible.[8]

[8] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 496.

Topknots, gaudy feathers, elongated plumes among birds, huge tusks,
horns, etc., among mammals, the mane of the lion, and the beard of
man, may be noticed among the many characters which have been acquired
through Sexual Selection.

Although the immense teeth, tusks, horns, and various other weapons or
appendages which ornament the males of many species of mammals, have
all been developed through Sexual Selection for contending with their
rivals for the favours of the females, it is observed that the “most
pugnacious and best armed males seldom depend for success on their
ability to drive away or kill their rivals,” but that their special aim
is to “charm the female.” Mr. Darwin quotes from a “good observer,” who
believes that the battles of male birds “are all a sham, performed to
show themselves to the greatest advantage before the admiring females
who assemble around.”[9]

[9] _Ibid._, p. 367.

In _The Descent of Man_ is quoted the following from Mr. Belt, who,
after describing the beauty of the _Florisuga mellivora_, says:

 I have seen the female sitting on a branch, and two males displaying
 their charms in front of her. One would shoot up like a rocket, then
 suddenly expanding the snow-white tail, like an inverted parachute,
 slowly descend in front of her, turning round gradually to show off
 back and front.... The expanded white tail covered more space than
 all the rest of the bird, and was evidently the grand feature in the
 performance. Whilst one male was descending, the other would shoot up
 and come slowly down expanded. The entertainment would end in a fight
 between the two performers; but whether the most beautiful or the most
 pugnacious was the accepted suitor, I know not.[10]

[10] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 443.

Audubon, who spent a long life in observing birds, has no doubt that
the female deliberately chooses her mate. Of the woodpecker he says
the hen is followed by half a dozen suitors, who continue performing
strange antics “until a marked preference is shown for one.” Of the
red-winged starling it is said that she is pursued by several males
“until, becoming fatigued, she alights, receives their addresses, and
soon makes a choice.”[11] Mr. Darwin quotes further from Audubon, who
says that among the Virginia goat-suckers, no sooner has the female
“made her choice than her approved gives chase to all intruders, and
drives them beyond his dominions.”

[11] _Ibid._, p. 416.

It is said that among mammals the male depends almost entirely upon
his strength and courage to “charm the female.” With reference to the
struggles between animals for the possession of the females, Mr. Darwin
says:

 This fact is so notorious that it would be superfluous to give
 instances. Hence the females have the opportunity of selecting one
 out of several males, on the supposition that their mental capacity
 suffices for the exertion of a choice.[12]

[12] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 212.

We are assured that among nearly all the lower orders of life the
female exhibits a marked preference for certain individuals, and that
an equal degree of repugnance is manifested towards others, but that
the male, whose predominant character is desire, “is ready to pair
with any female.” On this subject Mr. Darwin remarks: “The general
impression seems to be that the male accepts any female.” He says it
frequently occurs that while two males are fighting together to win
the favours of a female, she goes away with a third for whom she has
a preference. Mr. Darwin quotes from Captain Bryant, who says of a
certain species of seals:

 Many of the females on their arrival at the island where they breed,
 appear desirous of returning to some particular male, and frequently
 climb the outlying rock to overlook the rookeries, calling out and
 listening as if for a familiar voice. Then changing to another place
 they do the same again.[13]

[13] _Ibid._, p. 523.

Little seems to be known of the courtship of animals in a state of
nature. Among domesticated species, however, many observations have
been made by breeders going to prove that the female exerts a choice
in pairing. Concerning dogs, Mr. Darwin quotes from Mr. Mayhew, who
says: “The females are able to bestow their affections; and tender
recollections are as potent over them as they are known to be in other
cases where higher animals are concerned.” Of the affection of female
dogs for certain males the same writer says it “becomes of more than
romantic endurance,” that they manifest a “devotion which no time can
afterwards subdue.”

On concluding his chapter on choice in pairing among quadrupeds, Mr.
Darwin remarks:

 It is improbable that the unions of quadrupeds in a state of nature
 should be left to mere chance. It is much more probable that the
 females are allured or excited by particular males, who possess
 certain characters in a higher degree than other males.[14]

[14] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 525.

As the female among birds selects her partner, he thinks it would be a
strange anomaly if among quadrupeds, which stand higher in the scale
and have higher mental powers, she did not also exert a choice.[15]

[15] It should be noted, in passing, that, according to this reasoning,
the female of the human species would also be likely to exercise her
will power in the selection of a mate. Evidences are indeed at hand
going to prove that until a comparatively recent time in the history
of the human race women controlled the sexual relation. As will be
shown in Part II., during the primitive ages of human existence the
position of woman was much higher than was that occupied by man. During
the earlier ages, and under more natural conditions, women selected
their mates, and among the human species, as among the lower orders, it
became necessary for the male to please the female if he would win her
favours; hence, through Sexual Selection, it is believed, was acquired
the greater size of man.

Because of the indifference of the female to the attentions of the
male, in order to carry on the processes of reproduction, it was
necessary among the lower orders that the male become eager in his
pursuit of her, and as a result of this eagerness excessive passion
was developed in him. As the most eager would be the most successful
in propagating, they would leave the greatest number of offspring
to inherit their characters—namely, in males, passion and pugnacity
correlated with the physical qualities acquired through Sexual
Selection.

On the subject of the acquirement of secondary sexual characters, Mr.
Darwin says: “The great eagerness of the males has thus indirectly led
to their much more frequently developing secondary sexual characters.”
Indeed, by all naturalists, the fact is recognized that the appearance
of these characters is closely connected with the reproductive function.

Later experiments have confirmed the observations of Mr. Darwin
concerning the intelligence of the female among the lower orders of
life. Among these experiments are those recently made by Professor
Harper, of the Department of Biology, in the Northwestern University.
Professor Harper announces that in all the experiments conducted by
him, the female animal showed a greater degree of perception, or
intelligence, than the male. He says: “In all my experiments, I found
that the female displayed a remarkable quickness in grasping ideas
which the male after numerous sluggish efforts finally accomplished.”
Professor Harper declared that these facts regarding animals apply with
equal force to human beings.

Regarding the power of the female to appreciate the beauty of the
males, Mr. Darwin says:

 No doubt this implies powers of discrimination and taste on the part
 of the female which will at first appear extremely improbable; but by
 the facts to be adduced hereafter, I hope to be able to show that the
 females actually have these powers.[16]

[16] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 211.

In commenting on the fact that the female Argus pheasant appreciates
the exquisite shading of the ball-and-socket ornaments, and the elegant
patterns on the wing-feathers of the male, Mr. Darwin writes:

 He who thinks that the male was created as he now exists, must admit
 that the great plumes which prevent the wings from being used for
 flight, and which are displayed at courtship and at no other time,
 in a manner quite peculiar to this species, were given to him as
 ornaments. If so he must likewise admit that the female was created
 and endowed with the capacity for appreciating such ornaments. Every
 one who admits the principle of evolution, and yet feels great
 difficulty in believing the high taste implied by the beauty of the
 males, and which generally coincides with our own standard, should
 reflect that the nerve cells of the brain in the highest as in the
 lowest members of the vertebrate series are derived from those of the
 common progenitor of this great kingdom.

In referring to the remarkable patterns displayed on the male Argus
pheasant, designs which have been developed through Sexual Selection,
Mr. Darwin says:

 Many will declare that it is utterly incredible that a female bird
 should be able to appreciate fine shading and exquisite patterns. It
 is undoubtedly a marvellous fact that she should possess this almost
 human degree of taste. He who thinks that he can safely gauge the
 discrimination and taste of the lower animals may deny that the female
 Argus pheasant can appreciate such refined beauty; but he will then
 be compelled to admit that the extraordinary attitudes assumed by the
 male during the act of courtship, by which the wonderful beauty of his
 plumage is fully displayed, are purposeless; and this is a conclusion
 which I, for one, will never admit.[17]

[17] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 400.

Here, then, in the female bird we see developed in a remarkable degree
the power of discrimination, the exercise of taste, a sense of beauty,
and the ability to choose—qualities which the facts brought forward by
scientists show conclusively to have been acquired by the female and by
her transmitted to her offspring. Regarding males, outside the instinct
for self-preservation, which, by the way, is often overshadowed by
their great sexual eagerness, no distinguishing characters have
been acquired and transmitted, other than those which have been the
result of passion, namely, pugnacity and perseverance. This excessive
eagerness which prompts them to parade their charms whenever such
display is likely to aid them in the gratification of their desires is
developed only in the male line.

According to the law of heredity, those modifications of the male
which have been the result of Sexual Selection appear only in the sex
in which they originated. It will be well for us to remember that
according to Mr. Darwin’s theory of pangenesis, sexes do not differ
much in constitution before the power of reproduction is reached, but
that after this time the undeveloped atoms or

 gemmules which are cast off from each varying part in the one sex
 would be much more likely to possess the proper affinities for uniting
 with the tissues of the same sex, and thus becoming developed, than
 with those of the opposite sex.[18]

[18] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 232.

We are given to understand that secondary sexual characters are
extremely variable, also that variability denotes low organization;
secondary sexual characters indicate that the various organs of the
structure have not become specialized for the performance of their
legitimate functions. Highly specialized forms are not variable.

To sum up the argument thus far: It has been observed that through
the separation of the sexes, and the consequent division of labour,
there have been established two diverging lines of development. While
the male pheasant has been inheriting from his male progenitors
fantastic ball-and-socket ornaments, and huge wings which are utterly
useless for their legitimate purpose, the female, in the meantime,
has been receiving as her inheritance only those peculiarities of
structure which tend toward uninterrupted development. Within her
have been stored or conserved all the gain which has been effected
through Natural Selection, and as a result of greater specialization
of parts, there have been developed certain peculiarities in her brain
nerve-cells, by which she is enabled to exercise functions requiring a
considerable degree of intelligence.

Although this power of choice, which we are given to understand
is exercised by the female throughout the various departments of
the vertebrate kingdom (evidences of it having been observed among
creatures even as low in the organic scale as fishes), implies a degree
of intelligence far in advance of that manifested by males, it is
admitted that the qualities which bespeak this superiority, namely, the
power to exercise taste and discrimination, constitute a “law almost as
general as the eagerness of the male.”[19]

[19] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 222.

We are assured by Mr. Darwin that in the economy of nature those
ornaments of the male Argus pheasant which serve no other purpose
than to please the female and secure her favours, and which have
been acquired at great expense of vital force, are of the “highest
importance to him,” and that his success in captivating the female
“has more than compensated him for his greatly impeded power of
flight and his lessened capacity for running.” Yet it is plain that
his compensation for this immense expenditure of vital force has not
lain in the direction of higher specialization, but that while by the
acquirement of these characters the processes of reproduction have
doubtless been aided, the injury to the male constitution has been deep
and lasting.

Upon this subject Mr. Darwin himself says:

 The development, however, of certain structures—of the horns, for
 instance, in certain stags—has been carried to a wonderful extreme;
 and in some cases to an extreme which, as far as the general
 conditions of life are concerned, must be slightly injurious to the
 male.[20]

[20] _Ibid._, p. 227.

He thinks, however, that

 Natural Selection will determine that such characters shall not be
 acquired by the victorious males if they would be highly injurious,
 either by expending too much of their vital powers or by exposing them
 to any great danger.

According to Mr. Darwin, as these characters enable them to leave a
more numerous progeny, their advantages are in the long run greater
than those derived from more perfect adaptation to their conditions of
life. It is plain, however, that this advantage, although it enables
them to gratify their desires, and at the same time to perpetuate their
species, does not imply higher development for the male organism.

We have been assured by our guides in these matters that in the
processes of evolution there is no continuous or unbroken chain of
progress, that growth or change does not necessarily imply development,
but, on the contrary, only as a structure becomes better fitted for
its conditions, and only as its organs become more highly specialized
for the performance of all the duties involved in its environment, may
it be said to be in the line of progress. If this be true, particular
attention should be directed to the fact that as secondary sexual
characters do not assist their possessor in overcoming the unfavourable
conditions of his environment, they are not within the line of true
development, but, on the contrary, as their growth requires a great
expenditure of vital force, and, as is the case among birds, they often
hinder the free use of the legs in running and walking, and entirely
destroy the use of the wings for flight, they must be detrimental to
the entire structure. For the reason that females have managed to do
without them, the plea that the great tusks, horns, teeth, etc., of
mammals have been acquired for self-defence, is scarcely tenable.

On the subject of the relative expenditure of vital force in the two
lines of sexual demarcation, Mr. Darwin remarks:

 The female has to expend much organic matter in the formation of her
 ova, whereas the male expends much force in fierce contests with his
 rivals, in wandering about in search of the female, in exerting his
 voice, pouring out odoriferous secretions, etc.... In mankind, and
 even as low down in the organic scale as in the Lepidoptera, the
 temperature of the body is higher in the male than in the female,
 accompanied in the case of man by a slower pulse.[21]

Yet he concludes: “On the whole the expenditure of matter and force
by the two sexes is probably nearly equal, though effected in very
different ways and at different rates.”[21]

[21] _The Descent of Man_, p. 224.

However, as has been observed, the force expended by the male in fierce
contests with his rivals, in wandering about in search of the female,
and in his exertions to please her when found, does not constitute
the only outlay of vitality to which he is subjected; but in addition
to all this, there still remains to be considered that force which has
been expended in the acquirement of characters which, so far as his own
development is concerned, are useless and worse than useless; namely,
in birds, combs, wattles, elongated plumes, great wings, etc., and in
mammals great horns, tusks, and teeth—appendages which lie outside
the line of true development, and, as we have seen, are of no avail
except to aid in the processes of reproduction and to assist him in the
gratification of his desires; in fact, as these excrescences hinder
him in the performance of the ordinary functions of life, they may be
regarded in the light of actual hindrances to higher development.




CHAPTER III

MALE ORGANIC DEFECTS


We have observed that through the great sexual ardour developed at
puberty within the male of the lower species, numberless variations
of structure have been acquired, characters which, as they are the
result of undeveloped atoms cast off from the varying parts in his
progenitors, denote low organization. We have seen also that these
characters require for their growth an immense amount of vital force,
which, had the development of the male been normal, would have been
expended in perfecting the organism, or would have been utilized in
fitting it to overcome the adverse conditions of his environment.
Secondary sexual characters, being so far as males are concerned,
wholly the result of eagerness in courtship, cannot appear before
the time for reproduction arrives, and as it is a law of heredity
that peculiarities of structure which are developed late in life,
when transmitted to offspring, appear only in the sex in which they
originated, these variations of structure are confined to males.

According to Mr. Darwin’s theory little difference exists between the
sexes until the age of reproduction arrives. It is at this time, the
time when the secondary sexual characters begin to assert themselves,
that the preponderating superiority of the male begins to manifest
itself.

Although, according to Mr. Darwin, variability denotes low organization
and shows that the various organs of the body have not become
specialized to perform properly their legitimate functions, it is to
characters correlated with and dependent upon these varying parts
that the male has ultimately become superior to the female. If these
characters, namely, pugnacity, perseverance, and courage have been
such important factors in establishing male superiority, too much care
may not be exercised in analyzing them and in tracing their origin and
subsequent development.

Sexual Selection resembles artificial selection save that the female
takes the part of the human breeder. She represents the intelligent
factor or cause in the operations involved. If this be true, if it is
through her will, or through some agency or tendency latent in her
constitution that Sexual Selection comes into play, then she is the
primary cause of the very characters through which man’s superiority
over woman has been gained. As a stream may not rise higher than its
source, or as the creature may not surpass its creator in excellence,
it is difficult to understand the processes by which man, through
Sexual Selection, has become superior to woman.

 He who admits the principle of Sexual Selection will be led to the
 remarkable conclusion that the nervous system not only regulates most
 of the existing functions of the body, but has indirectly influenced
 the progressive development of various bodily structures and certain
 mental qualities. Courage, pugnacity, perseverance, strength and
 size of body, weapons of all kinds, musical organs, both vocal and
 instrumental, bright colours, and ornamental appendages have all been
 indirectly gained by the one sex or the other, through the exertion of
 choice, the influence of love and jealousy, and the appreciation of
 the beautiful in sound, colour, or form; and these powers of the mind
 manifestly depend on the development of the brain.[22]

[22] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 617.

While the female has been performing the higher functions in the
processes of reproduction, through her force of will, or through her
power of choice, she has also been the directing and controlling agency
in the development of those characters in the male through which, when
the human species was reached, he was enabled to attain a limited
degree of progress.

Since the origin of secondary sexual characters is so clearly manifest,
perhaps it will be well for us at this point to examine also their
actual significance, that we may be enabled to note the foundation upon
which the dogma of male superiority rests.

Although the gay colouring of male birds and fishes has usually
been regarded as an indication of their superiority over their
sombre-coloured mates, later investigations are proving that these
pigments represent simply unspecialized material, and an effort of
the system to cast out the waste products which have accumulated as a
result of excessive ardour in courtship. The same is true of combs,
wattles, and other skin excrescences; they show a feverish condition of
the skin in the over-excited males, whose temperature is usually much
higher than is that of females. We are assured that the skin eruptions
of male fishes at the spawning season “seem more pathological than
decorative.”[23] In the processes of reproduction, the undeveloped
atoms given off from each varying part are reproduced only in the male
line.

[23] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 24.

The beautiful colouring of male birds and fishes, and the various
appendages acquired by males throughout the various orders below
man, and which, so far as they themselves are concerned, serve no
other useful purpose than to aid them in securing the favours of the
females, have by the latter been turned to account in the processes of
reproduction. The female made the male beautiful that she might endure
his caresses.

From the facts elaborated by our guides in this matter, it would seem
that the female is the primary unit of creation, and that the male
functions are simply supplemental or complementary. Parthenogenesis
among many of the lower forms of life would seem to favour this view.
We are given to understand that under conditions favouring katabolism,
the males among Rotifera wear themselves out, under which conditions
the females become katabolic enough to do without them.

 Among the common Rotifera, the males are almost always very different
 from the females, and much smaller. Sometimes they seem to have
 dwindled out of existence altogether, for only the females are known.
 In other cases, though present, they entirely fail to accomplish their
 proper function of fertilization, and, as parthenogenesis obtains, are
 not only minute, but useless.[24]

[24] _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 20.

So long as food is plentiful, the females continue to raise
parthenogenetic offspring, but with the advent of hard times, when
food is scarce or of a poor quality, the parthenogenetic series is
interrupted by the appearance of males. Although, unaided by the male,
the female of certain species is able to reproduce, he has never been
able to propagate without her co-operation.

Concerning the conditions which underlie the production of females and
males we have the following from _The Evolution of Sex_, by Geddes and
Thomson:

 Such conditions as deficient or abnormal food, high temperature,
 deficient light, moisture, and the like, are obviously such as would
 tend to induce a preponderance of waste over repair—a katabolic habit
 of body,—and these conditions tend to result in the production of
 males. Similarly, the opposed set of factors, such as abundant and
 rich nutrition, abundant light and moisture, favour constructive
 processes, _i.e._, make for an anabolic habit, and these conditions
 result in the production of females.[25]

[25] _The Evolution of Sex_, p. 50.

Among the lower orders of animal life, notably insects, we are
assured that an excess of females denotes an excess of formative
force, and that an excess of males indicates a deficiency on the
part of the parents. In the case of bees, the queen, which is the
highest development, is produced only under the best circumstances of
nutrition, while the birth of the drone, which is the lowest result of
propagation, is preceded by extremely low conditions.

The working bee which, being an imperfect female, may not be
impregnated, will, however, give birth to parthenogenetic offspring,
such offspring always being male. In the case of Aphides, the sex
depends on the conditions of nutrition. During the summer months while
food is plentiful and nutritious, females are parthenogenetically
produced, but with the return of autumn and the attendant scarcity of
food, together with the low temperature, only males are brought forth.
In seasons in which food is abundant, Cladocera and Aphides lose the
power to copulate; they nevertheless multiply parthenogenetically at a
marvellous rate of increase,

 giving birth to generation after generation of parthenogenetic
 females, so long as the environment remains favourable, but giving
 birth, as soon as the conditions of life become less favourable, to
 males and to females which require fertilization.[26]

[26] Prof. W. K. Brooks, _Pop. Science Monthly_, vol. xxvi., p. 327.

It is stated also that if caterpillars are shut up and starved before
entering the chrysalis stage, the butterflies which make their
appearance are males, while the highly nourished caterpillars are sure
to come out females. In the case of moths unnutritious food produces
only males.

Experiments show that when tadpoles are left to themselves the average
number of females is about fifty-seven in the hundred, but that under
favourable conditions the percentage of females is greatly increased.
The following is the result of one series of observations by Yung.
In the first brood, by feeding one set with beef, the percentage of
females was raised from fifty-four to seventy-eight; in the second,
with fish, the percentage rose from sixty-one to eighty-one, which in
the third set, when the nutritious flesh of frogs was supplied, only
eight males were produced to ninety-two females.[27]

[27] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 42.

It is stated that although scarcity of food is an important factor
in determining the appearance of males, temperature also plays an
important part in their production. Kurg having found a few males in
midsummer in pools which were nearly dried up was induced to attempt
their artificial production. So successful was he, that “he obtained
the males of forty species, in all of which the males had previously
been unknown.” He proved that

 any unfavourable change in the water causes the production of males,
 which appear as it dries up, as its chemical constitution changes,
 when it acquires an unfavourable temperature, or, in general, when
 there is a decrease in prosperity.

From which observations and many others quoted from Düring, Professor
Brooks concludes that “among animals and plants, as well as in mankind,
a favourable environment causes an excess of female births, and an
unfavourable environment an excess of male births.”[28] According to
Rolph, also, the percentage of females increases with the increase of
favourable conditions of temperature and food.

[28] _Popular Science Monthly_, vol. xxvi., p. 328.

Among insects the males appear first, thus showing that less time is
required to develop them from the larval state. Of this Mr. Darwin
says: “Throughout the great class of insects the males almost always
are the first to emerge from the pupal state, so that they generally
abound for a time before any female can be seen.”[29]

[29] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 212.

Recent observations show that among the human species nutrition
plays a significant part in determining sex. Statistics prove that in
towns and in well-to-do families there is a preponderance of girls,
while in the country, and among the poor, more boys are born; also,
that immediately following epidemics, wars, and famines, there is an
excess of male births. On examination, it was found that in Saxony “the
ratio of boy-births rose and fell with the price of food, and that the
variation was most marked in the country.”[30]

[30] W. K. Brooks, _Popular Science Monthly_, vol. xxvi., p. 326.

That the female represents a higher development than the male is
proved throughout all the various departments of nature. Among plants,
staminate flowers open before pistillate, and are much more abundant,
and less differentiated from the leaves, showing that they are less
developed, and that slighter effort, a less expenditure of force, is
necessary to form the male than the female. A male flower represents
an intermediate stage between a leaf and a perfect, or we might say, a
female flower, and the germ which produces the male would, in a higher
stage, produce the female.[31] In reference to the subject of the
relative positions of the female and male flowers in the Sedges, Mr.
Meehan observes:

[31] Thomas Meehan, _Native Flowers and Ferns_, vol. i., p. 47.

 In some cases the spike of the male flowers terminates the scape; in
 others the male flowers occupy the lower place; in others, again they
 have various places on the same spike. It will be generally noted that
 this is associated together with lines of nutrition,—those evidently
 favoured by comparative abundance sustaining the female flowers.

To this Mr. Meehan adds:

 And this is indeed a natural consequence, for, as vitality exists so
 much longer in the female than the male flowers, which generally die
 when the pollen has matured, it is essential that they should have
 every advantage in this respect.[32]

[32] _Native Flowers and Ferns_, vol. i., p. 39.

The most perfect and vigorous specimens of coniferous trees are of the
female kind. In its highest and most luxuriant stage the larch bears
only female blossoms, but so soon as its vigour is lost male flowers
appear, after which death soon ensues.

In _The Evolution of Sex_, by Geddes and Thomson, is the following:

 In phraseology which will presently become more intelligible and
 concrete, the males live at a loss, are more katabolic,—disruptive
 changes tending to preponderate in the sum of changes in their living
 matter or protoplasm. The females, on the other hand, live at a
 profit, are more anabolic,—constructive processes predominating in
 their life, whence indeed the capacity of bearing offspring.[33]

[33] _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 26.

Among the lower orders of animals, there appears an excess of males,
and among the higher forms of life, man included, the fact that the
male is the result of the cruder, less developed germ, has been clearly
shown, not alone by the facts brought forward by Mr. Darwin, but by
those enunciated by all reliable writers on this subject. As a result
of the excessive eagerness in males, and the consequent expenditure
of vital force among the lower orders of life to find the female and
secure her favours, they are generally smaller in size, with a higher
body temperature and shorter life. Among the higher orders, the human
species, for instance, although man is larger than woman, he is still
shorter lived, has less endurance, is more predisposed to organic
diseases, and is more given to reversion to former types, facts which
show that his greater size is not the result of higher development. It
is noted that the liability to assume characters proper to lower orders
belongs in a marked degree to males of all the higher species—man
included.

Doubtless man’s greater size (a modification which has been acquired
through Sexual Selection) has been of considerable value to him in
the struggle for existence to which he has been subjected, but the
indications are already strong that after a certain stage of progress
has been reached, even this modification of structure will prove
useless, if not an actual hindrance to him. On mechanical principles,
every increase of size requires more than a corresponding increase of
strength and endurance to balance the activities and carry on the vital
processes, yet such have been the conditions of man’s development, that
his excess of strength does not compensate for his greater size and
weight, while his powers of endurance fall below those of women.

Although the conditions of the past have required a vast expenditure
of physical energy, the activities of the future will make no such
demand. Nature’s forces directed by the human will and intellect are
already lessening the necessity for an excessive outlay of bodily
strength. It may be truly said that electricity and the innumerable
mechanical devices now in use have well nigh supplanted the necessity
for great physical exertion. Even war, should it be continued, which
is not likely, will be conducted without it. Destructive weapons based
upon high-power explosives require little physical effort for their
manipulation. The pugilist represents the departing glory of male
physical strength.

We are informed by Mr. Darwin that by a vast number of measurements
taken of various parts of the human body in different races, during
his Novara Expedition, it was found that the men in almost every case
presented a greater range of variations than women, and, as Mr. Wood
has carefully attended to the variations of the muscles of man, Mr.
Darwin quotes from him that “the greatest number of abnormalities
in each subject is found in males.” He adduces also the testimony of
several others who have practically investigated this subject, all of
whom agree in their statements that variations in the muscles are more
frequent in males than in females. These variations usually consist in
a reversion to lower types—a reversion in which muscles proper to lower
forms of life make their appearance.

In an examination of forty male subjects, there was in nineteen of them
a rudimentary muscle found which is designated as the ischio-pubic, and
in three others of the forty was observed a ligament which represents
this muscle; but, in an examination by the same person of thirty female
subjects, in only two of them was this muscle developed on both sides,
whilst in three others the rudimentary ligament was present. Thus while
we observe that about fifty-five per cent. of the males examined were
possessed of muscles proper to lower orders, in only about seventeen
per cent. of the females under observation did this reversion appear.
In a single male subject, seven muscular variations proper to apes were
indicated.

Numberless cases might be cited in which reversions and abnormalities
have been developed only in the male line. Of the porcupine men of the
Lambert family who lived in London last century, Haeckel says:

 Edward Lambert, born in 1717, was remarkable for a most unusual and
 monstrous formation of the skin. His whole body was covered with
 a horny substance, about an inch thick, which rose in the form of
 numerous thorn-shaped and scale-like processes, more than an inch
 long. This monstrous formation on the outer skin, or epidermis, was
 transmitted by Lambert to his sons and grandsons, but not to his
 granddaughters.[34]

[34] _History of Creation_, 1884, vol. i., p. 178.

According to the testimony of those who have made a study of the
various abnormalities in the human organism, the ears of men present
a greater range of variations than do those of women, and the cases
in which supernumerary digits appear in males are as two to one,
compared with females presenting the same structural defect. Of one
hundred and fifty-two cases of this kind tabulated by Burt Wilder,
eighty-six were males and thirty-nine females, the sex of the remaining
twenty-seven being unknown. Mr. Darwin wishes us to remember, however,
that “women would more frequently endeavour to conceal a deformity of
this kind than men.” Although it is quite natural for women to abhor
abnormalities and deformities, it is to be doubted if they would
succeed for any considerable length of time in concealing the deformity
of an organ which, like the hand, is usually uncovered, and which in
waking hours, is in almost constant use.

One of the principal characters which distinguishes the human animal
from the lower orders is the absence of a natural covering for the
skin. That mankind have descended from hair-covered progenitors is
the inevitable conclusion of all those who accept the theory of the
evolution of species, the straggling hairs which are scattered over the
body of man being the rudiments of a uniform hairy coat which enveloped
his ancestors.

We are informed that a hairy covering for the body, pointed ears which
were capable of movement, and a tail provided with the proper muscles,
were among the undoubted characters of the antecedents of the human
race. In addition to these, among the males, were developed great
canine teeth which were used as weapons against their rivals.

As the lack of a hairy coat for the body constitutes one of the
principal characteristics which distinguishes man from the lower
animals, it would seem that a knowledge of the order of time in which
the two sexes became divested of their natural covering would serve as
a hint to indicate their relative stages of development. In a paper
read some years ago at a meeting of the Anthropological Institute
in London, Miss Bird (Mrs. Bishop) the well-known traveller, gave a
description of the Ainos, a race of people found chiefly in the island
of Yezo, and who, it is thought probable, were the original inhabitants
of Japan. The peculiarity of this people is, that the men are covered
with a thick coat of black hair. The women, we are told, “are not
hairy like the men,” but “have soft brown skins.” Upon this subject of
hairiness, Mr. Darwin says:

 As the body of woman is less hairy than that of man, and as this
 character is common to all races, we may conclude that it was our
 female semi-human ancestors who were first divested of hair, and that
 this occurred at an extremely remote period before the several races
 had diverged from a common stock.

After our female ancestors had acquired the new character, nudity, they
must have transmitted it to their own sex, and by continually selecting
their mates from among the least hairy, in process of time males too
would become divested of their animal covering. Whether or not our
semi-human ancestors were subjected to the scorching heat of the torrid
zone, nudity must have been better suited to their improved condition,
not wholly, however, because of its greater beauty and comfort, but
because it was a condition better suited to cleanliness; and, as the
hairy coat had become a useless appendage, or was not necessary to
their changed conditions, it disappeared from the bodies of females,
while doubtless for ages it was retained upon the bodies of males. That
hairiness denotes a low stage of development, Mr. Darwin incautiously
admits, yet in dealing with this subject he is not disposed to
carry his admission to its legitimate conclusion by treating its
appearance on the body of man as a test in determining the comparative
development of the female and male organisms.

Idiots, who, by the way, are more numerous among males than among
females, are frequently covered with hair, and by the acquirement of
other characters more often revert to lower animal types. Mr. Darwin
assures us that around sores of long standing stiff hairs are liable to
appear, thus showing that hair on the body is indicative of undeveloped
tissues and low constitutional conditions. The same writer, however,
does not neglect to inform us that the loss of man’s hairy covering
was rather an injury to him than otherwise; but whether or not the
diminution in the quality of prehension in his toes, the loss of
his canines, and the disappearance of his tail have likewise proved
detrimental to him, Mr. Darwin fails to state.

The fact that throughout the vertebrate kingdom males possess
rudiments of the various parts appertaining to the reproductive system
which properly belong to females, is regarded as evidence that some
remote progenitor of this kingdom must have been hermaphrodite, or
androgynous, especially as it has been ascertained that at a very early
embryonic period both sexes possess true male and female glands. As
high in the scale of life as the mammalian class, males are said to
possess rudiments of a uterus, while at the same time mammary glands
are plainly manifest; which fact would seem to show that in the high
state of development indicated by this great class, male organs have
not through the processes of differentiation become specialized for the
performance of their legitimate functions. In reference to the subject
of atavism Mr. Darwin cites as a case of reversion to a former type, an
instance in which a man was the possessor of two pairs of mammæ.

It is true that instances have been observed in which characters
peculiar to males have been developed in females. This phenomenon,
however, seldom appears among individuals of the higher orders, and
among the lower forms of life where it occurs, it is always manifested
under low circumstances of nutrition or in cases of old age, disease,
or loss of vitality. Instances are cited in which hens, after they have
become old or diseased, have taken on characters peculiar to males.

In all “old-settled” countries women are in excess of men, and this
is true, notwithstanding the fact that more boys are born than girls.
Regarding the excess of the male over female births, Mr. Darwin quotes
from Professor Faye, who says:

 A still greater preponderance of males would be met with, if death
 struck both sexes in equal proportion in the womb and during birth.
 But the fact is, that for every one hundred still-born females, we
 have in several countries from 134.6 to 144.9 still-born males.[35] #/
 Statistics show that during the first four or five years of life, more
 male children die than female.

[35] _The Descent of Man_, 1887, p. 243.

Although whenever throughout Mr. Darwin’s _Descent of Man_ he has been
pleased to deal with the subject of structural variations, he has
given us to understand that they are injurious to the constitution,
and although he has shown that their appearance is much more frequent
in men than in women, yet he does not seem to realize whither his
admissions are leading him. He has proved by seemingly well-established
facts that the female organism is freer from imperfections than the
male, and therefore that it is less liable to derangements; also, that
being more highly specialized, it is less susceptible to injury under
unfavourable conditions; yet, in attempting to explain the reason
why so many more male than female infants succumb to the exigencies
of birth, he expresses the opinion that the size of the body and
“especially of the head” being greater in males, they would be “more
liable to be injured during parturition.”

Among the reasons urged by Mr. Darwin to account for the excess of
women over men in all “old-settled” countries, is that of the exposure
of grown men to various dangers, and their tendency to emigrate.
Doubtless there is more emigration among men than among women, still
men do not usually emigrate to a wilderness and rarely to sparsely
settled countries. When men emigrate from one civilized country, they
usually go to another civilized country; yet in all old-settled
countries women are in excess of men. While the dangers to which men
are exposed because of their greater physical activity have been many,
and the accidents liable to occur from their harder struggle for
existence more numerous than those to which women have been subjected,
still it would seem that the danger to female life, incident to the
artificial relations of the sexes under our present semi-civilized
conditions, is more than an offset for that to which men are liable.

The fact must be borne in mind, however, that the diseases and
physical disabilities of women, at the present time, although
dangerous to health and life, are not organic, and will therefore
disappear as soon as through higher conditions they are allowed the
free expression of their own will in matters pertaining to the sexual
relation. As the diseases peculiar to the female constitution are not
caused by structural defects, but, on the contrary, are due to the
overstimulation of the animal instincts in her male mate, or, to the
disparity between her stage of development and his, they have not
materially injured her constitution nor shortened her average duration
of life, neither have they lessened her capacity for improvement.

With reference to the women of Greenland, Cranz says that while they

 remain with their parents they are well off; but from twenty years of
 age till death, their life is one series of anxieties, wretchedness,
 and toil, yet, in spite of all their cares, toils, and vexations the
 women commonly arrive at a greater age than the men.[36]

[36] _History of Greenland_, vol. i., p. 152.

That the imperfections of the male organism are already beginning
to interpose themselves between man and many of the occupations and
activities of advancing civilization, is only too apparent.

Sight, far more than any other sense, is the most intellectual,
yet in the development of the visual organs it has been proved
that men are especially deficient. Dr. Andrew Willson assures us
that “colour-blindness is a condition which is certainly capable
of transmission to the progeny. In one family the males alone were
affected through seven generations.”

In an examination which was carried on some years ago under the
supervision of Dr. Jeffries, among the pupils of the Boston schools, in
which were 14,469 boys and young men, and 13,458 girls and young women,
it was found that about one male in every twenty-five was colour-blind,
while the same defect among the girls and young women was extremely
rare, only 0.066 per cent. of them being thus affected.[37]

[37] _Pop. Science Monthly_, vol. xix., p. 567.

At a convention held in the city of Chicago for the purpose of
organizing an association for educational reform, the teacher of
drawing in the St. Paul schools made a statement that “four per cent.
of all male pupils were colour-blind, while only one-tenth of one per
cent. of female pupils were so affected.” No explanation was offered
for this strange fact; indeed, it was pronounced a mystery, “even
oculists and surgeons having given it up as impenetrable.”

That defective vision is beginning to interfere with the activities
of men, is shown by the fact that in many instances, in later times,
colour tests have been required to determine fitness of applicants for
positions in various departments of commercial enterprise. In this
country, during the last fifty years, much attention has been given
to the subject of visual defects in seamen, railroadmen, and other
persons occupying positions of responsibility in which unimpaired
vision is an important qualification. In response to a request sent by
the German Government through its minister to the Surgeon-General of
the United States Army, for statistical and other information on the
subject of colour-blindness, Mr. Charles E. Pugh, General Manager of
the Pennsylvania Railroad, in September, 1884, sent to William Thomson,
M.D., surgical expert for the same company, the following statement:

  Total number examined on lines east of Erie  25,158
  Colour-blind                                    481
  Defective vision                                661

Of this report Dr. Thomson says:

 The apparently small percentage of colour-blind in this table may be
 ascribed to the non-application of men who knew their deficiency,
 and to the fact that men in the service, knowing their defect, would
 leave the road before examination, and thus escape detection, and be
 enabled to gain employment on other roads where no examinations are
 required.[38]

[38] _Pop. Science Monthly_, vol. xxxi., p. 796.

In several departments of the national government, attempts have been
made to guard against the dangers resulting from imperfect sight. In
the examination of recruits, the War Department at Washington, some
years ago, issued orders that bits of coloured pasteboard, or “test
cards” be used for determining the power of individuals to distinguish
objects at a distance, while worsteds of various hues were employed
to ascertain their ability to distinguish colour. In the Treasury and
Naval Departments were ordered similar examinations, in which the power
to distinguish colour was a necessary qualification in the case of all
persons seeking employment therein.

In the examinations ordered by navigation and railroad companies to
protect themselves and the public against disaster resulting from
imperfect vision in their employees, tests have been made. Among
the requirements imposed by law, applying to engineers, brakemen,
and firemen, in the State of Connecticut, are the following:
“Unobstructed visual field, normal visual acuteness, and freedom from
colour-blindness.”

If Dr. Jeffries’s investigation in the Boston public schools and the
report of the officers of the Pennsylvania Railroad are to serve
as a criterion in judging of the extent to which impaired vision
is developed in men, or if among them one in every twenty-five is
defective in the colour sense, the inference seems unavoidable that the
proportion of them unfitted for railroad and steamboat service, for
military duty, and for various important government positions, must be
large. Hence, by these tests alone may be observed something of the
extent to which, under the higher conditions which are approaching, the
imperfect development in men of this one organ (the eye) may cripple
their energies and check those activities which, in many instances, are
best suited to their tastes and inclinations.

Nor is this defective vision developed in men a peculiarity which
is confined within the limits of our own country. In Europe,
investigations analogous to those instituted in America have been
followed by the same or similar results. Until a comparatively recent
time this subject has received little or no attention, for the reason
that the processes of civilization and the various activities of life
have not, hitherto, demanded a correct or highly developed colour
sense; but with the requirements of more highly civilized conditions,
in vocations demanding more diversified and complicated physical
and mental activities, it is plain that man, because of this organic
imperfection, must labour under continuous disadvantages. Then add
to defective vision his lack of physical endurance, his liability
to various organic affections caused by structural defects, and
his abnormal appetites which are constantly demanding for their
gratification the things which are injurious to his mental and physical
constitution, and we are enabled to judge, to some extent, of the
obstacles against which, in the struggle for existence, the future man
will find himself obliged to contend.

Not only is man’s sense of sight less perfectly developed than is
woman’s, but his sense of touch is less acute. The hand, directed as it
is by the brain, is the most completely differentiated member of the
human structure. It may almost be said of the hand, that it assists the
brain in performing its functions. The female hand, however, is capable
of delicate distinctions which the male has no means of determining. A
dispatch from Washington says of the women of the Treasury Department:

 So superior is their skill in handling paper money that they
 accomplish results that would be utterly unattainable without them. It
 has been found by long experience that a counterfeit may go through
 half the banks in the country without being detected, until it comes
 back, often torn and mutilated, into the hands of the Treasury women.
 Then it is certain of detection. They shut their eyes and feel of a
 note if they suspect it. If it feels wrong, in half a minute they
 point out the incongruities of the counterfeit.

Although throughout the ascending scale of life, the female has
been expending all her energy in the performance of her legitimate
functions—functions which, as we have seen, are of a higher order than
those performed by the male, through causes which will be discussed
farther on in these pages, within the later centuries of human
existence—she has been temporarily overcome by the destructive forces
developed in the opposite sex, forces which are without the line of
true development, and which through overstimulation and encouragement
have overleaped the bounds of normal activity, and have therefore
become disruptive and injurious.

During the past five thousand years, woman’s reproductive functions
have been turned into means of subsistence, and under the peculiar
circumstances of her environment, her “struggle for existence” has
involved physical processes far more disastrous to life and health
than are those to which man has been subjected. Owing to the peculiar
condition of woman’s environment, there has been developed within her
more delicate and sensitive organism an alarming degree of functional
nervousness; yet, with the gradual broadening of her sphere of
activity, and the greater exercise of personal rights, this tendency
to nervous derangement is gradually becoming lessened. That there is
reserve force in woman sufficient to overcome the evil results of the
supremacy of the animal instincts during the last five thousand or six
thousand years of human existence, from present indications seems more
than likely.

Commenting on the subject of nervousness, and the degree in which it
is manifested in civilized countries, and especially among civilized
women, Dr. Beard says:

 Women, with all their nervousness—and, in civilized lands, women are
 more nervous, immeasurably, than men, and suffer more from general
 and special nervous diseases—yet live quite as long as men, if not
 somewhat longer; their greater nervousness and far greater liability
 to functional diseases of the nervous system being compensated for
 by their smaller liability to acute and inflammatory disorders, and
 various organic nervous diseases, likewise, such as the general
 paralysis of insanity.[39]

[39] _American Nervousness_, p. 207.

According to Maudsley women “seldom suffer from general paralysis.”
This disease is frequently inherited, and is sometimes the result of
alcoholic and other excesses.[40]

[40] Maudsley, _Physiology and Pathology of the Mind_, p. 360.

Regarding the dangers to which women are exposed by excessive and
useless maternity, Dr. Beard remarks:

 The large number of cases of laceration at childbirth and the
 prolonged and sometimes even life-enduring illness resulting
 from them, are good reasons for the terror which the processes of
 parturition inspires in the minds of American women today.

However, that the dangers incident to parturition, and the excessive
nervousness which characterizes civilized women, are not necessary
adjuncts of civilization, but, on the contrary, are a result of the
unchecked disruptive forces developed in man, and the consequent drain
on the vital energies of woman, will be seen, so soon as through the
cultivation of the higher faculties developed in and transmitted
through females, the lower nature of males has finally been brought
within its legitimate bounds.




CHAPTER IV

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL INSTINCTS AND THE MORAL SENSE


Man is pre-eminently a social animal. He seeks companionship and
depends largely upon his fellows for security and happiness. Nor is
this dependence upon others confined to the human species. Association,
or combination of interests, is manifested throughout the entire
organic scale.

From Mr. Darwin’s reasoning it is evident that he regards association
as the basic principle underlying progress. He also thinks that
combination is impossible without sympathy or a desire for the welfare
of others outside of self. He is certain that associated animals have a
feeling of affection for the group and that “they sympathize with one
another in times of distress and danger.”[41]

[41] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 102.

This writer thinks that an animal like the gorilla, which possessing
great size and strength is able to defend itself against all its
enemies, would not become social and therefore would be unable to
advance. And this too, notwithstanding the fact that such an animal has
already developed pugnacity, courage, and perseverance, the characters
which are regarded as the source of the remarkable mental endowment of
man.

We have seen that the greater size of the male is the result of Sexual
Selection and is therefore a secondary sexual character. “All the
secondary sexual characters of man are highly variable.”[42] In dealing
with this subject we must not lose sight of the fact that variability
denotes low organization. It shows that the organs of the body have not
become specialized to perform their legitimate functions.

[42] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 559.

Among monogamous animals difference in size between the sexes is
slight, but among polygamous species the male is considerably larger
than the female, this difference being correlated with numerous
variations of structure.

Among early races males were considerably in excess of females so it
was customary for the former to fight desperately to win the favour
of the latter in much the same manner as their animal progenitors had
fought to secure their mates. These struggles were enacted in the
presence of the females, they always choosing the strongest and best
endowed leaving the weaker and uglier members of the group unmated
and therefore unable to propagate their misfortunes. This exercise of
choice by the female in pairing is the primary fact in the history of
human progress. The appalling effects of the withdrawal from women of
this fundamental prerogative will be referred to later in these pages.

That pugnacity, courage, and perseverance are the result of man’s
strong sexual nature is shown wherever this subject is touched upon in
_The Descent of Man_. Special attention is directed to the fact that
eunuchs are deficient in these qualities.

That the greater size and strength of the male, together with courage,
pugnacity, and perseverance, have been of great value to him in
deciding the contests between rivals in courtship is quite true. It is
clear, however, that these characters are in no wise responsible for
the origin and development of the higher faculties. Even Mr. Darwin’s
premises, when carried to their legitimate conclusions, furnish
sufficient evidence to prove that the social instincts and the moral
sense have been developed quite independently of these characters.

According to the reasoning of the savants it is only through that
specialization of organs which has resulted in the separation of the
sex elements, and the consequent division of functions, that the social
instincts have originated, and that it is to processes involved in such
specialization, or differentiation, that the higher faculties and the
moral sense have arisen. It is indeed plain from their reasoning that
matter, or perhaps I should say the force inherent in matter, had to be
raised to a certain dynamic order before the peculiar quality of brain
and nerve necessary for the development of these faculties could be
manifested through it.

 As there are different kinds of matter, so there are different modes
 of force, in the universe; and as we rise from the common physical
 matter in which physical laws hold sway up to chemical matter and
 chemical forces, and from chemical matter again up to living matter
 and its modes of force, so do we rise in the scale of life from
 the lowest kind of living matter with its corresponding force or
 energy, through different kinds of histological elements, with their
 corresponding energies or functions, up to the highest kind of living
 matter and corresponding mode of force with which we are acquainted,
 viz., nerve element and nerve force. But, when we have got to nerve
 element and nerve force, it behooves us not to rest content with the
 general idea, but to trace, with attentive discrimination, through
 the nervous system the different kinds of nervous cells, and their
 different manifestations of energy. So also shall we obtain the
 groundwork for a true conception of the relations of mind and the
 nervous system.[43]

[43] Maudsley, _Physiology and Pathology of the Mind_, p. 60.

We have seen that the nervous system not only regulates most of the
existing functions of the body, but that it has indirectly influenced
the development of various bodily structures and certain mental
qualities, and that these powers of mind depend on the development of
the brain.

By our guides in this matter, we are assured that the most important
difference observed between man and the lower animals is the
conscience; hence, if we would understand how it has been possible for
man to rise to his present position, we must know something of the
processes involved in the development of the social instincts, through
which have originated conscience and a desire for the welfare of others
outside of self. The importance of these instincts in the development
of conscience is thus set forth by Mr. Darwin:

 Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the
 parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably
 acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual
 faculties had become as well, or nearly as well, developed as in man.

Sympathy, we are told, is the foundation-stone of the social instincts.
From facts which are everywhere presented among the forms of life
below man, it is evident that sympathy was developed at an early stage
of animal life. It is doubtless strongly manifested in our ape-like
progenitors, and it was probably this instinct which subsequently led
to a community of interest and the coherence of the tribe.

In a consideration, therefore, of this question of sex development
and the origin of the progressive principle, if, as we are assured,
sympathy constitutes the foundation-stone of the social instincts,
and if it is to these instincts that we are to look for the origin
of the moral sense, or conscience— a faculty which constitutes the
fundamental difference between the human species and the lower orders
of life—the question naturally arises: In which of the two diverging
lines of sexual demarcation has arisen sympathy, or an interest in
the well-being of others? For an answer to our question we must look
carefully to the facts connected with the development of the sexes
within one of which have been acquired characters tending toward the
welfare of society, or of individuals outside of self; within the
other, characters looking only toward selfish gratification. Within the
former, the maternal instinct predominates; within the latter, passion.

Mr. Darwin admits that “parental and filial affection lies at the base
of the social instincts,” and gives as his opinion that this quality is
the result of Natural Selection—that those individuals which bestowed
upon their offspring the greatest care and attention, would survive
and multiply at the expense of others in which this instinct was less
developed. Therefore, in pursuing the inquiry of sex-function and
sex-development, a question of considerable significance is at this
point suggested: Within which parent is observed the greater tendency
to bestow care and attention upon offspring?

We are assured that “the animal family is especially maternal.” So
soon as a female bird has laid her eggs, she is animated only by one
desire; neither the promise of abundant food nor the fear of bullets
is able to divert her purpose. Although the males among the more highly
developed birds assist in rearing the family, amongst various species
it is only the female which cares for the young. The male duck has
no interest in his progeny, neither has the male eider. Of the male
turkeys Mr. Letourneau says that they

 do much worse: they often devour the eggs of their females, and
 thus oblige the latter to hide them. Female turkeys join each other
 with their young ones for greater security, and thus form troops of
 from sixty to eighty individuals, led by the mothers, and carefully
 avoiding the old males, who rush on the young ones and kill them by
 violent blows on the head with their beaks.[44]

[44] _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 29.

The males of various other species, jealous of the attentions of the
mothers during the time that their efforts are directed toward the
maintenance of their brood, often kill their young. Regarding the
subject of paternal care, Mr. Letourneau observes: “It is important to
notice that amongst birds, the fathers devoid of affection generally
belong to the less intelligent, and are most often polygamous.”

By observing the habits of cuckoos the fact has been ascertained
that among them the maternal instinct is almost entirely lacking.
Of the cuckoo it has been remarked that it is a “discontented,
ill-conditioned, passionate, in short, decidedly unamiable bird.” Its
note is typical of its habits and character.

 The same abruptness, insatiability, eagerness, the same rage,
 are noticeable in its whole conduct. The cuckoos are notoriously
 unsociable, even in migration individualistic. They jealously guard
 their territorial “preserves,” and verify in many ways the old myth
 that they are sparrow-hawks in disguise. The parasitic habit is
 consonant with their general character.

 The species consist predominantly of males. The preponderance is
 probably about five to one; though one observer makes it five times
 greater. In so male a species, it is not surprising to find degenerate
 maternal instincts.[45]

[45] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, p. 276.

Regarding spiders and the greater number of insects, we are told that
the males entirely neglect their young; it is

 in the female that the care for offspring first awakens. And this is
 natural, for the eggs have been formed in her body; she has laid them,
 and has been conscious of them; they form, in a way, an integral part
 of her individuality.... With insects maternal forethought sometimes
 amounts to a sort of divining prescience which the doctrine of
 evolution alone can explain.[46]

[46] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 22.

Among the males of mammals below man the love of offspring seems to be
almost entirely wanting.

 We must here remark, that whatever the form of sexual association
 among mammals, the male has always much less affection for his young
 than the female. Even in monogamous species, when the male keeps with
 the female, he does so more as chief than as father. At times he is
 inclined to commit infanticide and to destroy the offspring, which, by
 absorbing all the attention of his female, 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.[47]

[47] _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 34.

The fact is obvious that among the orders of life below man but little
paternal affection has been developed, and with a more extended
knowledge of the past history of the human race comes the assurance
that under earlier conditions of society, and in fact, until a
comparatively recent time, little notice was taken of the paternal
relation—that kinship and all the rights of succession were reckoned
through the mother. In other words, motherhood was the primary bond by
which society was bound together.

Although under higher conditions of civilized life, males have at
length come to manifest much interest in the well-being of their
offspring, yet that paternal affection is not a primary instinct
is shown by the fact that such interest, even at the present time,
extends only to those individuals born in wedlock. Men are solicitous
only for the welfare of those who are to succeed to their names and
fortunes; hence, although in later times the paternal instinct has been
considerably re-enforced, it is plain that the interest of fathers for
their offspring has in the past been largely the result of custom,
association, pride, desire for self-perpetuation or duplication, or
some other form of self-aggrandizement.

Mr. Darwin says: “The feeling of pleasure from society is probably
an extension of the parental or filial affections, since the social
instinct seems to be developed by the young remaining for a long time
with their parents.”[48] Although Mr. Darwin does not admit it, from
his reasoning it is plain that the maternal instinct is the root
whence sympathy has sprung, and that it is the source whence the
cohesive quality in the tribe originated. Regarding the importance of
association or combination in early groups Mr. Darwin remarks:

[48] _The Descent of Man_, p. 105.

 When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came
 into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe
 included a great number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful
 members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid
 and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the
 other.... Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without
 coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities
 would spread and be victorious over other tribes.... Thus the social
 and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused
 throughout the world.[49]

[49] _The Descent of Man_, p. 130.

Since, then, it has been proved by scientists that without an
association of interests and the coherence of the tribe the social
instincts must have remained weak, and since it has been shown by them
that without concerted action the higher faculties, including the moral
sense, could not have been developed; and since, furthermore, the
influences which have led to this development are those growing out of
the maternal instincts, may we not conclude that all of those qualities
which make man pre-eminently a social animal—his love of society, his
desire for the good-will of his kind, his perception of right and
wrong, and, finally, that sympathy which at last gradually extending
beyond the limits of race and country proclaims the brotherhood of man
and the unity of life on the earth—all these characteristics, are but
an extension of maternal affection, an outgrowth of that early bond
between mother and child, which, while affecting the entire line of
development, still remains unchanged and unchangeable.




CHAPTER V

THE SUPREMACY OF THE MALE


An unprejudiced review of the facts relative to the differentiation
of the two sexes, as set forth by naturalists, reveals not only the
primary principles involved in human progress, but shows also the
source whence these principles originated. These facts serve also to
explain that “mental superiority” of man over woman observed by Mr.
Darwin and others in the present stage of human growth.

Notwithstanding the superior degree of development which, according
to the facts elaborated by scientists, must belong to the female in
all the orders of life below mankind, Mr. Darwin would have us believe
that so soon as the human species appeared on the earth the processes
which for untold ages had been in operation were reversed, and that
through courage and perseverance, or patience, qualities which were
the result of extreme selfishness, or which were acquired while in
pursuit of animal gratification, man finally became superior to woman.
The following furnishes an example of Mr. Darwin’s reasoning upon this
subject. He says:

 The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes
 is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he
 takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or
 imagination, or merely the use of the senses and the hands. If two
 lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting,
 sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance),
 history, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject,
 the two lists would not bear comparison....

 Now, when two men are put into competition, or a man with a woman,
 both possessed of every mental quality in equal perfection, save
 that one has higher energy, perseverance, and courage, the latter
 will generally become more eminent in every pursuit, and will gain
 the ascendency. He may be said to possess genius—for genius has been
 declared by a great authority to be patience; and patience, in this
 sense, means unflinching, undaunted perseverance.[50]

[50] _The Descent of Man_, p. 564.

Doubtless, for the purpose of strengthening his position, Mr. Darwin
quotes the following from John Stuart Mill: “The things in which man
most excels woman are those which require most plodding and long
hammering at single thoughts.” And in summing up the processes by which
man has finally gained the ascendency over woman he concludes:

 Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed,
 fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both
 sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would
 have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock
 is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.[51]

[51] _The Descent of Man_, p. 565.

Notwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. Darwin, in view of the facts
elaborated by himself, we cannot help thinking that it is indeed
fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to
both sexes prevails with mammals, otherwise it is probable that man
would never have had any higher ambition than the gratification of his
animal instincts, and would never have risen above those conditions in
which he struggled desperately for the possession of the female. All
the facts which have been observed relative to the acquirement of the
social instincts and the moral sense prove them to have originated in
the female constitution, and as progress is not possible without these
characters, it is not difficult to determine within which of the sexes
the progressive principle first arose. Even courage, perseverance,
and energy, characters which are denominated as thoroughly masculine,
since they are the result of Sexual Selection, have been and still are
largely dependent on the will or choice of the female.

In his zeal to prove the superiority of man over woman, and while
emphasizing energy, perseverance, and courage as factors in
development, Mr. Darwin seems to have overlooked the importance of
the distinctive characters belonging to the female organism, viz.,
perception and intuition, combined with greater powers of endurance,
the first two of which, under the low conditions occasioned by the
supremacy of the animal instincts, have thus far had little opportunity
to manifest themselves. A fairer statement relative to the capacities
of the two sexes and their ability to succeed might have been set forth
as follows:

When a man and a woman are put in competition, both possessed of
every mental quality in equal perfection, save that one has higher
energy, more patience, and a somewhat greater degree of physical
courage, while the other has superior powers of intuition, finer and
more rapid perceptions, and a greater degree of endurance (the result
of an organism freer from imperfections), the chances of the latter
for gaining the ascendency will doubtless be equal to those of the
former as soon as the animal conditions of life are outgrown, and the
characters peculiar to the female constitution are allowed expression.
Mr. Darwin’s quotation from J. Stuart Mill, that the things in which
man excels woman are those which require most plodding and long
hammering at single thoughts, is evidently true, and corresponds with
the fundamental premises in the theory of development as set forth
by all naturalists. The female organism is not a plodding machine,
neither is the telephone nor the telegraph, yet these latter devices
accomplish the work formerly done by the stagecoach much more rapidly,
and in a manner better suited to civilized conditions. So soon as women
are freed from the unnatural restrictions placed upon them through the
temporary predominance of the animal instincts in man, their greater
powers of endurance, together with a keener insight and an organism
comparatively free from imperfections, will doubtless give them a
decided advantage in the struggle for existence. While patience is
doubtless a virtue, and while during the past ages of human experience
it has been of incalculable value to man, it will not, under higher
conditions, be required in competing for the prizes of life.

Woman’s rapid perceptions, and her intuitions which in many instances
amount almost to second sight, indicate undeveloped genius, and
partake largely of the nature of deductive reasoning; it is reasonable
to suppose therefore that as soon as she is free, and has for a few
generations enjoyed the advantages of more natural methods of education
and training, and those better suited to the female constitution, she
will be able to trace the various processes of induction by which she
reaches her conclusions. She will then be able to reason inductively up
to her deductive conceptions.

The worthlessness of Mr. Darwin’s comparison between men and women in
performing the various activities of life is already clearly apparent.
Although less than half a century has elapsed since _The Descent
of Man_ was written women are already successfully competing with
men in nearly all the walks of life both high and low, and this too
notwithstanding the fact that these occupations have heretofore been
regarded as belonging exclusively to men. We have seen that Mr. Darwin
mentions music as a vocation in which man’s superiority over woman is
manifested, yet already in the United States, there is not one male
musician who would be willing to match his skill against that of any
one of the four best woman performers.

It is a well understood fact that neither individuals nor classes
which upon every hand have been thwarted and restrained, either by
unjust and oppressive laws, or by the tyranny of custom, prejudice, or
physical force, have ever made any considerable progress in the actual
acquirement of knowledge or in the arts of life. Mr. Darwin’s capacity
for collecting and formulating facts seems not to have materially aided
him in discerning the close connection existing at this stage of human
progress between the masculinized conditions of human society and the
necessary opportunities to succeed in the higher walks of life; in
fact, he seems to have forgotten that all the avenues to success have
for thousands of years been controlled and wholly manipulated by men,
while the activities of women have been distorted and repressed in
order that the “necessities” of the male nature might be provided for.
Besides, it seems never to have occurred to him that as man has still
not outgrown the animal in his nature, and as the intellectual and
moral age is only just beginning to dawn, the time is not yet ripe for
the direct expression of the more refined instincts and ideas peculiar
to the female organism, and, as thus far, only that advancement
has been made which is compatible with the supremacy of the lower
instincts, woman’s time has not yet come.

Although women are still in possession of their natural inheritance, a
finer and more complex organism comparatively free from imperfections,
and although, as a result of this inheritance, their intuitions
are still quicker, their perceptions keener, and their endurance
greater, the drain on their physical energies, caused by the abnormal
development of the reproductive energies in the opposite sex, has,
during the ages of man’s dominion over her, been sufficient to preclude
the idea of success in competing with men for the prizes of life.
Although an era of progress has begun, ages will doubtless be required
to eradicate abuses which are the result of constitutional defects, and
especially so as the prejudices and feelings of mankind are for the
most part in harmony with such abuses.

If we examine the subject of female apparel, at the present time, we
shall observe how difficult it is to uproot long-established prejudices
which are deeply rooted in sensuality and superstition; and this is
true notwithstanding the fact that such prejudices may involve the
comfort and even the health of half the people, and seriously affect
the welfare of unborn generations. An examination of the influences
which have determined the course of modern fashions in woman’s clothing
will show the truth of this observation.

Of all the senses which have been developed, that of sight is
undoubtedly the most refined, and when in the human species it is
cultivated to a degree which enables its possessor to appreciate the
beautiful in Nature and in Art, we are perhaps justified in designating
it as the intellectual sense. In point of refinement, the sense of
hearing comes next in order, yet among creatures as low in the scale of
being as birds, we find that females not only appreciate the beautiful,
but that they are charmed by pleasing and harmonious sounds, and that
if males would win their favour it must be accomplished by appeals
through these senses to the higher qualities developed within them.

Although the female of the human species, like the female among the
lower orders of life, is capable of appreciating fine colouring, and
to a considerable extent the beautiful in form, the style of dress
adopted by women is not an expression of their natural ideas of taste
and harmony. On the contrary, it is to Sexual Selection that we must
look for an explanation of the incongruities and absurdities presented
by the so-called female fashions of the past and present. The processes
of Sexual Selection, which, so long as the female was the controlling
agency in courtship, worked on the male, have in these later ages been
reversed. For the reason that the female of the human species has so
long been under subjection to the male, the styles of female dress and
adornment which have been adopted, and which are still in vogue, are
largely the result of masculine taste. Woman’s business in life has
been to marry, or, at least, it has been necessary for her, in order
to gain her support, to win the favour of the opposite sex. She must,
therefore, by her charms, captivate the male.

With the progress of civilization and since women as economic and
sexual slaves have become dependent upon men for their support, no male
biped has been too stupid, too ugly, or too vicious to take to himself
a mate and perpetuate his imperfections. This unchecked freedom of the
male to multiply his defects is responsible for present conditions.

As for thousands of years women have been dependent on men not only
for food and clothing but for the luxuries of life as well, it is
not singular that in the struggle for life to which they have been
subjected they should have adopted the styles of dress which would
be likely to secure to them the greatest amount of success. When we
remember that the present ideas of becomingness or propriety in woman’s
apparel are the result of ages of sensuality and servitude, it is not
remarkable that they are difficult to uproot, and especially so as many
of the most pernicious and health-destroying styles involve questions
of female decorum as understood by a sensualized age.

Mr. Darwin calls attention to the fact that women “all over the world”
adorn themselves with the gay feathers of male birds. Since the
beautiful plumage of male birds has been produced according to female
standards of taste, and since it is wholly the result of innate female
ideas of harmony in colour and design, it is not perhaps remarkable
that women, recognizing the original female standards of beauty, should
desire to utilize those effects which have been obtained at so great
an expenditure of vital force to the opposite sex, especially as men
are pleased with such display, and, as under present conditions of male
supremacy, the female of the human species is obliged to captivate the
male in order to secure her support.

Ever since the dominion of man over woman began a strict censorship
over her dress has been maintained. Although in very recent times women
are beginning to exercise a slight degree of independence in the matter
of clothes, still, because of existing prejudices and customs they have
not yet been able to adopt a style of dress which admits of the free
and unrestricted use of the body and limbs. It is believed that woman,
the natural tempter of man, if left to her own sinful devices, would
again as of old attempt to destroy that inherent purity of heart and
cleanliness of life which characterize the male constitution. Woman’s
ankles and throat seem to be the most formidable foes against which
innocent man has to contend, so the concealment of these offending
members is deemed absolutely necessary for his protection and safety.
Ecclesiastics, a class whose duty it has ever been to regulate and
control the movements of women, seem to think that the ankles and
throats of women were intended not for the use and convenience of their
possessors but as snares to entrap holy men.

It would thus appear that the present fashions for female apparel have
a deeper significance than we have been in the habit of ascribing
to them. We are still living under conditions peculiar to a sensual
age, and have not yet outgrown the requirements which condemn women
to a style of dress which hinders the free movements of the body and
which checks all the activities of life. In one way the woman of the
present time may be said to resemble the male Argus pheasant, whose
decorations, although they serve to please his mate, greatly hinder his
power of motion and the free use of his body and limbs.

When we consider that apparel is but one, and a minor one, of the
strictures under which women have laboured during the later era of
human existence and when we consider all the ignoble and degrading uses
to which womanhood has been subjected, the wonder is not that women
have failed in the past to distinguish themselves in the various fields
of intellectual labour in which men have achieved a limited degree of
success, but that they have had sufficient energy and courage left to
enable them even to attempt anything so far outside the boundary of
their prescribed “sphere,” or that they have been able to transmit to
their male offspring those powers through which they have gained their
present stage of progress.

With regard to Mr. Darwin’s comparison of the intellectual powers of
the two sexes, and his assertion that man attains to a higher eminence
in whatever he takes up than woman—that, for instance, he surpasses her
in the production of poetry, music, philosophy, etc., the facts at hand
suggest that if within mankind no higher motives and tastes had been
developed than those derived from selfishness and passion, there would
never have arisen a desire for poetry, music, philosophy, or science,
or, in fact, for any of the achievements which have been the result of
the more exalted activities of the human intellect. However, because
of the subjection of the higher faculties developed in mankind, the
poetry, music, and painting of the past betray their sensuous origin
and plainly reveal the stage of advancement which has been reached,
while history, philosophy, and even science, judging from Mr. Darwin’s
methods, have not yet wholly emerged from the murky atmosphere of a
sensuous age.

It will be well for us to remember that the doctrine of the Survival
of the Fittest does not imply that the best endowed, physically or
otherwise, have always succeeded in the struggle for existence.
By the term Survival of the Fittest we are to understand a natural
law by means of which those best able to overcome the unfavourable
conditions of their environment survive and are able to propagate their
successful qualities. We must bear in mind that neither the growth of
the individual nor that of society has proceeded in an unbroken or
uninterrupted line; on the contrary, during a certain portion of human
existence on the earth, the forces which tend toward degeneration have
been stronger than whose which lie along the line of true development.

We are assured that the principles of construction and destruction are
mutually employed in the reproductive processes, that continuous death
means continuous life,—the katabolic or disruptive tendencies of the
male being necessary to the anabolic or constructive habits of the
female. As it is in reproduction, so has it been through the entire
course of development. Side by side, all along the line, these two
tendencies have been in operation; the grinding, rending, and devouring
processes which we denominate Natural Selection, alongside those which
unite, assimilate, and protect. As a result of the separation of the
sexes there have been developed on the one side extreme egoism, or
the desire for selfish gratification; on the other, altruism, or a
desire for the welfare of others outside of self. Hence, throughout
the later ages of human existence, since the egoistic principles
have gained the ascendency, may be observed the unequal struggle for
liberty and justice, against tyranny, and the oppressors of the masses
of the human race. From present appearances it would seem, that the
disruptive or devouring forces have always been in the ascendency.
The philosophy of history however, teaches the contrary. With a
broader view of the origin and development of the human race, and the
unexpected light which within the last few years has been thrown upon
prehistoric society and the grandeur of past achievement, a close
student of the past is able to discern a faint glimmering of a more
natural age of human existence, and is able to observe in the present
intense struggles for freedom and equality, an attempt to return to
the earlier and more natural principles of justice and liberty, and so
to advance to a stage of society in which selfishness, sensuality, and
superstition no longer reign supreme.

The status of women always furnishes an index to the true condition
of society, one or two superficial writers to the contrary
notwithstanding. For this phenomenon there is a scientific reason,
namely: society advances just in proportion as women are able to
convey to their offspring the progressive tendencies transmissible
only through the female organism. It is plain, therefore, that mankind
will never advance to a higher plane of thinking and living until the
restrictions upon the liberties of women have been entirely removed,
and until within every department of human activity, their natural
instincts, and the methods of thought peculiar to them be allowed
free expression. The following is from Mr. Buckle’s lecture on “The
Influence of Women on the Progress of Knowledge”:

 I believe and I hope before we separate to convince you, that so far
 from women exercising little or no influence over the progress of
 knowledge, they are capable of exercising, and have actually exercised
 an enormous influence; that this influence, is, in fact, so great that
 it is hardly possible to assign limits to it; and that great as it is,
 it may with advantage be still further increased. I hope, moreover,
 to convince you that this influence has been exhibited not merely
 from time to time in rare, sudden, and transitory ebullitions, but
 that it acts by virtue of certain laws inherent in human nature; and
 that, although it works as an undercurrent below the surface, and is
 therefore invisible to hasty observers, it has already produced the
 most important results, and has affected the shape, the character, and
 the amount of our knowledge.

Through the processes involved in the differentiation of sex and the
consequent division of functions, it has been possible during the past
six thousand or seven thousand years (a mere tithe of the time spent
by mankind upon the earth) for women to become enslaved, or subjected
to the lower impulses of the male nature. Through the capture of women
for wives, through the exigencies of warfare, the individual ownership
of land, and the various changes incident to a certain stage of human
existence, the finer sensibilities which characterize women have been
overshadowed, and the higher forces which originated within them
and which are transmitted in the female line, have been temporarily
subdued by the great sexual ardour inherent in the opposite sex; it is
not, therefore, singular that the degree of progress attained should
appear to be wholly the result of male activity and acumen. Yet,
notwithstanding the degradation to which women in the position assigned
them by physical force have been obliged to submit, their capacity for
improvement has suffered less from the influences and circumstances of
their environment than has that of men. As the higher faculties are
transmitted through women equally to both sexes, in the impoverishment
of their inheritance on the female side, men have suffered equally
with women, while, through their male progenitors, they have inherited
appetites and habits (the result of a ruder and less developed
structure) which weaken and degrade the entire constitution.

Doubtless, so soon as women have gained sufficient strength to enable
them to maintain their independence, and after the higher faculties
rather than the animal propensities rule supreme, men, through the
imperfections in their organism, and the appetites acquired through
these imperfections, will, for a considerable length of time, find
themselves weighted in the struggle for supremacy, and this, too, by
the very characters which under lower conditions are now believed to
have determined their success.

It is not unlikely, however, that through Sexual Selection the
characters or qualities unfavourable to the higher development of man
will in time be eliminated. The mother is the natural guardian and
protector of offspring; therefore, so soon as women are free they will
doubtless select for husbands only those men who, by their mental,
moral, and physical endowments are fitted to become the fathers of
their children. Only those women will become mothers who hope to secure
to their offspring immunity from the giant evils with which society
is afflicted. In this way, and this way only, may these evils be
eradicated.

Under purer conditions of life, when by the higher powers developed
in the race the animal propensities have become somewhat subdued by
man, we may reasonably hope that the “struggle for existence,” which
is still so relentlessly waged, will cease, that man will no longer
struggle with man for place or power, and that the bounties of earth
will no longer be hoarded by the few, while the many are suffering for
the necessities of life; for are we not all members of one family, and
dependent for all that we have on the same beneficent parent—Nature?

Although the two principles, the constructive and destructive, are
closely allied, the higher faculties have been acquired only through
the former—the highest degree of progress is possible only through
union or co-operation, or, through the uniting and binding force,
maternal love from which has been developed, first, sympathy among
related groups, and later an interest which is capable of extending
itself not only to all members of the human race, but to every sentient
creature. There is, therefore, little wonder that for thousands of
years of human existence, the female principle was worshipped over the
entire habitable globe as the source of all light and life—the Creator
and Preserver of the Universe.

We are only on the threshold of civilization. Mankind may as yet have
no just conception of their possibilities, but so soon as, through
the agencies now in operation for the advancement of the race, the
“necessities” of the male nature no longer demand and secure the
subjection of women and the consequent drain on the very fountain
whence spring the higher faculties, a great and unexpected impetus will
be given to progress.

The fact that a majority of women have not yet gained that freedom of
action necessary to the absolute control of their own persons, nor
acquired a sufficient degree of independence to enable them to adopt
a course of action in their daily life which they know to be right,
shows the extent to which selfishness, twin brother to sensuality,
has clouded the conscience and warped the judgment in all matters
pertaining to human justice. So closely has women’s environment been
guarded that in addition to all the restrictions placed upon their
liberties, a majority of them are still dependent for food and clothing
on pleasing the men, who still hold the purse-strings. Yet Mr. Darwin,
the apostle of original scientific investigation, concludes:

“If men are capable of decided prominence over women in many subjects,
the average mental powers in men must be above those of women.”




                                PART II

                          Prehistoric Society




CHAPTER I

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION


If the theory of the development of the human race, or more
particularly that of the two diverging lines of sex demarcation as set
forth in the foregoing chapters be correct, it is plain that by it a
new foundation is laid for the study of mankind.

If, contrary to the generally accepted idea, within the female organism
have been developed those elements which form the basis of human
progress, or, if the higher faculties are transmitted through the
mother, henceforth all examinations into primitive conditions and all
research into the causes which underlie existing institutions must
be carried on with reference to this particular fact. Only through
a thorough understanding of the principles or forces which govern
human development, and a just appreciation of the source whence these
principles have sprung, may we hope to gain a clear understanding
of the past history of the race, or to perceive the true course to
be pursued toward further development. Through the investigation of
facts revealed in the records of Geology, and through the study of
comparative Embryology and Anatomy, or through an understanding of
Zoölogy and Anthropology, man has well-nigh solved the problem of his
origin, or has almost proved his connection with and development from
the lower orders of life, but of the countless ages which intervened
between the era of our ape-like progenitors and the dawn of organized
society, little may be known without a correct knowledge of the
inheritance received by mankind from creatures lower in the scale of
being. Only by a careful study of the constitutional bias acquired
throughout the entire line of development, are we enabled to note the
motives or forces by which primitive society was controlled, or to form
a just conclusion relative to the early conditions of human society and
its subsequent progress.

Through the attention which in these later years has been directed
toward surviving tribes in the so-called middle and later stages of
savagery, and in the three successive periods of barbarism, have
doubtless been revealed many of the processes by which mankind have
reached their present condition. Much of the information, however,
which has been obtained by these inquiries still lacks that accuracy in
detail demanded by exact science; but, so soon as the array of facts
which the last half-century has brought to bear upon this subject shall
have been correctly interpreted, logically arranged, intelligently
classified, and without prejudice brought into line with the truths
involved in the theory of natural development, there will doubtless
be approximated a system of truth which will furnish a safe and
trustworthy foundation for a more thorough research into the history of
the human race.

Although the facts relative to existing undeveloped races, which
have been laid before the reading public through the patience and
industry of investigators in this particular branch of inquiry, have
been of incalculable value as furnishing a foundation for a correct
understanding of the origin of the customs, manners, ceremonies,
governments, languages, and systems of consanguinity and affinity of
a primitive race, and although without these efforts little knowledge
of the early history of mankind could be obtained, yet, as a majority
of the theories built upon these observations have been based on
long-established prejudices relative to the earliest conditions
surrounding human society and the forces by which it was controlled,
many false conclusions have been the inevitable result.

We have seen that owing to the ascendency which the masculine element
in human society gained during the period designated as the Latter
Status of barbarism, the popular ideas evolved since that time
concerning the origin and development of government, social usages,
religion, and law, have been in accordance with the then established
assumption that within the male organism lies not only the active,
aggressive element, but the progressive principle as well. It is
not, therefore, singular that at the present time all the lines of
investigation which are being directed toward man in a primitive state,
or which are being conducted for the avowed purpose of ascertaining the
successive steps by which our social, civil, and religious institutions
have been reared, should continue to be carried on under the _a priori_
assumption that the male organism is by nature superior to that of the
female.

As in all the theories relative to the development of species the
male is the principal factor, so in the theories brought forward to
explain the development of human institutions the female has played
only an insignificant part; but, as all later facts bearing upon this
subject furnish indisputable evidence of the early importance of the
female element, not only among the lower orders of life but under
earlier human conditions as well, we may reasonably expect from these
data the establishment, in the not distant future, of a complete chain
of evidence in support of a more rational and consistent theory of
development than has yet been put forth, not only of the origin of the
higher faculties, but of the organization of human society and the
growth of its various institutions.

As, hitherto, all the theories advanced relative to the evolution of
the human race and the establishment of society on a political and
territorial basis have been founded on preconceived notions of the
superiority of the characters peculiar to the male, it is believed, or
at least assumed, that the ascendency gained by man over woman during
the Latter Status of barbarism constitutes a regular, orderly, and
necessary step in the direct line of progress; and, as under masculine
supremacy, a certain degree of advancement has been possible, it is
assumed that the nobler animal, man, having gained the ascendency over
the weaker animal, woman, his progress in the future is to increase
in a sort of geometrical ratio, while she, still bound by physical
disabilities and weighted by the baneful effects of past limitations
and restrictions, must continue far in the rear of her better endowed
and more thoroughly equipped male mate. However, in this conception of
the facts of biology, woman is not left without a crumb of comfort;
for, in the forlorn and helpless condition to which it condemns her,
she is given to understand that if for many successive generations
girls be constantly trained in masculine methods, they may eventually
be able to admire, and possibly in a measure to comprehend, some of the
less stupendous mental achievements of their brothers; but, according
to the savants, any attempt on the part of women to compete with men in
the higher walks of life must result in increased physical weakness, in
the immediate degeneration of the female sex, and in disaster and ruin
to the entire race.

When we remember that investigations into the conditions surrounding
primitive society have for the most part been conducted under the
influence of prejudices similar to those which have prompted the
above assumptions, it is not singular that in a majority of cases in
which the early status of women has been discussed, and in which the
organization of society, the fundamental principles of government, the
origin of the institution of marriage, the monogamic family, and the
growth of the god-idea, have been the topics under discussion, the
conclusions arrived at have been not wholly warranted by the facts at
hand.

In an investigation of the subject of human development, we must
bear in mind the fact that all the principal existing institutions
have sprung from germs of thought which originated under primitive
conditions of the race. Government, language, marriage, the modern
family, and our present system of the accumulation and distribution
of wealth, have all been evolved from the necessities of early human
existence, or from primitive ideas conceived according to the peculiar
bias which had been given to the female and male organisms prior to
the appearance of mankind upon the earth, and which have since been
developed in accordance with the laws which govern human growth.

With their reasoning faculties still undeveloped, and, according to our
guides, wholly destitute of a moral sense, human beings at the outset
of their career could have had no guiding principle other than those
instincts which they inherited from their mute progenitors. Therefore,
in order fully to understand the status of the human race as it emerged
from its animal conditions, we must bear in mind the nature of the
inheritance which it had received during its passage from a formless
lump of carbon, or an infinitesimal jelly dot in the primeval sea, to a
creature endowed with sympathy, affection, courage, and perseverance.
We must not lose sight of the fact that passion, the all-absorbing
quality developed in males belonging to the orders lower in the scale
of being, must have been conveyed without diminution or material change
to man. Neither must we forget that those qualities in the female which
had been developed for the protection of the germ, and by which she
was enabled to hold in check the abnormally developed appetites of the
male, were still in operation.

That Nature disdains arbitrary rules, and that she pays little heed to
the proprieties established by man, are facts everywhere to be observed
among the lower orders of life. She nevertheless jealously guards the
germ and the young of the species. The mother is the natural guardian
of prenatal and infant life, and as such, under natural conditions, is
usually able to control the sexual relation.

Failing to note the fact that among the orders of life below mankind
the female chooses her mate, and failing also to observe that through
the natural adjustment of the sexual relations his instincts are
checked by her will, nearly if not all the writers upon this subject
have declared that women and men at the outset of the human career
lived in a state of “lawlessness” or “promiscuity,” similar no doubt to
that which at the present time would prevail in a community in which
women were utterly devoid of influence, and in which there were no laws
regulating the intercourse of the sexes.

By the most trustworthy writers on the subject of the primitive
conditions of the human race, it is believed that the most archaic
organization of society was that founded on the basis of sex, but, as
in the infancy of the race, prior to the inauguration of the system
based on sex, and during the long ages which were spent merely in
gaining a subsistence, no organized form of society existed, it is held
that the order which is observed among creatures lower in the scale
of life was suspended, and that the universal law which had hitherto
regulated the relations of the sexes, and which throughout the ages of
life on the earth had held in check the lower instincts of the male,
became immediately inoperative.

Here the common ground of belief ceases, and each writer branches off
upon his own peculiar line of argument, appropriating and arranging the
facts observed by explorers and investigators in the various lines of
inquiry according to his own preconceived notions, or as best suits the
particular scheme of development which he essays to establish.

In the following pages the attempt will be made to show that the facts
which in these later years have been brought to light concerning the
development of the human race are in strict accord with the facts as
enunciated by scientists relative to the development of the orders
of life below man, and that together they form a connected chain of
evidence going to prove not only that the higher faculties had their
origin in the female but that the progressive principle has also been
confided to her.




CHAPTER II

THE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES AMONG EARLY MANKIND


We have seen that an investigation of the instincts and habits of
creatures lower in the scale is necessary to an understanding of the
relations which must have existed between the sexes among primitive
races.

 Among birds and mammals, the greater differentiation of the nervous
 system and the higher pitch of the whole life is associated with
 the development of what pedantry alone can refuse to call love. Not
 only is there often partnership, co-operation, and evident affection
 beyond the limits of the breeding period, but there are abundant
 illustrations of a high standard of morality, of all the familiar
 sexual crimes of mankind, and every shade of flirtation, courtship,
 jealousy, and the like. There is no doubt that in the two highest
 classes of animals at least, the physical sympathies of sexuality have
 been enhanced by the emotional, if not also intellectual, sympathies
 of love.[52]

[52] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, p. 266.

It has been observed that among the orders of life below mankind,
except among polygamous species, the female chooses the individual
which is best endowed—the one whose beauty appeals to her æsthetic
taste, or which through his stronger development is best fitted to
assist her in the office of reproduction.

Among the more intelligent species of birds, genuine affection has been
observed, strict monogamy and life-long unions having been established
between mated pairs. Among others, although the conjugal bond is not
life-lasting, so long as the mother-bird is caring for her brood,
constancy to one another is the undeviating rule. We are assured that
with the female Illinois parrot, “widowhood and death are synonymous,”
and that “when a wheatear dies, his companion survives him scarcely a
month.”[53]

[53] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 27.

All eagles are monogamous. Golden eagles live in couples and remain
attached to one another for a hundred or more years, without even
changing their domicile.[54] The conjugal unions of bald-headed eagles,
although they are under no “legal restrictions,” last until the death
of one of the partners. Among birds, although incubation rests with
the mother, the father usually assists his companion. He not only
takes her place if she desires to leave the nest for a moment, but
also provides her with food.[55] So perfect is the bird family life
that Brehm declares that “real genuine marriage can only be found
among birds.”[56] Upon this subject we are informed that “examples
of wandering fancy are for the most part rare among the birds, the
majority of whom are monogamous, and even superior to most men in the
matter of conjugal fidelity.”[57]

[54] J. G. Wood, _Natural History_, p. 262.

[55] Westermarck, _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 11.

[56] Brehm, _Bird-Life_.

[57] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 27.

Concerning mammals, it is observed that although polygamy is frequent
“it is far from being the conjugal regime universally adopted; monogamy
is common, and is sometimes accompanied by so much devotion that it
would serve as an example to human monogamists.”[58] Bears, weasels,
whales, and many other animals choose their mates and go in pairs.
Several kinds of monkeys are strictly monogamous.[59] Chimpanzees are
sometimes polygamous and sometimes monogamous. It is stated what when a
strong male has succeeded in driving away the other males of the group,
the females, although in a position to subjugate him, are nevertheless
kind and even tender toward him. They are doubtless too much occupied
with their legitimate functions to rebel, but so soon as the young
of the horde are grown, the usurper is driven from their midst. A
little observation will show us that even among polygamous species,
it is affection rather than strength which keeps the members of a
group together. Although among most of the lower orders the female
exercises a choice in the selection of her mate, still among animals of
polygamous habits the female is said to manifest genuine affection for
the father of her offspring.

[58] _Ibid._, p. 35.

[59] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, p. 590.

 The polygamic regime of animals is far from extinguishing affectionate
 sentiments in the females towards their husband and master. The
 females of the guanaco lamas, for example, are very faithful to
 their male. If the latter happens to be wounded or killed, instead
 of running away, they hasten to his side, bleating and offering
 themselves to the shots of the hunter in order to shield him, while,
 on the contrary, if a female is killed, the male makes off with all
 his troop; he only thinks of himself.[60]

[60] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 32.

Although among animals a stray male will sometimes drive away or kill
all the other males of the group, and himself become the common mate of
all the females, they peaceably accepting the situation, so far as I
can find, female insects, birds, and mammals, although they generally
control the sexual relation, have never been given to polyandry; the
reason for this can be explained only through a careful analysis of
the fundamental bias of the female constitution. We must bear in mind
that although among the orders of life below mankind the male is ready
to pair with any female, she, on the other hand, when free to choose,
can be induced to accept the attentions only of the one which by his
courage, bravery, or personal beauty has won her favours. We have noted
the fact that in the earliest ages of the human race this choice was
exercised by women, but we have no reason to believe that anything
resembling “promiscuity” ever prevailed among primitive races. It is
true that under earlier conditions the institution of marriage as it
exists at the present time had not appeared; yet the law which had
been impressed on the higher organism of the female, until overcome by
males through means which will be treated of later in these pages, had
sufficed to keep the animal instincts under subjection, or at least on
a level with those of the lower species which structurally had been
left behind.

From facts to be gathered, not alone from among the lower orders, but
from observations among human beings as well, it would seem that any
degree of affection for more than one individual at the same time is
contrary to the female nature. A female insect, or bird, which feels a
preference for a particular mate will pair with no other, hence, among
orders where the female instincts control the relations between the
sexes, “lawlessness” or promiscuity would not prevail.

A little observation and reflection, I think, will show us that the
affection of the female is a character differing widely from the sex
instinct of the male—that, while selfishness constitutes the underlying
principle of the latter, the former involves not only care for the
young and the unity of the group, but, when human conditions are
reached, it involves also country, civilization, and the ultimate
brotherhood of mankind.

If we bear in mind the conditions surrounding the orders of life from
which the human race has sprung, and if we remember the nature of
the characters inherited by mankind from these orders, together with
the important fact that the lower instincts among them were under
subjection to the higher faculties, we shall be enabled to see that
the more degraded of the extant savage tribes cannot represent the
primitive race as it emerged from the animal type.

Mr. Tylor must have been mindful of the altruistic character of early
races when he remarked: “Without some control beyond the mere right
of the stronger, the tribe would break up in a week, whereas in fact
savage tribes last on for ages.”[61]

[61] _Anthropology_, p. 405.

Concerning the relations of the sexes under unorganized society nothing
may be known from actual observation, as, at the present time, no tribe
or race is to be found under absolutely primitive conditions. Perhaps
from no extant people is there so little information in reference to
the earliest human state to be gleaned as from the lowest existing
races. Among many of these tribes the rules which it has been necessary
to establish for the regulation of the relations between the sexes
are rigorously enforced, while among others a laxity prevails which
would seem to indicate an almost total lack of those higher instincts
which are observed among nearly all the lower orders of beings. The
following fact, however, in regard to these races, has been observed:
the more primitive they are, or the less they have come in contact with
civilization, the more strictly do they observe the rules which have
been established for the governance of the sexual relation. On this
subject Mr. Parkyns says:

 I don’t believe that there exists a nation, however high in the scale
 of civilization, that can pick a hole in the character of the lowest,
 without being in danger of finding one nearly, if not quite, as big
 in its own. The vices of the savage are, like his person, very much
 exposed to view. Our own nakedness is not less unseemly than his,
 but is carefully concealed under the convenient cloak which we call
 “civilization,” but which I fear he, in his ignorance, poor fellow,
 might, on some occasions, be led to look upon as hypocrisy.[62]

[62] _Life in Abyssinia_, vol. ii., p. 152.

In the West Indian Islands where Columbus landed, lived tribes which
are represented as having been “the most gentle and benevolent of the
human race.” Regarding these Mr. Tylor remarks:

 Schomburgk, the traveller, who knew the warlike Caribs well in their
 home life, draws a paradise-like picture of their ways, where they
 have not been corrupted by the vices of the white men; he saw among
 them peace and cheerfulness and simple family affection, unvarnished
 friendship, and gratitude not less true for not being spoken in
 sounding words; the civilized world, he says, has not to teach them
 morality, for, though they do not talk about it, they live in it.[63]

[63] Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 406.

The men who with Captain Cook first visited the Sandwich Islands
reported the natives as modest and chaste in their habits; but, later,
after coming in contact with the influences of civilization, modesty
and chastity among them were virtues almost entirely unknown. The same
is true of the people of Patagonia.

Barrow says of the Kaffir woman that she is “chaste and extremely
modest,” and we are told that among this people banishment is the
penalty for incontinence for both women and men. Of the reports which
from time to time come from the aborigines of certain portions of
Australia relative to the lewdness of the women, Mr. Brough Smyth says
that they are irreconcilable with the severe penalties imposed for
unchastity in former times amongst the natives of Victoria.[64] This
writer is of the opinion that the lewd practices reported are modern,
and that they are the result of communication with the poor whites. We
are assured that the women of Nubia are virtuous, that public women
are not tolerated in the country.[65] Also that in Fiji adultery is one
of the crimes generally punished with death.[66]

[64] Quoted by Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 61.

[65] Burckhardt’s _Travels in Nubia_, p. 146.

[66] Seeman, _A Mission to Viti_, p. 191.

Marsden observes that in Sumatra “the old women are very attentive to
the conduct of the girls, and the male relations are highly jealous
of any insults that may be shown them.”[67] The same writer says that
prostitution for hire is unknown in the country; adultery is punishable
by fine, but the crime is rare. Regarding the conduct of men toward
women he remarks: “They preserve a degree of delicacy and respect
toward the sex which might justify their retorting on many of the
polished nations of antiquity the epithet of barbarism.”[68]

[67] _History of Sumatra_, p. 230.

[68] _Ibid._, p. 226.

Crantz says that among the Greenlanders single persons have rarely
any connection.[69] According to the testimony of St. Boniface, the
punishment for unchastity among the early Germans was death to the man,
while the woman was driven naked through the streets.[70]

[69] _History of Greenland_, vol. i., p. 145.

[70] _Epistle of St. Boniface to Ethelbald._

Among the Central Asian Turks we are assured that a fallen girl is
unknown. Mr. Westermarck, quoting from Klemm, states that although
among the Kalmucks and gypsies the girls take pride in having gallant
affairs, they are “dishonoured if they have children previous to
marriage.” The same writer quotes also from Winwood Reade, who says
that among the Equatorial Africans “a girl who disgraces her family by
wantonness is banished from her clan; and, in cases of seduction, the
man is severely flogged.”[71]

[71] _History of Human Marriage_, p. 62.

Mr. Westermarck adduces much testimony going to show that the
“lawlessness” of lower races is due not to inherent vicious tendencies,
but to the evil associations of civilized peoples. He is of the opinion
that the licentiousness among many of the South Sea Islanders owes its
origin to the intercourse of the natives with Europeans; and of the
tribes who once inhabited the Adelaide Plains, quoting from Mr. Edward
Stephens who went to Australia half a century ago, he says:

 Those who speak of the natives as a naturally degraded race, either do
 not speak from experience, or they judge them by what they have become
 when the abuse of intoxicants and contact with the most wicked of the
 white race have begun their deadly work. As a rule, to which there
 are no exceptions, if a tribe of blacks is found away from the white
 settlement, the more vicious of the white men are most anxious to make
 the acquaintance of the natives, and that, too, solely for purposes of
 immorality.... I saw the natives and was much with them before those
 deadly immoralities were well known ... and I say it fearlessly, that
 nearly all their evils they owed to the white man’s immorality and to
 the white man’s drink.[72]

[72] _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 68.

We are informed that wherever certain vices prevail among the lower
races in America, Africa, or Asia, they have been carried to them by
the whites. Were it necessary to do so, scores of examples could be
adduced going to show that among primitive tribes, until corrupted by
our later civilization, chastity is the universal rule.

Although many of the writers who have dealt with this subject have
discoursed freely on the laxity of the conjugal bond among so-called
primitive tribes, and the lawlessness which characterizes lower races
in their sexual relations, they have failed to account satisfactorily
for some of the customs and usages which appear connected with many
of the early forms of marriage,—forms which would seem to indicate a
degree of modest reserve on the part of these peoples which fail to
comport with the popular theory concerning their lawlessness and innate
indecency.

We have seen that although among the orders of life below mankind there
are no arbitrary laws governing the relations of the sexes, there
nevertheless exists a system of natural marriage which in no wise
resembles promiscuity. Now it was under this natural system controlled
by the higher instincts developed within the female organism, that the
extreme “lawlessness” indicated by the savants prevailed—lawlessness
seeming to denote that state of female independence in which women were
personally free, or in which they were not held in actual bondage as
captive wives. In the reasoning of many of our guides in this matter it
is implied, if not actually asserted, that the freedom of women which
is now known to have prevailed in earlier times denotes a state of
laxity in morals, a condition of society directly contrary to the facts
which they themselves have recorded relative to existing tribes under
less advanced conditions of life, and which would seem to argue for
these peoples a sense of decency which among the masses in civilized
countries is almost entirely wanting. At the dawn of human existence,
had no higher instincts been developed than passion, or the desire for
selfish gratification, whence could have arisen this reserve, and these
ideas of chastity and modesty which are observed among many of the less
developed peoples, notably those which have not come in contact with
the higher races? Upon this subject Mr. Tylor remarks: “Yet even among
the rudest clans of men, unless depraved by vice or misery and falling
to pieces, a standard of family morals is known and lived by.”[73]

[73] _Anthropology_, chap, xvi., p. 405.

Observing the habits of the lower animals, Mr. Darwin cannot believe
that promiscuous intercourse prevailed among the early races of
mankind.

 At a very early period, before man attained to his present rank in the
 scale, many of his conditions would be different from what now obtains
 amongst savages. Judging from the analogy of the lower animals he
 would then either live with a single female, or be a polygamist.[74]

[74] _The Descent of Man_, p. 594.

We have much evidence going to prove that the marriage contracts among
the lower races are well kept. According to Cook, in Tahiti, although
nothing more is necessary for the consummation of a valid marriage than
an agreement between the parties, these contracts are usually well
kept. In case of the disaffection of either party, a divorce is easily
obtained. We are assured, however, that although the Tahiti women have
the undisputed right to dissolve the marriage contract at will, they
are nevertheless “as faithful to their husbands as in any part of the
world.” The Veddahs, who are ranked among the most primitive races, are
a strictly monogamous people.[75] Of the extreme modesty of married
pairs among many of the lower races we have much proof. Among the
Fijians, husbands and wives do not usually spend the night together,
except as it were by stealth, and it is said to be contrary to their
ideas of delicacy that they should sleep under the same roof.[76]
Wholly from a sense of reserve or modesty, the Arab wife remains for
months, possibly for a whole year, with her mother before taking up
her abode in her husband’s tent. The extreme delicacy of the customs
regulating the behaviour of married pairs in ancient Sparta are well
understood. According to Xenophon and Strabo, it was the custom, not
only among the Spartans but among the Cretans also, for married pairs
to meet clandestinely. The same custom prevailed in ancient Lycia.
Lafitau says that among the North American Indians the husband visits
his wife only by stealth.[77]

[75] _Ibid._, p. 591.

[76] Seeman, _A Mission to Viti_, p. 191.

[77] Quoted by Sir John Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 82.

It is stated by trustworthy authorities that among various tribes,
during the period of gestation and lactation, the person of the wife
is sacred; that the rule of chastity, or continence, between married
pairs, during this season, is absolutely inviolate. In Fiji, women
furnish natural nourishment to their children for three or four years,
during which time their persons are respected.

 The relatives of the women take it as a public insult if any child
 should be born before the customary three or four years have elapsed,
 and they consider themselves in duty bound to avenge it in an equally
 public manner.

Mr. Seeman says:

 I heard of a white man, who, being asked how many brothers and sisters
 he had, frankly replied, “ten.” “But that could not be,” was the
 rejoinder of the natives, “one mother could scarcely have so many
 children.”

When told that these children were born at annual intervals, and that
such occurrences were common in Europe, they were very much shocked,
and thought it explained sufficiently why so many white people were
“mere shrimps.” After childbirth, among the Fijians, husband and
wife separate and live apart for three and even four years, “so that
no other baby may interfere with the time considered necessary for
suckling the children, in order to make them strong and healthy.”[78]

[78] Seeman, _A Mission to Viti_, p. 191.

Through such wise regulations as these, governing the sexual relations,
the drain on the vital forces observed among the women of civilized
countries is avoided, and it was doubtless to these rules and others
of a similar character that women, throughout untold ages of human
existence, were enabled to maintain a position of independence and
supremacy. We are informed that among the Fijians the birth of a child
is cause for a perfect jubilee; that parental and filial affection
is among the manifest virtues of this people. After referring to the
truthfulness and honesty of the Dyaks of Borneo, Mr. Wallace says that
“in several matters of morality they rank above most uncivilized, and
even above many civilized, nations. They are temperate in food and
drink, and the gross sensuality of the Chinese and Malays is unknown
among them.”[79] Although the usual checks to population are absent
among the Dyaks—namely, starvation, disease, war, infanticide, and
vice,—still the women in the Dyak tribe rarely had more than three or
four children. In a village in which there were one hundred and fifty
families, in only one of them were there six children, and only six
with five children.

[79] _The Malay Archipelago._

In whatever direction we turn, evidences are abundant going to prove
that under simpler and more natural conditions, and before corrupted by
our later civilization, mankind were governed largely by the instincts
developed within the female constitution, and that long after her
supremacy over the male was lost, the effects of these purer conditions
were manifest in the customs, forms, and usages of the people.

From the evidence at hand it seems more than likely that many of the
extant tribes have at some remote period been civilized, and that
through some natural catastrophe, the unfavourable conditions of
climate and soil, or some other equally disadvantageous cause, they
have again sunk to a low plane of existence from which they have been
unable to rise. From available facts one is almost led to believe
that at a period in the remote past, and while living under purer
conditions, a high stage of civilization was reached, a civilization
which in many respects was equal if not superior to that of the
present. Be this as it may, whenever the environment of a people is
such that after having reached a certain stage it is unable to advance,
it does not remain stationary, but on the contrary follows a line of
retrogression; or, whenever the conditions of a race or tribe are such
that the higher faculties which tend towards progress lie dormant,
the lower forces which incline toward retrogression and which are
peculiarly active in low organisms still continue in operation.

Although the social arrangement of the native Australians seems to be
founded on classes based on sex—the earliest form of society—still we
find them practising polygamy and monogamy side by side, at the same
time securing their wives by capture in exactly the same fashion as did
the early Greeks and Romans. It is apparent, therefore, that although
this people have not been able to advance in the arts of life, as far
as the relations of the sexes are concerned they have taken about
the same course as have all the other tribes and races in which the
supremacy of the male has been gained. For unknown reasons, during
thousands of years, the developing agencies have been quiescent, hence
no check to the animal instincts has been interposed; the Australians
have therefore departed widely from the conditions which surrounded
early human society—conditions under which the maternal instincts
developed in the lower orders of life were still sufficiently strong
to guard the constructive processes and to continue the chain of
uninterrupted progress.

As among the lowest existing tribes—peoples which during countless
ages have been unable to advance—only the ruder elements in the human
composition have been developed, it is plain that from these tribes
little if any information concerning an earlier or more natural age,
when the animal instincts were controlled by the higher characters
developed in human nature, may be obtained; but from those peoples
within the several successive stages of development whose environment
has been such as to admit of some degree of improvement in the arts of
life, and in whom therefore the higher characters developed in their
mute progenitors have not been in a state of retrogression, may be
obtained a clue to many of the processes by which our present social
fabric has been raised. Among such peoples will be retained certain
symbols, habits, and traditions representing former modes of life,
from which may be reconstructed much of the previous history of the
race. For instance, by means of the symbol of wife-capture, a form
of marriage which is universal among tribes in a certain stage of
development, has been furnished much trustworthy information relative
to the institution of marriage and the development of the modern
family. It matters not that the origin of these symbols is so remote
that their true significance is lost by the peoples who practise them,
they nevertheless repeat with unerring fidelity the past experiences
of the race and reveal the origin of later institutions.

As the various tribes and races of mankind have probably sprung from a
common progenitor, and as the “nerve cells in the brain of all classes
and orders have had the same origin,” their development, although not
identical as to time and manner of detail, has been similar in outline
and in general results; so it is thought that a correct knowledge of
the development of any tribe or race from savagery to civilization must
necessarily involve the general history of all the tribes and races of
mankind.




CHAPTER III

THE GENS—WOMEN UNDER GENTILE INSTITUTIONS


The earliest form of organized society was that into classes founded
on the basis of sex,[80] under which the right of individuals to
intermarry was restricted to one-fourth of the group. This division
of the early race, and the regulations prohibiting conjugal relations
with three-fourths the members of the related community, is thought
to represent the first coercive abridgment or formal restriction of
the then existing conjugal rights, and was inaugurated for the purpose
of averting the evil effects arising from intercourse between near
relations. Of this early form of society, however, and of the ages
during which no organized form existed, little may be known except that
which is suggested by the instincts and habits of the highest animals,
and that which may be inferred from an investigation of the next
higher organization, that into gentes on the basis of kin. Although
untold ages intervened between the ancient division of society into
classes founded on the basis of sex, and the higher and more important
organization into gentes on the basis of kin, this last-named plan for
the further development of mankind became universal at a comparatively
early stage of human history.

[80] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 52.

By an investigation of the fundamental principles of the gens, we
shall be enabled to observe the similarity existing between the
instincts which governed early human action and those which controlled
the highest orders of life below mankind. All facts bearing on the
primitive conditions of the human race, which in these later times
have been brought to light through the investigations directed
toward peoples in the various stages of development, only serve to
emphasize the importance of the altruistic principle in the formation
of organized society and in the establishment of human institutions.
Although the gens is the earliest form of organized society of which we
have any accurate knowledge, still as within it were encysted the germs
of all the principles of justice and equality which our better human
nature is beginning again to recognize, and which must characterize a
higher stage of progress, a knowledge of its underlying principles is
necessary to a correct understanding, not only of the past development
of the race and all the existing human institutions, but of the course
to be pursued toward the future advancement of mankind. Of the gens,
Mr. Morgan says:

 The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and most widely
 prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished the nearly universal
 plan of government of ancient society, Asiatic, European, African,
 American, and Australian. It was the instrumentality by means of which
 society was organized and held together. Commencing in savagery, and
 continuing through the three sub-periods of barbarism, it remained
 until the establishment of political society, which did not occur
 until after civilization had commenced. The Grecian gens, phratry,
 and tribe, the Roman gens, _curia_, and tribe find their analogues
 in the gens, phratry, and tribe of the American aborigines. In like
 manner, the Irish _sept_, the Scottish _clan_, the _phrara_ of the
 Albanians, and the Sanskrit _ganas_, without extending the comparison
 further are the same as the American-Indian gens, which has usually
 been called a clan. As far as our knowledge extends, this organization
 runs through the entire ancient world upon all the continents, and it
 was brought down to the historical period by such tribes as attained
 to civilization.... Gentile society wherever found is the same in
 structural organization and in principles of action; but changing from
 lower to higher forms with the progressive advancement of the people.
 These changes give the history of the development of the same original
 conceptions.[81]

[81] _Ancient Society_, pp. 62, 63.

Early society, as observed under gentile institutions, was established
on purely personal and social relations, or, on the basis of the
relations of the individual to the rest of the community, a community
in which each member could trace her or his origin back to the head of
the gens who was a woman. Under gentile institutions, or until the
latter stage of barbarism was reached, each individual, female and
male, constituted a unit in an aggregation or community whose interests
were identical, and as such, to a certain extent, was held responsible
for the safety and general welfare of every member composing the group.

Extreme egoism, as it is the outgrowth of a later age, was unknown;
and sympathy, the chief promoter of the well-being of mankind, a
sprout from the well-established root, maternal affection, was the
predominant characteristic of these primitive groups and the bond
which held society together. Although the manner of reckoning descent
had been changed from the female to the male line, the purely social
organization of the gens, on the basis of kin, was, as has been
observed, in operation at the beginning of our present civilization, at
which time political society supervened, and individuals were no longer
recognized through their relations to a gens or tribe, but through
their relations to the state, county, township, or deme, to which
institutions they must henceforward look for protection and for the
redress of injuries done either to person or property.

Although, until a comparatively recent time, the writers who have dealt
with the subject of primitive society have been of the opinion that the
tribe constituted the earliest organization of society, and that the
gens and the family followed, later investigations show conclusively
that the gens, next to the remote and obscure division into classes,
represents the oldest and most widely spread form of organized society,
and that it was through segmentation or division of this archaic group
that the tribe was formed.

 The natural way in which a tribe is formed is from a family or group,
 which in time increases and divides into many households, still
 recognizing one another as kindred, and this kinship is so thoroughly
 felt to be the tie of the whole tribe, that even when there has been
 a mixture of tribes, a common ancestor is often invented to make an
 imaginary bond of union.[82]

[82] Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 405.

The gens, until a comparatively recent time in the history of the human
race, was composed of a female ancestor, all her children and all the
children of her daughters, but not of her sons. The sons’ children and
their descendants belonged to the gens of their respective mothers. The
family, as it appears at the present time, was unknown. The gens was
founded on thoroughly democratic principles, each individual composing
the group, both female and male, having a voice in the regulation and
management of all matters pertaining to the general government of the
community. Any injury done to a gentilis was a wrong committed against
the entire gens of which she or he was a member, hence to her or his
kinsmen each individual looked for protection and for redress of
personal wrongs.

The fundamental doctrine of tribal life is unity of blood. Although the
early groups, under the system of female descent, were united by the
actual bond of kinship as traced through mothers, later, when descent
came to be traced through fathers, kinship was to a considerable extent
feigned. Kinship, under the system of male descent, meant not that
the blood of the great father actually flowed in the veins of all the
members of the group, but that under a pretence of unity of blood, they
were bound together by common duties and responsibilities from which
no one of them could escape. By the terms of the compact, every member
must stand by her or his own clan. In fact, in all their movements,
they must act as one individual; their interests were identical and the
quarrel of any member of the group became the quarrel of all counted
within the bond of kinship. If homicide were committed, they judged
and punished the culprit, but if one of their number was slain by an
outsider, the law of blood-feud, which demanded blood in return, was
immediately put into execution. Of the gens Mr. Morgan says:

 Within its membership the bond of kin was a powerful element for
 mutual support. To wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to
 support a person was to stand behind him with the entire array of this
 gentile kindred.[83]

[83] _Ancient Society_, p. 76.

Although in the later ages of gentile government, all the members of
a group were not necessarily bound by blood, from the nature of the
rights conferred, and the obligations imposed, the bond uniting them
was doubtless stronger than that which now unites mere kindred. Of this
tie uniting early groups J. G. Frazer says:

 All the members of a totem clan regard each other as kinsmen or
 brothers and sisters, and are bound to help and protect each other.
 The totem bond is stronger than the bond of blood or family in the
 modern sense.[84]

[84] _Totemism_, p. 57.

As Arabia, at the time of Mohammed, was still under gentile
organization, there is perhaps at the present day no country which
affords a better opportunity for the study of several of the successive
stages of human development. At the time indicated, the entire
Arabian peninsula was composed of a multitude of groups varying
in civilization, which were bound together by common privileges,
obligations, and responsibilities and by a real or pretended bond of
kinship traced through males.

In early Arabia a group bound together by a real or feigned unity of
blood was the type or unit of society. Sometimes a confederation of
these smaller groups was formed, but so strong was the bond between
the more closely related groups that they soon broke up into their
original units. The genealogists assert that these groups which were
patriarchal tribes founded on male descent are subdivisions of an
original stock.

At the time of the Prophet the Arabians claimed to trace their descent
from two brothers the sons of Wâil. Prof. W. Robertson Smith informs
us, however, that the name of one of these “brothers” is a feminine
appellation and that it is the designation of a tribe and not of a
person. He says: “The gender shows that the tribal name existed before
the mythical ancestor was invented,” and adds: “The older facts down
to the time of Al-Farazdac personify Taghlib as the daughter not the
son of Wâil. It is not unlikely that the mythical legend of Taghlib and
Bakr originated at a time when the female principle in human affairs
and in the Deity was beginning to give place to the male.”[85]

[85] _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 14.

Within the traditions of the oldest races of which we have any account,
are evidences of a desperate struggle between two races or between the
followers of two opposing principles. In all parts of Arabia “these two
races maintained their ancestral traditions of bitter and persistent
feud.”

Although in Arabia, in the time of the Prophet, descent was traced in
the male line, the evidence is almost unlimited, going to show that
it was not always so, but, on the contrary, that at an earlier age,
relationships were reckoned through women, mothers being the recognized
heads of families and tribal groups. In his work on _Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_, Prof. W. R. Smith says:

 If a kinship tribe derives its origin from a great father, we may
 argue with confidence that it had the rule that children were of
 their father’s tribe and kin; while on the other hand if we find, in
 a nation organized on the principle of unity of tribal blood, tribes
 which trace their origin to a great mother instead of a great father,
 we can feel sure that at some time the tribe followed the rule that
 the children belong to the mother and are of her kin. Now among the
 Arabs the doctrine of the unity of tribal blood is universal, as
 appears from the universal prevalence of the blood-feud. And yet among
 the Arab tribes we find no small number that refer their origin to a
 female eponym. Hence it follows that in many parts of Arabia kinship
 was once reckoned not in the male but in the female line.

In reply to the suggestion that the several families of polygamous
fathers might be designated by the names of their several mothers,
Professor Smith observes:

 The point before us, however, is not the use of the mother’s name by
 individuals for purposes of distinction, but the existence of kindred
 groups whose members conceive that the tie of blood which unites them
 into a tribe is derived from and limited by descent from a common
 ancestress. That the existence of such a group proves kinship through
 women to have been once the rule is as certain as that the existence
 of patronymic groups is evidence of male kinship. In most cases of the
 kind the female eponym is mythical, no doubt, and the belief in her
 existence is a mere inference from the rule of female kinship within
 the tribe, just as mythical male ancestors are inferred from a rule of
 male kinship. But even if we suppose the ancestress to be historical,
 the argument is much the same, for where the bond of maternity is so
 strong that it binds together the children of the same mother as a
 distinct kindred group against the other children of their father,
 there also we may be sure that the children of one mother by different
 fathers will hold together and not follow their father. And this is
 the principle of female kinship.[86]

[86] _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, pp. 26, 27.

It is stated that the designation of tribal unity by a feminine
appellation “is not an arbitrary fiction of later facts,” but that it
is “one of the old standing figures of Semitic speech.” In Hebrew,
_em_, which means mother, means also stock, race, or community.

The name for a tribal group in Arabia was _hayy_, a term which
indicates life. It is observed that in Hebrew and Arabic _hayy_ is used
in the same sense. “_Hawwa_ is simply a phonetic variation of _hayy_
with a feminine termination,” and “Eve, or _Hawwa_, is so called
because she is the mother of all living, or, more literally, of every
_hayy_.” We are given to understand that, originally, there was no rule
of reckoning kinship in Arabia except by the female line, and that the
change in descent from the female to the male line affected society to
its very roots.

There seems to be little, if any, doubt that a system of reckoning
descent through women once prevailed throughout all the tribes and
races of mankind. In Greece, as late as the beginning of the historic
period, traces of this early custom are to be observed, and, indeed, at
the present time, among many peoples, evidences of it are still extant.
The fact that throughout an earlier age of human existence descent
and all the rights of succession were traced through women, is at the
present time so well established as to require no detailed proofs to
substantiate it. Noting this custom among early races, and observing
also the natural conclusions to be drawn from such a state of society,
a few writers who have dealt with the subject of primitive races have
taken much pains to show that it does not naturally follow that under
these usages the influence of women was supreme; and their theories to
explain this (to them) no doubt singular phenomenon show the extent to
which prejudice and long-established habits of thought have influenced
their investigations. On this subject C. Staniland Wake remarks:

 There is strong reason for believing that the practice of tracing
 kinship in the female line was very widely observed from a very early
 period, but this is very different from the establishment of the
 supremacy of women. Where this was found it was due to the development
 of the gentile institution and the female kinship which accompanied
 it, on which, indeed, that institution was founded.[87]

[87] _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 16.

If, however, during the earlier ages of human existence a system of
kinship through women had been established which was able to produce
the gentile institution, or, if this institution, which was “founded”
on female kinship and dependent upon it, was able through untold ages
to direct all the processes of evolution, even though no other evidence
were at hand to prove it, then women’s influence must have been
well-nigh supreme.

So deeply intrenched has become the idea of woman’s subjection that it
is impossible for many male writers to contemplate a state of society
in which women are not dominated and controlled by men.

Mr. Herbert Spencer’s theory to explain the universal system of kinship
traced through woman involves the same idea of woman’s subserviency to
man, especially in the sexual relation, and is an illustration of the
reasoning usually employed in dealing with this subject.

Although “the very lowest races now existing, Fuegians, Australians,
and Andamanese, show us that, however informally they have originated,
sexual relations of a more or less enduring kind exist,” he is certain
that among the earliest races a state of “lawlessness” must have
prevailed and that “promiscuity” must have been the rule among them;
and this too notwithstanding the fact that among the lower orders
of life from which man has descended, and among the earliest races
of mankind the female chooses her mate and refuses to pair with any
individual except the one of her choice. To account for the universal
system of reckoning descent through the female, Mr. Spencer says that
as the connection between mother and child is more “obvious” than
that existing between the father and his offspring the custom arose
of reckoning descent through females.[88] The fact is observed that
maternal affection without which organized society would have been
impossible, and which alone can explain the system of kinship traced
through women, is entirely ignored by Mr. Spencer.

[88] _Sociology_ vol. i., p. 665.

Noting the reasoning employed by many writers to prove that in the
earliest ages of human existence, the maternal bond was ignored, and
that the child was accounted as being related only to the group, Mr.
Darwin remarks:

 But it seems almost incredible that the relationship of the child
 to its mother should ever be completely ignored, especially as the
 women in most savage tribes nurse their infants for a long time, and
 as the lines of descent are traced through the mother alone, to the
 exclusion of the father.[89]

[89] _Descent of Man_, p. 588.

We must bear in mind that under archaic usages not only did mothers
nurse their infants two, three, and even four years, but that maternity
was the bond which held together related groups and the source whence
proceeded all property rights and tribal honours; also, that under
the system of female kinship, male parentage was known but habitually
disregarded. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Spencer can see no reason
for concluding that in the most primitive groups there were no
“individual possessions of women by men.”[90]

[90] _Sociology_, vol. i., p. 665.

The late Sir A. Smith, who had travelled widely in South Africa and was
acquainted with the habits of savages there and elsewhere, expressed
the strongest opinion that “no race exists in which woman is considered
as the property of the community.”[91] The reasoning employed by Mr.
Spencer to disprove the early supremacy of women seems scarcely to
justify his lofty pretensions to intellectual greatness.

[91] Quoted by Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 588.

In a state of society in which women were the recognized heads of
families and eponymous groups where children took the mother’s name,
and in which all rights of succession were traced through them, it is
reasonable to suppose that female influence was in the ascendency over
that of the male, and especially so as primitive human beings were
largely controlled by instincts inherited from the orders of life in
which the female chooses her mate and controls the sex-functions.

A knowledge of the customs and tribal usages of the Iroquois Indians
throws much light on the early position of women. When this tribe first
came under the observation of Europeans it was in the first stage of
barbarism, and as the manner and order of development of the various
races of mankind are said to be substantially the same, and as many of
the facts connected with the history of this truly interesting people
through nearly three ethnical periods are accessible, it is thought
that by it, as well as by the Arabians, is afforded an excellent
opportunity for the study of the general history of mankind during
these periods. To Mr. Morgan we are indebted for the results of a
thorough research into the customs, manners, and laws of this people.

Through a knowledge of the rights, privileges, and obligations which
were conferred and imposed on the members of the Iroquois gens while
in the second state of barbarism, we are enabled to perceive the
principles of true democracy upon which gentile institutions are based;
and this is important, for the reason that later in this work I intend
to trace the decline of those principles of liberty and equality
established under female influence and to show the reasons for the
subsequent rise of monarchy, aristocracy, and slavery.

The rights, privileges, and obligations of the Iroquois tribe of
Indians, as enunciated by Mr. Morgan, are as follows:

 The right of electing its sachem and chiefs. The right of deposing its
 sachem and chiefs. The obligation not to marry in the gens. Mutual
 rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members. Reciprocal
 obligations of help, defence, and redress of injuries. The right of
 bestowing names upon its members. The right of adopting strangers into
 the gens. Common religious rites. A common burial place. A council of
 the gens.[92]

[92] _Ancient Society_, p. 71.

As this writer truly remarks: “These functions and attributes gave
vitality as well as individuality to the organization, and protected
the personal rights of its members.”

Eligibility to the office of chief was based on personal merit, and
continuance in office depended on the acknowledged fitness of the
individual occupying it. The qualifications required for this office
were personal bravery, ability to lead, and eloquence in council.
The chief exercised no kingly authority over the tribe by which he
was appointed; on the contrary, his personality was respected and
his counsels heeded, not because of his official prerogatives, but
on account of the qualities by which his character was dignified;
therefore so soon as he proved himself unworthy of the trust confided
to him he was deposed by the same agency which had elected him. Hence
may be observed the truly democratic character of the gens.

Concerning the position occupied by women, and the influence which
they exerted in the management of the clan, Ashur Wright, who was for
many years missionary to the Senecas, in 1873, wrote to Mr. Morgan the
following:

 As to their family system when occupying the old long houses, it
 is probable that some one clan predominated, the women taking in
 husbands, however, from the other clans; and sometimes, for a 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 pick 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 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 warriors. The original nomination of the chiefs also
 always rested with them.[93]

[93] _Ancient Society_, p. 455.

In the Lower Status of barbarism we find intermarriage within the gens
prohibited, and the obligation not to marry those accounted as kin as
strong as a religious duty.

Although during the latter ages of savagery the idea of property was
slightly developed, it is thought that it lay nascent until the latter
part of the first period of barbarism. Indeed, until the first stage
of barbarism was reached, the idea of personal possession had gained
only a slight foothold in the mental constitution of mankind. Egoism,
selfishness, or the desire to better one’s individual condition at the
expense of the rest of the gens was unknown. All lands were controlled
by the group, and as the property of early society consisted for the
most part of personal effects and proprietary rights in communal houses
and gardens, one of the most fruitful causes for dissensions in more
advanced stages of society was avoided. Under primitive conditions,
quarrels arising over disputed ownership within the gens were unknown,
and liberty, equality, and fraternity, the cardinal virtues and
principles of early society were able to flourish undisturbed by the as
yet unheard of vices inherent in the excessive desire for property.

In reference to some of the small uncivilized communities which he
visited, Mr. Wallace says that each man respects the rights of his
fellow,

 and any infraction of these rights rarely or never takes place. In
 such a community all are nearly equal. There are none of those wide
 distinctions of education and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master
 and servant, which are the product of our civilization; there is none
 of that widespread division of labour, which, while it increases
 wealth, produces also conflicting interests; there is not that severe
 competition and struggle for existence or for wealth which the dense
 population of civilized countries inevitably creates.[94]

[94] _The Malay Archipelago._

Under the archaic rule of the gens, at the death of a male, whether
married or single, his possessions descended to his sister’s children;
while at the death of a female, her property, including her personal
effects, was distributed among her sisters and her children and the
children of her daughters, but the children of her sons were not
included among her heirs. The sons’ children belonged to the gentes
of their respective mothers, and as descent and all the relationships
to which rights of succession were attached were traced only in the
female line, and as property until the middle of the Second Status of
barbarism was strictly confined to the gens in which it originated,
children could receive nothing from their fathers. Wives and husbands,
as they belonged to separate gentes, received nothing from one another.
In later times, when tribal honours were confined within certain
families or groups, as descent and property rights were all traced
in the female line, each male was dependent upon his female blood
relations, not only for his common inherited privileges in the gens,
but for any civil or military distinction to which he might attain.

Where female kinship prevails, a Rajah’s son may become a hodman,
taking the state of his mother—while the son of the Rajah’s sister
mounts the throne.[95]

[95] McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 103.

Among the Rocch tribe, a people among which descent is traced in the
female line, a man goes on marriage to live with his wife and her
mother, of whose family he is a subordinate member.[96]

[96] C. Staniland Wake, _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 306.

 A Rocch man goes, on his marriage, like the _beena_ husband of Ceylon,
 to live with his wife and her mother; on his marriage, all his
 property is made over to his wife, and on her death her heirs are her
 daughters.[97]

[97] _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 103.

For the same reason that wives and husbands were debarred from sharing
in each other’s property, their bodies, or more properly speaking,
their bones, were separated at death, as were also the bones of father
and child. The bones of the children always rested beside those of the
mother. It was impious to mix the bones of unrelated persons. To such
an extent was the Motherright recognized under archaic usages that the
child belonged exclusively to the mother and her relations, the father
having no recognized proprietary right to his offspring. Indeed, so
lightly was the paternal relation regarded that the father was supposed
to have little if any interest in his own children.

Although the bond between a man and his offspring was weak, toward his
sister’s children, as they belonged to the same gens with himself, a
considerable degree of manly interest was manifested; indeed, it has
been stated that about the same solicitude was evinced by him for their
welfare, as was shown at a later time by fathers for the members of
their own household.

Observing the care manifested for a sister’s children among various
tribes, certain writers have declared that the relationship existing
between a child and its mother’s brother is more important than any
other—that the brother is practically the head of his sister’s family.
However, if we bear in mind the relative positions of the sexes in
primitive groups, that women controlled their homes, and that all the
rights of succession were traced through them, we shall doubtless be
led to the conclusion that mothers themselves were the real heads
of their own families, and that although they may have delegated to
their brothers, who until marriage were permitted to reside with them,
certain manly offices, they nevertheless reserved to themselves the
exclusive right to the control and management of their own households.
As the land belonged to the gens, and as the gentes were controlled by
women, mothers were absolutely independent.

Each child received a name soon after birth, but at the age of sixteen
or eighteen this name was discarded and another adopted. Special
rights were thus conferred and specified obligations were imposed. On
receipt of this name, the incumbent took upon himself all the duties
and responsibilities devolving upon a member of the group and by it was
entitled to all its rights and privileges. The greatest precautions
were taken with respect to the adoption of names. The office of naming
the different members belonged to the female relations and the chiefs.
We are informed that the mother might, if she chose, transfer her child
to another gens. This was accomplished by simply giving it the name of
the gens in which she desired its adoption. It is claimed that among
the Shawnees and Delawares the mother claimed the right to transfer
her child to another gens than her own.[98] It would seem from this,
that among certain tribes, the mother, if she desires, may transfer
her child to the gens of its father. It is observed, however, that the
transference of a child from its mother’s gens is a “wide departure
from archaic usages, and exceptional in practice.”

[98] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 79.

It has been shown that under early usages wealth was never transferred
from the gens in which it originated; but later, when property began
to be claimed by individuals, and wealth was amassed in the hands of
males, it is not unlikely that mothers, considering only the future
welfare of their children, in case the father was rich and powerful,
would occasionally take advantage of their established privileges to
remove their children to his gens, in order that they might share in
his possessions.

Something of the humanity practised in early groups may be observed in
the custom of adoption, which, at a certain stage in their development,
prevailed among them. In the earlier ages of gentile institutions,
women and children taken prisoners in war, were usually adopted into
some gens. Adoption not only conferred gentile rights, but also the
nationality of the tribe. A person adopted into a gens was treated ever
afterwards as though born within the group. “Slavery which in the Upper
Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among
tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period.”[99]

[99] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 80.

According to Mariner:

 It is customary in the Tonga Islands for women to be what they call
 mothers to children or grown-up young persons who are not their own,
 for the purpose of providing them, or seeing that they are provided,
 with all the conveniences of life.[100]

[100] Quoted by Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 96.

According to Mr. E. J. Wood, among the Kaffirs, although the men
inherit the property, their influences being in the ascendency, every
woman has someone who acts as her father whether her own father be
living or not. Kaffir law provides for the protection of all women,
and so long as a male relation lives a girl has a protector. It goes
even farther than this, and protects women who have been bereft of all
their male relations. For such as these provision is made for their
adoption into other groups, in which case, although they are received
as dependents, they are protected as daughters.[101]

[101] _Uncivilized Races of the World_, vol. i., p. 78.

This practice of adoption is observed among various peoples. Among
certain tribes in which descent is traced through women, a woman offers
her breast to the person she is adopting, this being the strongest
symbol of the unity of blood. Thus may be noted the fact that the
fundamental idea, or principle, of tribal life is maternity, or the
maternal instinct—that the uniting force which binds a child to its
mother is the one which is supposed to unite the various members of a
primitive group. So strongly has the maternal instinct as a binding
principle taken root, that among certain peoples even where the manner
of reckoning descent and the rights of succession have been changed
from the female to the male line, whenever an individual wishes to
be adopted into a gens he takes the hand of the leader of the group
and sucking one of his fingers, declares himself to be his child by
adoption; henceforth the new father is bound to assist him as far as he
can.[102] Adoption “by the imitation of nature” was practised by the
Romans down to the time of Augustus.

[102] Parkyns, _Life in Abyssinia_, vol. i., p. 174.

It has been observed that under the matriarchal system the mother was
the only recognized parent, hence, when the father began to assume
the rights and prerogatives which had hitherto belonged only to her,
in order to make valid his claim, it was thought proper for him to go
through various of the preliminaries attendant on childbirth.

Of all the forms practised among lower races there is none, perhaps,
which is more singular than is that of putting the father instead of
the mother to bed in the event of the birth of a child. Concerning this
custom, Mr. Tylor quotes from Klemm the following:

 Among the Arawaks of Surinam, for some time after the birth of his
 child the father must fell no tree, fire no gun, hunt no large game;
 he may stay near home, shoot little birds with a bow and arrow, and
 angle for little fish; but his time hanging heavy on his hands, the
 most comfortable thing he can do is to lounge in his hammock.[103]

[103] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 296.

Mr. Tylor quotes also from the Jesuit missionary, Dobrizhoffer, who
gives the following account of the Abipones:

 No sooner do you hear that the wife has borne a child, than you will
 see the Abipone husband lying in bed, huddled up with mats and skins,
 lest some ruder breath of air should touch him, fasting, kept in
 private, and for a number of days abstaining religiously from certain
 viands; you would swear it was he who had had the child.

The custom of putting the father to bed when a child is born is called
_la couvade_, and traces of it are yet to be found in France. It is
also practised among the Basques, and according to C. Staniland Wake,
was anciently observed in Corsica, among the Iberians of Spain, and in
the country south of the Black Sea. It is still practised in Southern
India, in Yunnan, in Borneo, in Kamchatka, and in Greenland. It is said
also to be in use among the various tribes in South America.[104] The
persistency of this practice shows the importance formerly attached
to the maternal functions, and, as has been suggested, was doubtless
inaugurated at a time when descent was being changed from the female to
the male line.

[104] _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 262.

It was perhaps in the latter part of the Middle Status of barbarism
that descent and the rights of succession began to be traced through
males. When, through causes which will be noticed later in this work,
property began to accumulate in the hands of men, children became the
recognized heirs of their fathers and the foundation for the present
form of the family was laid. However, long after descent began to
be reckoned through males, absolute paternity was not necessary to
fatherhood. During the earlier ages of male supremacy, fatherhood, like
brotherhood, was a loose term and signified simply the head of a house,
or the “lord” or owner of the mother. It mattered little whether a man
had previously lent his wife to a friend, or whether he had shared
her favours with several brothers, all the children “born on his bed”
belonged to him and were of his family.

Later in these pages will be observed the fact that the change in
reckoning descent, which occurred at a comparatively late period in
the history of the human race, is directly connected with the means of
subsistence. So long as land was held in common by the members of the
gens, and so long as women were able to manage the means of support,
their independence was secure, and they were able to exercise absolute
control over their own persons, their homes, and their offspring. Under
these conditions men were obliged to please the women if they would win
their favours.

From facts which have been demonstrated by various writers on the
subject of the early conditions of the human race, it is more than
probable that women were the original tillers of the soil, and that,
during the first period of barbarism, while the hunters and warriors
were engaged in war and the chase, occupations best suited to their
taste, women first discovered the art of producing farinaceous food
through cultivation, and through this discovery a hitherto exclusive
diet of fish and game was changed for a subsistence in part vegetable.

It is conjectured also that the first domestication of animals was
brought about through a probable “freak of fancy.” That individuals
among these animals were first caught by hunters, conveyed by them to
their homes, and there tamed through the tenderness and sympathy of
women, is considered more than likely. There are, however, so far as I
know, no actual facts upon which to base such a conclusion.

The increase of subsistence through horticulture and the domestication
of animals marks an important era in the history of mankind. By this
means the human race was enabled to spread itself over distant areas,
and through the improved condition of nutrition alone, by which the
physical conditions were improved and the mental energies strengthened,
the arts of life were multiplied and the course of human activities
directed into higher and more important channels. Indeed, through the
numerous benefits derived from the one source of increased and improved
subsistence, the entire mode of life was changed or materially modified.

The religious idea, which subsequently comprehended a complicated
system of mythology based on phallic worship, at this early age,
consisted simply of a recognition of the bounties of earth. The
principal office connected with the religious ceremonies of the
Iroquois tribe of Indians, at the stage of development in which it was
first known to Europeans, seems to have been “Keeper of the Faith,”
a position occupied alike by both sexes. The Keepers of the Faith
were chosen by the wise members of the group; they were censors of
the people, with power to report the evil deeds of persons to the
council. “With no official head, and none of the marks of a priesthood,
their functions were equal.”[105] For the most part, their religious
services consisted of festivals held at stated seasons to celebrate
the return of the bounties of Nature. A notable fact in connection
with this subject is, that during the earlier ages of barbarism the
religious idea was thoroughly monotheistic, and idolatry was unknown,
religious worship, for the most part, consisting of a ceremony of
thanksgiving, with invocations to the Great Mother-Nature to continue
to them the blessings of life. As altruism waned and egoism advanced,
however, supernaturalism, or a belief in unseen forces, became more
and more pronounced, until, in the Latter Status of barbarism, when
the supremacy of man had become complete, the gens became merely the
“centre of religious influence and the source of religious development.”

[105] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 82.

The earlier governmental functions were administered through a council
of chiefs elected by the gentes. The thoroughly democratic character
of the gens may be observed in the fact that any member, female or
male, who desired to communicate with the council on matters of public
interest, might express her or his opinion either in person or through
an orator of her or his own selection.[106] Hence, we observe that
government originated in the gens, which was a pure democracy.

[106] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 117.

Regarding the council of the gens, Mr. Morgan remarks:

 It was a democratic assembly because every adult male and female
 member had a voice upon all questions brought before it. It elected
 and deposed its sachem and chiefs, it elected Keepers of the Faith, it
 condoned or avenged the murder of a gentilis, and it adopted persons
 into the gens. It was the germ of the higher council of the tribe, and
 of that still higher of the confederacy, each of which was composed
 exclusively of chiefs as representatives of the gentes....

 All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they
 were bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were equal in
 privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no
 superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of
 kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were
 cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material because the
 gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation
 upon which Indian society was organized.... At the epoch of European
 discovery the American Indian tribes generally were organized in
 gentes with descent in the female line. The gens was the basis of the
 phratry, of the tribe, and of the confederacy of tribes.[107]

[107] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 85.

From the foregoing it would seem that the gens—the earliest
organization of society of which we have any accurate knowledge—was
founded on the “mother-right” or on the supremacy of women. We are
assured that the gentile organization is not confined to the Latin,
Grecian, and Sanskrit-speaking tribes, but that it has been found “in
other branches of the Aryan family of nations, in the Semitic, Uralian,
and Turanian families, among the tribes of Africa and Australia, and of
the American aborigines.”[108]

[108] _Ibid._, p. 64.

A tribe was composed of several gentes, the chiefs of which formed the
council. This council was invested with the power to declare war and to
regulate terms of peace, to receive embassies and make alliances; it
was in fact authorized to perform all the governmental functions of the
tribe. The duties performed by the council of chiefs may be regarded
as the first attempt at representative government. In process of time,
as the affairs of the tribe became more complicated, a need arose for
a recognized head, one who when the council was not in session could
lead in the adjustment of matters pertaining to the general interest
of the group. In response to this demand, one of the sachems was
invested with a slight degree of authority over the other chiefs. Hence
arose the military chieftain of the Latter Status of barbarism. That
the powers delegated to the incumbent of this office differed widely
from those of a modern monarch, is shown in the fact that as he had
been elected by the members of the group he could by them be deposed.
We have seen that the powers exercised by sachem and chief were alike
transmitted through women. The mother is the natural guardian of the
family; so soon therefore as the actions of the leaders of the group
were not in accord with those principles of equality and justice which
had characterized society since its organization, they were deposed,
or, as in the case of the Senecas described by Ashur Wright, they had
their “horns knocked off” through the influence of women.

At the head of the family, or gens, producing and controlling the
principal means of subsistence, and forming the line of descent and
inheritance, women, until the closing ages of the Middle Status of
barbarism, were without doubt the leading spirits, and thus far the
progress of mankind had been in strict accord with those principles
which since the separation of the sexes had governed development.

In process of time, however, the simple form of government which
has been described was found inadequate to meet the demands arising
from the more complicated requirements of increasing numbers and
the general growth of society; therefore, during the opening ages
of the Latter Status of barbarism, a form of government was evolved
which was better suited to their changed conditions. When the idea
of a coalescence of tribes, or of a combination of forces for common
defence had taken root, and when under such confederation the council
of chiefs had become co-ordinated with a military leader for the
general management and defence of the community, it was thought that an
important step had been taken in progressive governmental functions.
Yet, along with the higher development of the governmental idea is to
be observed also a growing tendency toward the usurpation of power.
Scarcely was the office of military chieftain created, than we find the
people inaugurating measures with which to protect themselves against
encroachments upon their liberties, and devising means whereby they
might be enabled to check the personal ambition of their leaders.

The extreme egoism developed within the male constitution was already
manifesting itself in the excessive greed for gain, and in the
inordinate thirst for military glory; hence, as a safeguard against
usurpation, in the earliest stages of the Latter Status of barbarism,
we find the tribe electing two military chieftains instead of one,
two leaders invested with equal powers and responsibilities and
subjected to the same restrictions and limitations in the exercise
of authority. The Spartan government upon its first appearance in
history is characterized by the existence of two war-chieftains, who,
by historians of later ages, have been designated as kings; a closer
investigation, however, of the functions performed by them shows that
they were lacking in nearly all the prerogatives which characterize a
modern sovereign.

So jealously had the rights of the people been guarded that the
_basileus_ or war-chief of the Latter Status of barbarism, who is said
to represent the germ of our present king, emperor, and president, had
not succeeded in drawing to himself the powers exercised by a monarch
of modern times. The selection of a military leader, during the Latter
Status of barbarism, doubtless represents the first differentiation
of the civil from the military functions of government, and indicates
a virtual acknowledgment of the fact that society had outgrown the
primary and more simple form of government administered by the council
of chiefs.

The third stage in the development of the idea of government was
represented by a council of chiefs, a military commander, and an
assembly of the people. In this further growth of the administrative
functions may be discovered the same solicitude for individual liberty
and the rights of the community which had characterized the former
stage of development, and also the fact that still greater precautions
were deemed necessary to insure the people against tyranny and
the usurpation of their established rights. The council of chiefs,
although representing a pure democracy, and co-ordinated with two
military chieftains, between whom was an equal division of power and
responsibility, was found to be an insufficient safeguard against
despotism; hence the measures devised for the management of the
confederacy must henceforth be subjected to an Assembly of the People,
which, although of itself unable to originate or propound any plan
of government, was invested with the power to accept or reject any
measures offered for adoption by the council.

The gens was able to carry mankind through to the opening ages of
civilization, at which time the council of chiefs was transformed
into a senate, and the Assembly of the People assumed the form of the
popular assembly, from which have been derived our present Congress and
the two houses of the English Parliament.

By a careful study of the growth of government, it is discerned that
liberty, fraternity, and equality were the original and natural
inheritance of the human family, and that tyranny, injustice, and
oppression are excrescences which subsequently fastened themselves upon
human institutions through the gradual rise of the egoistic principle
developed in human nature. We have seen that until the beginning of the
Latter Status of barbarism, the gens constituted a sovereign power in
the tribe; women controlled the gens, and sachem and chief were alike
invested with the authority necessary for leadership because they could
trace their descent to some female ancestor who was the acknowledged
head of the people, and whose influence and patronage must have
extended over all the individuals included within the recognized bond
of kinship.

With the deposing power in the hands of women, and with the precautions
which were taken by them against injustice or usurpation of rights, it
is plain that unless some unusual or unprecedented circumstances had
come into play, they never could have lost that supremacy which, as the
natural result of their development, had been maintained by females
since the separation of the sexes.




CHAPTER IV

THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE

    I will be master of what is mine own;
    She is my goods, my chattels; she’s my house,
    My household stuff, my field, my barn,
    My horse, my ox, my ass, my everything.

    _The Taming of the Shrew._


It is an obvious fact that so far as her sex relations are concerned
the position of civilized woman is lower than that of the female animal.

The question which presents itself at this stage of our inquiry is:
What were the causes which led to the overthrow of female supremacy or
what were the processes by which man gained the undisputed right to the
control of woman’s person? By contrasting the industrial position of
women under gentile institutions with that of later times, after they
had become the sexual slaves of men, it will be seen that the question
of economics is deeply involved in this change. Although the early
independence of women is now recognized, the fact of their industrial
supremacy is for the most part ignored. Indeed the part performed by
woman in originating and developing human industries is seldom referred
to by those dealing with this subject.

As the activities best suited to the tastes of primitive man were
confined to war and the chase, those occupations and pursuits which
were necessary for the preservation of the group were carried on by
women. The reason for this is obvious. Fathers were not regarded as
being related to their offspring. The mother was the only recognized
parent. As the land was held in common, women were economically free.
They were absolutely independent of men for their support. Under these
conditions the importance of women’s position may be easily perceived.

Not only did women establish the first industries, but they invented
and constructed the tools and implements by which these industries
were carried on. Women were the first tillers of the soil. It was they
who conceived the idea of preserving seeds whereby farinaceous food
might be produced. Corn was not only raised by them but by them it
was ground and further prepared for use. They built clay granaries in
which to store their food products and tamed the cat to protect them.
Implements for tilling the soil, and devices for grinding the grain
were invented by women. They were the first architects and the first
builders. They first conceived the idea of making cloth with which to
protect the body. They were the first spinners and the first weavers.
They invented the first spindles and the first looms. Their attempts
at decoration were the beginning of art.

As these pioneers in industry were without means of transportation
other than their backs, some of the difficulties which they encountered
may be readily perceived. It must be borne in mind that for primitive
women there was no accumulated store of knowledge and no previous
race-experiences; neither were there any established rules or
precedents to guide them. All methods and utilities had to be worked
out by woman’s unaided brain. When the conditions under which these
pioneers in industry laboured are considered, and when one reflects
on the obstacles which must have presented themselves at every step
along their untried pathway, it would almost seem that their early
achievements were quite as remarkable as are those which have since
been accomplished by men.

The fact is observed that woman assumed the rôle of protector and
provider, not as is commonly asserted because she was compelled by
man to become a beast of burden, but because she was the recognized
guardian not only of infant life but of the public welfare. Later,
after the primitive groups began to coalesce to form the tribe, after
wife-capture became prevalent and men thereby secured the right to the
control and ownership of individual women, a right which they still
claim, then and not till then did women become beasts of burden. Then
and not till then did man gain the right to the control of woman’s
person.

It is now known that wife-capture is the origin of our present form
of marriage, and that the establishment of the family with man at its
head rests on the same basis. It is also known that through forcible
marriage and the economic conditions which it entailed, woman became
a dependent, a mere appendage to her male mate. The dominion of man
and the assumed inferiority of woman are the direct results of the
authority which he was able to exercise over her in the marital
relation.

We have seen that prior to the decline of female influence women taken
prisoners in war were not regarded as the legitimate property of their
captors. On the contrary, female captives were adopted into the gens
and invested with the same status of personal independence enjoyed by
the original members of the group. Later, however, female prisoners
began to be regarded as the special booty of their captors, and as
belonging exclusively to them; and although in primitive times marriage
outside the limits of related groups was prohibited, owing to the
esteem in which military chieftains came to be held, this claim was at
length allowed them. Any courageous young warrior, conscious of his
popularity, might gather about him a band of his clansmen and march
against a neighbouring tribe, the women taken prisoners during such
expeditions being the special prizes of their captors.

These prisoners were entitled to none of the privileges of the
community into which they were taken; and as the hostility felt toward
unrelated tribes had become so strong as to be shared by women, the
captive woman could no longer look for pity even from her own sex.

From this time in the history of the race may be traced the decline
of woman’s power and the subjection of the natural female impulses.
As, at this stage, within the limits of their own tribe, women held
the balance of power in their own hands, and as they still exercised
unqualified control over their own persons, the acknowledged ownership
of one woman, who, being a “stranger,” was without power or influence,
would be an object much to be desired, and one for which a warrior
would not hesitate to brave the dangers of a hostile camp. Hence,
female captives were in demand, and the women of warring tribes were
sought after singly and in groups. In process of time wars for wives
became general and under the new regime women had the fear of captivity
constantly before their view as a condition more to be dreaded than
death.

In the _Mahabharata_ of India it is stated that formerly “women were
unconfined and roved about at their pleasure, independent.” Finally,
marriage was instituted and a woman was bound to a man for life. One
of the eight forms of legalized marriage in the code of Manu was that
of capture _de facto_ and was called _Racshasa_. This particular form
of conjugal union was practised exclusively by the military classes,
among which, the women taken in battle were the acknowledged booty of
their captors. A definition of this kind of marriage is as follows:
“The seizure of a maiden by force from her house while she weeps and
calls for assistance, after her kinsmen and friends have been slain in
battle or wounded, and their houses broken open, is the marriage called
_Racshasa_.”

Capture as the prescribed form of marriage for warriors may be traced
through thousands of years and among various peoples. Of the three
legalized forms of marital union in Rome, that by capture was the one
in use among the plebeians, the patricians at the same time practising
_Confarreatio_ and _Usus_. In Arabia, as late as Mohammed’s time, the
carrying off of women was recognized as a legal form of marriage.[109]

[109] W. Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 73.

That capture constituted a legal form of marriage among the Israelites,
or that women taken captives in war were appropriated as sexual slaves,
is shown by their religious history, in which the instructions given
to the Lord’s chosen people after they had taken a city was to “smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the
little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city” they were to
take unto themselves. This, it will be noticed, is to be done “unto
the cities which are very far off,” and which “are not of the cities of
these nations.”[110]

[110] Deuteronomy, chap. xx., 13, 14, 15.

When the Israelites 12,000 strong marched against the Midianites, they
were commanded by Moses to slay all the males, adults and children,
and all the women except the virgins. These virgins of whom there
were 32,000 were to be spared and utilized as wives by the victorious
Israelites. The fact will be noted that these women had been taken
from their own people, hence they were wholly without influence or
power. They were dependents and therefore subject to the will of their
masters. They were sexual slaves or wives.

In Australia, among the North American Indians, the tribes of the
Amazon and the Orinoco, in Hindustan and Afghanistan, marriage by
actual capture is still practised, and many of the details connected
with the _modus operandi_ have been given by various writers. The
following from Sir George Gray, relative to this form of marriage as it
exists at the present time among some of the native Australian tribes,
is quoted by Mr. J. F. McLennan.

Although a woman give no encouragement to her admirers,

 many plots are laid to carry her off, and in the encounters which
 result from these, she is almost certain to receive some violent
 injury, for each of the combatants orders her to follow him, and in
 the event of her refusing, throws a spear at her. The early life of a
 young woman at all celebrated for beauty is generally one continued
 series of captivity to different masters, of ghastly wounds, of
 wanderings in strange families, of rapid flights, of bad treatment
 from other females, amongst whom she is brought a stranger by her
 captor; and rarely do you see a form of unusual grace and elegance,
 but it is marked and scarred by the furrows of old wounds; and many
 a female thus wanders several hundred miles from the home of her
 infancy, being carried off successively to distant and more distant
 points.[111]

[111] _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 40.

In an account describing the search for wives by the natives of Sydney,
Collins says:

 The poor wretch is stolen upon in the absence of her protectors. Being
 first stupefied with blows, inflicted with clubs or wooden swords,
 on the head, back, and shoulders, every one of which is followed by
 a stream of blood, she is then dragged through the woods by one arm,
 with a perseverance and violence that it might be supposed would
 displace it from its socket. This outrage is not resented by the
 relations of the female, who only retaliate by a similar outrage when
 they find an opportunity. This is so constantly the practice among
 them that even the children make it a play game, or exercise.[112]

[112] Quoted by Sir J. Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 108.

By various travellers and explorers, the fact has been observed that
certain symbols representing force in their marriage ceremonies are in
use among nearly if not all extant tribes which have reached a certain
stage of growth. To such an extent, in an earlier age, has the forcible
carrying-off of women prevailed, that among most of these tribes a
valid marriage may not be consummated without the appearance of force
in the nuptial ceremonies. In reference to these symbols, we have the
following passage from Mr. McLennan:

 Meantime, we observe that, whenever we discover symbolical forms,
 we are justified in inferring that in the past life of the people
 employing them, there were corresponding realities; and if, among the
 primitive races which we examine, we find such realities as might
 naturally pass into such forms on an advance taking place in civility,
 then we may safely conclude (keeping within the conditions of a sound
 inference) that what these now are, those employing the symbols once
 were.[113]

[113] _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 5.

Among primitive tribes, the area controlled by each was small,
therefore vigilance in maintaining their possessions was one of their
chief duties, and hostility to surrounding tribes a natural condition.
Subsequently, however, when friendly relations began to be established
with hitherto hostile tribes, they are found entering into negotiations
to furnish each other with wives. It was at this time that marriage by
sale or contract was instituted, an arrangement by which the elder men
in the tribe could be accommodated with foreign wives, at the same time
that their own daughters and sisters became to them a source of revenue.

In Uganda many men obtain wives by exchanging daughters and sisters
with each other. Of this practice C. Staniland Wake says:

 This is not an unusual mode of proceeding in different parts of
 the world. The perpetuation of the monopoly of women enjoyed to a
 great extent by the older men of the tribe among the Australians
 is, according to Mr. Howitt, encouraged by those having sisters or
 daughters to exchange with each other for wives.[114]

[114] _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 207.

Not unfrequently actual capture is practised side by side with
fiction—violent seizure being in active operation among the same tribes
at the same time with the symbol, the frequency of actual violence
depending partly on the extent to which hostility prevails between the
tribes, and partly on the degree of “uniformity established by usage in
the prices paid for wives.” Among certain tribes, when a dispute arises
concerning the price to be paid for a bride, if the man is able to
seize the woman and carry her off to his tent, the law recognizes her
as his wife and nothing is left for the relations to do in the matter
but to accept his terms as to the price.

The peoples among which actual capture is at present practised, and
those among which wives are procured by sale or contract, represent two
different stages in the development of the institution of marriage, and
it is owing to this fact that the symbols used among the latter may be
traced to the realities in which they originated.

Of the Bedouins of Mt. Sinai, Burckhardt says that marriage is a
matter of sale and purchase, in which the inclination of the girl is
disregarded.

 The young maid comes home in the evening with the cattle. At a short
 distance from the camp she is met by the future spouse and a couple
 of his young friends, and carried off by force to her father’s tent.
 If she entertains any suspicion of their designs she defends herself
 with stones, and often inflicts wounds on the young men, even though
 she does not dislike the lover, for, according to custom, the more she
 struggles, bites, kicks, cries, and shrieks, the more she is applauded
 ever after by her own companions.[115]

[115] Quoted by E. J. Wood, _The Wedding Day_, etc., p. 60.

In reference to the Mezeyne Arabs the same writer observes that a
similar custom prevailed within the limits of the Sinai Peninsula, but
not among the other tribes of that province.

 A girl having been wrapped in the Abba at night, is permitted to
 escape from her tent, and fly into the neighbouring mountains.
 The bridegroom goes in search of her next day, and remains often
 many days before he can find her out, while her female friends are
 apprised of her hiding-place, and furnish her with provisions. If
 the husband finds her at last (which is sooner or later, according to
 the impression that he has made upon the girl’s heart), he is bound
 to consummate the marriage in the open country, and to pass the night
 with her in the mountains. The next morning the bride goes home to her
 tent, that she may have some food; but again runs away in the evening
 and repeats these flights several times, till she finally returns to
 her tent. She does not go to live in her husband’s tent until she is
 far advanced in pregnancy; if she does not become pregnant, she may
 not join her husband till a full year from the wedding-day.[116]

[116] Quoted by E. J. Wood, _The Wedding Day_, etc., p. 60.

Cranz says that in Greenland “some females, when a husband is proposed
to them will fall into a swoon, elope to a desert place, or cut off
their hair.... In the latter case they are seldom troubled with further
addresses.” The refractory bride is dragged

 forcibly into her suitor’s house, where she sits for several days
 disconsolate, with dishevelled hair, and refuses nourishment. When
 friendly exhortations are unavailing, she is compelled by force and
 even with blows to receive her husband. Should she elope, she is
 brought back and treated more harshly than before.[117]

[117] _History of Greenland_, vol. i., p. 146.

Wherever friendly relations have been established between the tribe of
the wife and that of the husband, he pays a price to her relatives
for the privilege of removing her to his camp. This purchase price,
together with the simulated hatred of the woman’s friends, signifies a
sacrifice on the part of the wife and her family. In Nubia when a man
marries he presents his wife with a wedding-dress, and gives her also
a pledge for three or four hundred piastres, half of which sum is paid
her in case of a divorce. Divorces, however, are very rare.[118]

[118] Burckhardt, _Travels in Nubia_, p. 34.

Among the Circassians, after the preliminaries have been settled by
the parents, the lover meets his bride-elect by night in some secluded
spot, and with the assistance of two or three of his best friends
seizes her and carries her away. Sometimes the pretended capture takes
place in the midst of a noisy feast. The woman is usually conducted
into the presence of a mutual friend, where, on the following day,
her friends, simulating anger, seek her and demand a reason for her
abduction. Although the affair is usually settled at once by the
bridegroom paying the accustomed price for his bride, custom requires
that there shall be still further manifestations of anger on the part
of her friends; so, on the following day, all the relatives of the
bride, armed with sticks, proceed to the place where the bride is in
waiting, there to meet the bridegroom and his friends who have come to
carry off the bride. A sham fight ensues, in which the bridegroom and
his party are always victorious. Among certain of the Arabian tribes
the bridegroom must force his bride to enter his tent, and in France,
as late as the seventeenth century, a similar custom prevailed.

In describing a wedding dance in Abyssinia, Parkyns observes:

 This dance is performed by men armed with shields and lances, who
 with bounds, feints, and springs attack others armed with guns, so as
 to approach them, and at the same time avoid their fire, while the
 gunners make similar demonstrations, and at last fire off their guns
 either in the air or into the earth, and then, drawing their swords,
 flourish them about as a finish.

Finally the bridegroom fires off a gun and immediately rushes across to
where the bride and her female relations are stationed.[119]

[119] _Life in Abyssinia_, vol. ii., p. 49.

Tylor informs us that a Scandinavian warrior generally sought to gain
his bride by force, that he conceived it beneath his dignity to win
her by pacific means. That the affair might appear more heroic, he
waited until the object of his choice was about to wed another, and was
actually on her way to the nuptial ceremony, when with his friends he
would surprise the wedding cortege, seize the bride, and carry her off.
It has been said of Scandinavian marriages that they were matters of
deep anxiety to the friends both of the bride and groom, who, until the
wedding was over, remained at home in suspense fearing an attack of
the kind already mentioned. It was customary for a party of young men
to station themselves at the church door, and, as soon as the ceremony
was completed, to carry the news to the homes of the wedded pair.
“Within a few generations the same old practice was kept up in Wales,
where the bridegroom and his friends, mounted and armed as for war,
carried off the bride,” and in Ireland they used even to hurl spears at
the bride’s people, though at such a distance that no one was hurt.[120]

[120] _Anthropology_, p. 404.

In the Amazon valley the bride is always carried away by violence.
Among the Zulus, although a purchase price is paid for a woman, custom
requires that a wife, after having been captured, shall make three
attempts to return to her own home.

Of the marriage customs in ancient Sparta, Plutarch says: “In their
marriages the bridegroom carried off the bride by violence.”[121]
In Rome we have the familiar example of the Sabine women, who were
captured or carried off by force.

[121] _Lycurgus._

A notable fact in connection with the subject of capture is, that the
mother of the bride, or, in case the mother is dead, the nearest female
relative, is the individual who assumes the part of the principal
defender in this ceremony. She it is who attempts to rescue the bride,
and who more than any other mourns the fate of the captured wife. Among
primitive peoples, with the exception of the symbol of wife-capture
in marriage ceremonies, there is perhaps none more significant than
that typifying the hatred of the mother for the captor of her daughter.
Customs indicating estrangement or, actual aversion to sons-in-law,
usually, if not always, accompany marriage by capture.

The fact that the change in the relative positions of the sexes, as
indicated by the _sadica_ and _ba’al_ forms of marriage in Arabia,
was not easily or speedily accomplished, is apparent not only in the
symbols of wife-capture everywhere practised among peoples in a certain
stage of development, but is strongly suggested also by the aversion
found to exist among these same peoples between mothers-in-law and
sons-in-law, whether appearing as a reality or as a symbol.

 Among the Arawaks of South America, it is unlawful for the son-in-law
 to look upon the face of his mother-in-law. If they live in the same
 house a partition separates them, and if by chance they must enter the
 same boat, she must precede him so as to keep her back toward him.

Among the Caribs, all the women talk with whom they will, but the
husband dare not converse with his wife’s relations except on
extraordinary occasions.[122] Mr. Tylor refers to the fact that

[122] Quoted by Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_, p. 290.

 In the account of the Floridian expedition of Alvar Nuñez, commonly
 known as Cabeca de Vaca, or Cow’s Head, it is mentioned that the
 parents-in-law did not enter the son-in-law’s house, nor he theirs,
 nor his brother-in-law’s, and if they met by chance, they went a
 buckshot out of their way, with their heads down and eyes fixed on the
 ground, for they held it a bad thing to see or speak to one another.

It is observed by Richardson, an author quoted by Tylor, that among the
Crees, while an Indian lives with his wife’s family, his mother-in-law
must not speak to or look at him. In some portions of Australia, “the
mother-in-law does not allow the son-in-law to see her, but hides
herself if he is near, and if she has to pass him makes a circuit,
keeping carefully concealed within her cloak.”

Among some of the tribes in Central Africa, from the moment a marriage
is contracted, the lover may not behold the parents of his future
bride. When a young man wishes to marry a girl, he dispatches a
messenger to negotiate with her parents regarding the presents required
and the number of oxen demanded. This being arranged, he may not again
look upon the father and mother of his intended wife; “he takes the
greatest care to avoid them, and if by chance they perceive him they
cover their faces as if all ties of friendship were broken.” We are
told, however, that this indifference is only feigned, that they feel
the same friendship as before, and in conversation extol one another’s
merit. Mr. Caillie says that this custom extends beyond the relations;
if the lover is of a different camp, he must avoid all the inhabitants
of the lady’s camp, except a few intimate friends who are permitted
to assist him in his love-making. A little tent is set up for him in
the neighbourhood, under which he is to remain during the day. If he
has occasion to cross the camp he must cover his face. He may not see
the face of his intended throughout the day, but at nightfall he may
creep silently to her tent and remain with her until the dawn. These
clandestine visits are continued for a month or two when the marriage
is solemnized. At the wedding festival the women collect round the
bride singing her praises and extolling her virtues.[123]

[123] _Travels through Central Africa_, vol. i., p. 94.

Gubernatis is authority for the statement that, in many parts of
Italy the bride is compelled to go through the process of weeping on
her wedding-day, also for the fact that one of the marriage customs
prevalent in Sardinia is identical with that which appeared among the
plebeians at Rome, namely, the pretence of tearing the bride from the
arms of her mother.[124]

[124] See McLennan’s _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 189.

From the facts which have been obtained relative to the practice of
wife-capture, it is only natural to suppose that the mother of the
captured wife would be her chief ally and defender; that such has been
the case seems to be clearly shown by the symbols of distrust and
aversion everywhere manifested between mothers-in-law and sons-in-law
among the various existing uncivilized races. The practice of
wife-capture exists either as a reality or as a symbol entering into
the marriage ceremonies among the tribes of Central Africa, the Indians
of North and South America, in Australia, in New Zealand, in Arabia, in
the hill tracts of India, among the Fuegians, and in the islands of the
Pacific Ocean, and wherever this system is found the symbol of hatred
between mother-in-law and son-in-law also prevails.

The simulated anger and sham violence connected with marriage
ceremonies among friendly peoples, which are so far removed from a
time when actual capture was practised as to be ignorant of the true
significance of these symbols, show the extent to which marriage is
based on the idea of force on the one side and unwilling submission on
the other.

As the numerous Arabian clans in the time of Mohammed represented the
varying stages of advancement from the second period of barbarism to
civilization, the constitution of Arab society at that time affords an
excellent opportunity for observing the growth of the institution of
marriage, and the various processes by which the former supremacy of
women was overthrown.

One of the principal objects of war at the time of the Prophet is said
to have been the capture of women for wives, a practice which was
recognized as lawful. Under Islam the custom of forcibly carrying off
women for wives was universal and was carried on side by side with the
system of marriage by contract or sale. The position of the captured
woman, however, differed somewhat from that of the purchased wife.
The former, having been forcibly carried away from her home, lost the
protection of her friends, while the purchased wife, although she
relinquished the authority which had formerly been exercised by women
within the gens, and although she surrendered her person to her “lord,”
did not forfeit her right to the protection of her own family in case
of abuse.

Although in Arabia, under the form of marriage by sale or contract,
the wife lost the right to the control of property belonging to her
own gens, she did not, as in Rome, forfeit her claim to the protection
of her kindred. If she received ill treatment within the home of her
husband, her relatives, who were still her natural protectors, were
bound to redress her wrongs. In Rome, on the contrary, under a system
representing a later stage in the development of marriage, the wife
was adopted into the stock of her husband whose rights over her person
were supreme, at the same time that her kindred renounced the right to
interfere in her behalf.

It is to the fact, that in early Arabia the wife never relinquished her
hold upon her own relations, that we are to look for an explanation of
the high social position of Arabian women. We are assured that it is
“an old Arab sentiment, and not Moslem,” that women are entitled to
the highest respect, and that as mothers of the tribe they “are its
most sacred trust.”

According to Professor W. R. Smith in Mohammed’s time, in addition
to the two forms of marriage mentioned, namely, that by capture and
that by sale or contract, there existed also a more ancient form
known as the _sadica_—a form of conjugal union which was a remnant of
the matriarchal system. By observing the facts connected with this
last-named institution, we shall be enabled to understand something
of the position occupied by women during the earlier ages of human
existence before wife-capture became prevalent.

Among certain tribes just prior to Islam, upon the event of marriage,
the man presented the woman with a sum of money, which offering was
simply an acknowledgment of the favour which she was conferring upon
him. The husband went to live with the wife in her tent, and as the
contract was for no specified length of time, he was at liberty to go
whenever he tired of the conditions imposed on him by his wife and her
relations. Any children, however, that were born as a result of this
union belonged to the mother and became members of her _hayy_. If she
desired him to go, she simply turned the tent around, “so that if the
door had faced east it now faced west, and when the man saw this he
knew that he was dismissed and did not enter.” In relation to these
marriage customs Professor Smith says: “Here, therefore, we have the
proof of a well-established custom of that kind of marriage which
naturally goes with female kinship in the generation immediately before
Islam.” Of this kind of marriage the same writer observes:

 The _motă_ marriage was a purely personal contract, founded on consent
 between a man and a woman, without any intervention on the part of
 the woman’s kin.... Now the fact that there was no contract with the
 woman’s kin—such as was necessary when the wife left her own people
 and came under the authority of her husband—and that, indeed, her
 kin might know nothing about it, can have only one explanation: in
 _motă_ marriage the woman did not leave her home, her people gave up
 no rights which they had over her, and the children of the marriage
 did not belong to the husband. _Motă_ marriage, in short, is simply
 the last remains of that type of marriage which corresponds to a law
 of mother-kinship, and Islam condemns it, and makes it “the sister
 of harlotry,” because it does not give the husband a legitimate
 offspring, _i. e._, an offspring that is reckoned to his own tribe and
 has rights of inheritance within it.[125]

[125] Prof. W. R. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 69.

Before the separation of the Hebrews and Aramæans, the wife remained
within her own tent where she received her husband, the children of
such unions taking her name and becoming her heirs. This kind of
conjugal union is known to have been in existence in many portions of
the world. In Ceylon it is designated as the _beena_ marriage.

In ancient Arabia, not only did women control their own homes, but
they owned flocks and herds, and were absolutely independent of male
relations. As late as the fourteenth century of our era, although the
women of certain Arabian tribes were willing to marry strangers, they
never followed them to their homes.

Among the Bedouins it is a rare thing for a woman at marriage to leave
her home and kindred. When a woman marries a man he settles among her
kinsmen, and, as she presents him with a spear and a tent by way of
dowry, it would seem that he is expected to join her relations and
assist in the common defence. The marks of authority under gentile
rule are the possession of a tent and a lance; yet we find that these
are the objects which, under matriarchal usages, the wife tenders her
husband when he enters her family; the first doubtless as a symbol of
her protection, the second as indicating her authority and the services
which he is expected to render her and her people. Until a late period
in Rome it was the custom, during the solemnities of marriage, to pass
a lance over the head of the wife in token of the power which the
husband was about to gain over her.[126]

[126] Ortolan, _History of Roman Law_, p. 80.

Under the two types of marriage—namely, _motă_ and _ba’al_—the
positions of women were so diametrically opposed that both could not
continue, hence when under the pressure brought to bear upon them,
women began to accept the _ba’al_ form of marriage within their own
_hayy_, _motă_ unions were doomed. Of the more ancient form of marriage
in Arabia, under which the woman chooses her mate, evidences of which
are still extant in that country, and that by capture under which she
becomes the slave of her lord, Professor Smith says:

 There is then abundant evidence that the ancient Arabs practised
 marriage by capture. And we see that the type of marriage so
 constituted is altogether different from those unions of which
 the _motă_ is a survival, and kinship through women the necessary
 accompaniment. In the one case the woman chooses and dismisses her
 husband at will, in the other she has lost the right to dispose of her
 person and so the right of divorce lies only with the husband; in the
 one case the woman receives the husband in her own tent, among her own
 people, in the other she is brought home to his tent and people; in
 the one case the children are brought up under the protection of the
 mother’s kin and are of her blood, in the other they remain with the
 father’s kindred and are of his blood.

 All later Arabic marriages under the system of male kinship, whether
 constituted by capture or by contract, belong to the same type; in all
 cases, as we shall presently see in detail, the wife who follows her
 husband and bears children who are of his blood has lost the right
 freely to dispose of her person; the husband has authority over her
 and he alone has the right of divorce. Accordingly the husband, in
 this kind of marriage, is called not in Arabia only, but also among
 the Hebrews and Aramæans, the woman’s “lord” or “owner,” and wherever
 this name for husband is found we may be sure that marriage is of the
 second type, with male kinship, and the wife bound to the husband and
 following him to his home.[127]

[127] _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 75.

Notwithstanding the humane enactments of Mohammed in the interest of
women, their position steadily declined, such enactments having been
overbalanced by the establishment of marriages of dominion, by the
growing idea that _sadica_ or _motă_ marriages were not respectable,
and that women could not depend upon their relations to take their
part against their husbands. The history of religion shows that
its growth has always followed the same course as have the ideas
concerning the relative importance of the sexes. The god-idea and the
fundamental doctrines of religion are always found to be in harmony
with the established principles and ideas relative to sex domination
and superiority. The religion of Mohammed was essentially masculine,
all its principles being in strict accord with male supremacy; it is
not, therefore, singular that when the weight of religion was added to
the already growing tendency toward _ba’al_ marriages that _sadica_
marriages were doomed.

In Arabia, as elsewhere, the duties of the purchased wife were
specific. The present which under the older form of marriage had been
given to the bride as a love-token, or as an acknowledgment of the
husband’s devotion to her, subsequently took the form of a purchase
price, and was claimed by her father and brothers as a compensation for
the loss sustained by the group through the removal of her offspring,
whose services belonged to their mother’s people. In other words, the
husband paid a price to the wife’s relations for the right to raise
children by her which should belong exclusively to his kin—children
which should she remain within her own home would belong to her
kindred. The wife was therefore removed to the husband’s _hayy_, where,
so far as the sexual relation was concerned, his rights over her were
supreme.

We have observed that wherever the possessions of the gens continued
to be the property of all its members, and were controlled by women,
the man at marriage went to live with the woman; so soon, however, as
men began to claim the soil, and property began to accumulate in their
hands, the wife went to reside with her husband and his family as a
dependent. Among various tribes, the form of marriage in use depends on
the means of the contracting parties; if the man is able to pay to the
woman’s father or brothers the full price charged for her, she goes to
him as his slave—she is his property as much as is his dog or his gun;
if, however, he is unable to pay the amount charged, he goes to live
with her and her family, and becomes their slave.

In Japan, among the higher classes, upon the marriage of the eldest
son, his bride accompanies him to his paternal home; but, on the other
hand, when the eldest daughter marries, her husband takes up his abode
with her parents. Eldest daughters always retain their own names, which
their husbands are obliged to assume. As the wife of an eldest son
becomes a member of her husband’s family, and the husband of an eldest
daughter joins the family of his wife and assumes her name, the eldest
son of a family may not marry the eldest daughter of another family.
Regarding the younger members of the household, if the husband’s family
provides the house, the wife takes his name, while if the bride’s
family furnishes the home the bridegroom assumes the name of the
wife.[128]

[128] Quoted by C. S. Wake from Morgan’s _System_, etc., p. 428.

In the marriage customs of various nations, and in their ideas relative
to the ownership and control of the home, may be observed something
more than a hint of the principal causes underlying the decline of
female power. Wherever women remain within their own homes, or with
their own relations, they are mistresses of the situation; but when
they follow the fathers of their children to their homes, they become
dependents and wholly subject to the will and pleasure of their
husbands.

It is plain, however, that under a system of marriage by sale or
contract, although a woman might exercise little influence in the home
of her husband, so long as her relations stood ready to defend her she
would enjoy an immunity from abuse. The fact that a woman can count
upon her relations for protection against her husband, shows plainly
that in a certain stage of marriage by contract or sale, women are not
the abject slaves which they have been represented to be. Although in
the Fiji Islands a man may seize a woman and take her to his home, she
does not remain with him unless agreeable to her inclinations.[129]

[129] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, p. 598.

 Amongst the Abipones, a man, on choosing a wife bargains with her
 parents about the price. But it frequently happens that the girl
 rescinds what has been agreed upon between the parents and the
 bridegroom, obstinately rejecting the very mention of marriage.[130]

[130] _Ibid._, p. 598.

Among the Charruas of South America, divorce is quite optional. In
Sumatra, if a man carries off a virgin against her will, he incurs a
heavy fine, or if a man carries off a woman under pretence of marriage,
“he must lodge her immediately with some reputable family.”[131]

[131] Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, p. 193.

Although in the earlier ages of marriage by sale or contract, daughters
were regarded as the property of their fathers, still that stage had
not been reached at which women were accounted simply as sexual
slaves. The Arabs practised marriage by sale or contract, yet they
jealously watched over their women,—they “defended them with their
lives and eagerly redeemed them when they were taken captive.” They
thought it better to bury their daughters than to give them in marriage
to unworthy husbands.[132] According to the testimony of J. G. Wood,
Kaffir women are very tenacious about their relations, probably, it
is thought, for the reason that husbands are more respectful toward
wives who have friends near them, than they are to those who have no
relations at hand to take their part.[133] Usually among the Kaffirs,
according to Mr. Shooter, although a man pays a price to the parents of
the woman whom he wishes to marry, the affair is by no means settled;
on the contrary, he must undergo the closest scrutiny by her before she
will consent to accept him. Bidding him stand, she surveys first one
side of him, then the other, the relations in the meantime standing
about awaiting her decision. Upon this subject Mr. Wood remarks: “This
amusing ceremony has two meanings: the first that the contract of
marriage is a voluntary act on both sides; and the second, that the
intending bridegroom has as yet no authority over her.”[134]

[132] Professor Smith, _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 79.

[133] _Uncivilized Races_, etc., p. 78.

[134] _Ibid._, p. 79.

Although under the system of marriage by sale or contract a woman
has a voice in the selection of her husband, and although she can
count on her kinsmen to protect her against abuse, still, practically,
the contract brings the wife under the same condition as a captured
wife; she follows her husband to his home, where, as a dependent, he
exercises control over her person and her children. In Arabia prior
to the time of the Prophet the wife could claim the protection of her
kindred against her husband, yet the principle underlying marriage by
contract and that by capture was the same, except that under the former
the husband paid a price for the woman’s sexual subjection, while under
the latter, not only in sexual matters, but in all others as well, he
was her “lord” and master.

The Prophet says: “I charge you with your women, for they are with
you as captives (_awânî_).” Professor Smith informs us that according
to the lexicons _awânî_ is actually used in the same sense as married
women generally.[135] For long ages after _ba’al_ marriages had been
established, so degrading was the office of wife that women of rank
were considered too great to marry.

[135] _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 77.

After relating some interesting accounts of certain practices in common
with the custom of capture among the Brazilian tribes, Sir John Lubbock
says:

 This view also throws some light on the remarkable subordination of
 the wife to the husband, which is so characteristic of marriage,
 and so curiously inconsistent with all our avowed ideas; moreover it
 tends to explain those curious cases in which Hetairæ were held in
 greater estimation than those women who were, as we should consider,
 properly and respectably married to a single husband. The former were
 originally fellow-countrywomen and relations; the latter captives and
 slaves.[136]

[136] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 127.

With the development of the egoistic principle, or when selfishness
and the love of gain became the rule of action, the protection of
her kindred, which in an earlier age a woman could count on against
her husband, was withdrawn, and daughters came to be looked upon as
a legitimate source of gain to their families. On this subject C.
Staniland Wake remarks:

 Women by marriage became slaves, and it was the universal practice for
 a man who parted with his daughter to be a slave to require a valuable
 consideration for her. Moreover, as a man can purchase as many slaves
 as he likes, so he can take as many wives as he pleases.[137]

[137] C. Staniland Wake, _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 199.

Thus arose polygamy.

In Rome, in the Latter Status of barbarism and the opening ages
of civilization, woman, at marriage, forfeited all the privileges
belonging to her as a member of her own family, while within that
of her husband no compensatory advantages were granted her. Even a
proprietary right in her own children was denied her, and from a legal
point of view the wife became the daughter of her husband, and not
unfrequently the ward of her own son.

After the power gained by man over woman during the latter ages of
barbarism had reached its height, the family was based not on the
marriage of a woman and a man, but upon the power of a man over a woman
and her offspring, or upon the absolute authority of the male parent.
In Rome a man’s wife and children were members of his family not
because they were related to him but because they were subject to his
control. At this stage in the development of the family, the father had
the power of “uncontrolled corporal chastisement” and of life and death
over his children.[138] If it was his will to do so, he could even sell
them. Indeed, a son’s freedom from paternal tyranny could be gained
only by the actual sale of his person by his father. Relating to the
control exercised by the father over his children, it is observed that
he had the right “during their whole life to imprison, scourge, keep to
rustic labour in chains, to sell or slay, even though they may be in
the enjoyment of high state offices.”[139] If a father granted freedom
to his son, that son was no longer a member of his family.

[138] Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 133.

[139] Ortolan, _History of Roman Law_, p. 107.

That, with the exception of force, there is no quality in the male
constitution capable of binding together the various individuals born
of the same father, is apparent from the past history of the human
race. Mr. Parkyns, referring to the character of the Abyssinians,
observes that the worst point in the constitution of their society is
the want of affection among relations, “even though they be children of
one father.” He says that the animosities which keep the tribes in a
constant state of warfare do not exist among the offspring of the same
mother and father, but, as the children of polygamous fathers are more
numerous than own brethren, fraternal affection is a rare thing.[140] A
comparison between the family group under archaic usages at a time when
woman’s influence was in the ascendency, and the Roman family under
the older Roman law, will serve to show the wide difference existing
between the altruistic and egoistic principles as controlling agencies
in the home and in society.

[140] _Life in Abyssinia_, p. 156.

A significant fact in connection with this subject is here suggested,
that, although for untold ages women were leaders of the gens, so long
as their will was supreme, no human right was ever invaded, and no
legitimate manly prerogative usurped; but, on the contrary, all were
equal, and the principles of a pure democracy were firmly grounded.
Liberty and justice had not at that time been throttled by the extreme
selfishness inherent in human nature.

Although the processes by which women at a certain stage of human
development lost their independence were gradual, they are by no means
difficult to trace. The history of human marriage as gathered from the
various tribes and races in the several stages of growth shows the
primary idea of the office of wife to have been that of sexual slavery,
and discloses the fact that it was the desire for foreign women who,
shorn of their natural independence, could be controlled, which caused
the overthrow of female supremacy.

As during the earlier ages of human existence the women of the group
were absolutely independent of men for the means of support, they were
able to so control their own movements. Only foreign women—captives
stolen from their homes and friends—taken singly or in groups could
be subjugated or brought into the wifely relation. Indeed, until
the systematic practice of capturing women from hostile tribes for
sexual purposes had been inaugurated, and the subsequent agency of
repression—namely, ownership of the soil by males, had followed as a
natural consequence, the usurpation by man of the natural rights and
privileges of woman was impossible. The male members of the group had
not at that time the power to sell their sisters and other female
relations, but, on the contrary, defended them manfully against the
assaults of hostile tribes. The foreign captor, the wife-catcher, was
an enemy who was both feared and hated, and upon him were showered the
maledictions of the entire group upon which the assault had been made.
In retaliation for his offence, the men who had been bereft of a sister
must in their turn commit a like depredation; thus, through the removal
of women, the men of early groups gradually gained control of the
common possessions at the same time that they were being supplied with
foreign wives over whom they exercised absolute control. In process of
time, when wealth began to accumulate in the hands of men, and when
friendly relations began to be established between neighbouring tribes,
foreign wives, without influence, were received in exchange for the
free-born women of a man’s own clan; henceforward a resort to capture
was unnecessary. Distant tribes, however, were still liable to attack.
Wars were waged against the men, who were sometimes slain, sometimes
taken prisoners, the invaders taking possession of the lands and
compelling the women to accept the position of wife to them. Finally,
negotiations were entered into whereby women were uniformly taken from
their homes to become wives in alien groups. Later, the _ba’al_ form
of marriage came to prevail within the tribe. Professor Smith, quoting
from the advice given by an Arab to his son, says: “Do not marry in
your own _hayy_, for that leads to ugly family quarrels,” to which he
adds,

 there was a real inconsistency in the position of a woman who was
 at once her husband’s free kinswoman and his purchased wife. It was
 better to have a wife who had no claims of kin and no brethren near to
 take her part.[141]

[141] _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 105.

Under earlier conditions of the human race women as bearers and
protectors of the young were regarded as the natural land-owners;
hence, they did not leave their own homes to follow the fathers of
their children. The woman who left her own relations for the _hayy_ of
her husband could no longer exercise control over the possessions of
her own gens, neither could she at a later period inherit property from
her kindred for the reason that her interests were identical with those
of her children and her children belonged to another clan. As property
could not be transferred from the group in which it originated, she was
disinherited. Through marriage women gave up their natural right to
the soil, and consequently to independence. A knowledge of the facts
connected with the origin of the institution of marriage, reveals the
fact that women lost their influence and power, not because of their
weakness, but because they were foreigners and dependents in the homes
of their husbands.

The statement was made at the beginning of this chapter that the origin
of marriage and the establishment of the family with man at its head
involve the subject of economies.

When property began to accumulate in the hands of men, when women
were forced to relinquish their right to the soil and thus to become
dependent on men for their support, their slavery was inevitable.
Later, when through the exigencies of the situation, woman went without
protest to the home of her master, there to become a pensioner upon his
bounty, her slavery was complete.

In process of time, women bound to foreign tribes by the children which
they had borne, began to accommodate themselves to the situation, and
even to claim an interest in the home of their adoption, whereupon
friendly relations began to be established between the tribe of the
mother and that of the father. Hence may be observed the fact that
the maternal instinct was the agency by which the barriers between
unrelated groups were gradually broken down, and by which a spirit
of friendliness was established between hitherto hostile tribes. As
the coherence of the group and the combination of the gentes to form
the tribe had been possible only by means of this instinct, so the
confederacy of tribes to form the nation was accomplished in the same
manner.

The change from female supremacy to male dominion is among the most
important of the evolutionary processes. From the facts underlying the
development of human society, and especially those underlying the two
diverging lines of sex-demarcation, it is evident that evolution does
not proceed in an undeviating line toward progress. It is perceived,
that seeming retrogressions always involve a gain—a gain which could
have been accomplished in no other way.

Among the benefits derived from this change in the positions of the
sexes was the development of altruism in man. When fathers began to
take an interest in their own offspring, to care for them and to become
responsible for their welfare, an important step had been taken toward
the establishment of the principle of brotherhood among mankind.
The evolutionary processes indicate a constant tendency toward the
solidarity of the race, they may be said to represent a resistless
force ever drawing the human family together in a closer bond of union
and sympathy. Under female supremacy, combination, or association of
interests, was confined to the gens. The extension of these interests
which resulted from the new order was necessary before humanity could
proceed on its onward course. These changes could not have taken place
under the early system based on the supremacy of women.

The facts brought out by scientists going to prove that the progressive
principle is confided to the female are accentuated by those
connected with the origin and subsequent development of marriage and
the family. That within the female lie the elements of progress is
clearly indicated, not only in the position which the female occupied
among the orders of life lower in the scale of being, and during the
earlier ages of human history, but also by her career as the slave of
man. Simply by means of the characters developed within the female
constitution, without material resources, and deprived of recognized
influence, women have been able to a certain extent, to dignify the
family and the home.

It is more than likely that in the not distant future, even the
institution of marriage, through which women have been degraded, will
become so purified and elevated that its results, instead of being a
menace to higher conditions will constitute a continuous source of
progress and a promise of still higher achievement. Before this may be
accomplished, mothers must be absolutely free and wholly independent
of the opposite sex for the means of support. Marriage must be a co
partnership in which neither sex has the right to control the other.

Although our present system of marriage took its rise in the practice
of forcing women into the marital relation, it must be borne in mind
that it was not inaugurated for the purpose of establishing monogamy.
On the contrary, the privileges of the captor remained the same within
his tribe as before the foreign woman was stolen. The theft was
committed for no other purpose than to augment the hitherto restricted
range of sexual liberties, and to give to the father absolute dominion
over the individuals born in his house.

The system of marriage in vogue at the present time has never
restricted men to the possession of a single woman. Monogamy, as
established under male supremacy, means one husband for one woman,
while a man may have as many women as he is able or willing to support.
As women are still dependent upon men for the necessities of life, the
supply of the former is regulated by the demands of the latter.

Marriage still retains its original meaning and significance, namely,
the ownership and control of women. With the exception of physical
force all the ceremonies, customs, ideas, and usages of primitive
marriage have been preserved. When a woman marries she is “given” to
her husband by her father or some other male relative. She promises
to obey her master and accepts a ring as a badge of her dependence
upon him. She relinquishes her own name and family, accepting as her
own the name and family of her husband. She follows him to his home
where, as she is supported by his bounty, she is subject to his will
and pleasure. Until women are economically free they will remain sexual
slaves.

Of all the forms of human slavery which have ever been devised there
has probably never been one so degrading as is that which has been
practiced within the marital relation, nor one in which the extrication
of the enslaved has been a matter of such utter hopelessness. The
present struggle of women for freedom shows how deeply rooted is the
instinct which demands their subjection.

The descent of woman has encompassed the lowest depths of human
degradation, but the end of the long and weary road which she has
traversed is nearly reached. Already the evolutionary processes which
are to release her from bondage are in operation.

From available facts relative to the development of early mankind,
it is certain that it must have required centuries upon centuries of
time to subjugate women and bring them into harmonious relations with
men while occupying a position of sexual slavery; first, physical
force, second, dependence, and third the substitution of masculine
opinions for the instincts and ideas which are peculiar to the female
constitution. This accomplished the processes were begun which were to
rivet the chains by which they were bound and by means of which women
themselves in their weakened condition were to acquiesce in their own
degradation. Religion was the means employed. Apollo, according to
Greek mythology, issued an edict declaring that man is superior to
woman and must rule, and Athene herself finally accepted the edict.
Through religion, women came to regard themselves simply as appendages
to men, as tools or instruments for their pleasure and gratification,
and as possessing no inherent right either to liberty or happiness.

Religion has its root in sex. As we have already seen the creative
force has ever been regarded as masculine or feminine according to
the relative importance of the two sexes in human society and in the
reproductive processes. So long as woman’s influence and power were in
the ascendency the mother was the only recognized parent. She was the
creator of offspring. Later, the abstract idea of female reproductive
power was manifested in the female deities. It required thousands upon
thousands of years to subdue women. It also required millenniums to
dethrone the female deities.

When, with the rise of male power, man began to assume the rôle of
parent, he assumed also all the functions which had formerly belonged
to woman. As has been noted in another portion of this work he even
went to bed when a child was born. With this change in the physical
relations of the sexes, the creative principle soon began to assume
a masculine aspect. Male deities began to appear associated with the
goddesses. In process of time, as male power increased, the god-idea
became wholly masculine. The Jewish god is a personified idea of male
power and reproductive energy. This subject will be referred to later
in these pages.

Thus the ancient plan of government which was the outgrowth of the free
maternal instinct, and which had guided humanity on its course for
thousands of years, finally succumbed to a system based on physical
force. When we remember the conditions surrounding early society we may
well believe that civilization was gained, not because of the fact that
male power succeeded in gaining the ascendency over female influence,
but in spite of it.

Given a combination of circumstances involving the supremacy of the
lower instincts in mankind, and the individual ownership of land, the
subjection of women, monarchy, and slavery, with all their attendant
evils, namely, poverty, disease, crime, and misery were sure to follow.

When we consider the fundamental bias of the two diverging lines of
sexual demarcation, it is not perhaps singular that the strong sexual
nature which has prompted males to vigorous physical action should for
a time have gained the ascendency over the higher qualities peculiar to
females; yet the material progress achieved under the inspiration and
direction of agencies like this will not, in a more enlightened stage
of existence, be regarded as embodying the results of the best efforts
of human activity, or as representing the highest capabilities of the
race.

Probably no one will deny that the accumulation of wealth by
individuals, and the subsequent change in the relative positions of
the sexes, were necessary steps toward the establishment of society
on a political or territorial basis, or toward the breaking up of
kindred groups and the acknowledgment of the idea of the unity of the
entire human family. Neither will the proposition be contradicted
that the evils attending these changes namely, monarchy, slavery,
and the inordinate love of gain have been unavoidable adjuncts to
the development of the race; yet, who will doubt that under higher
conditions, as the animal recedes in the distance, these blots on the
records of human history will be regarded not as regular steps in the
advancement of mankind, but as by-paths which, owing to the peculiar
bias which had been given to the male organism among the lower forms
of life, the human race has been obliged to take in order to reach
civilization?




CHAPTER V

THE MOTHER-RIGHT


Among the most conspicuous of the writers who have dealt with the
subject of primitive society are Herr Bachofen, Mr. J. F. McLennan,
Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. L. H. Morgan. In 1861, the first-named of
these writers, a Swiss jurist, published an extensive work on the early
condition of society, entitled _Das Mutter-recht_ (The Motherright),
in which was first given to the world the fact that prior to the
establishment of a system of kinship through males, there everywhere
existed a system based on female supremacy, under which descent was
reckoned through women.

Bachofen was first led to a belief in a former state of society in
which women were the recognized leaders through the evidence which
everywhere underlies the traditions and mythologies of extant nations.
Upon investigation he found indisputable evidence going to prove that
every family of the human race had undergone the same processes of
development or growth, and that among all peoples female influence was
once supreme.

According to Bachofen’s theory, as there were at this early stage
of human existence no “laws” regulating the intercourse between the
sexes, human beings lived in a state of lawlessness, or hetairism.
Recognizing the difference in the reproductive instinct as manifested
in the two sexes, he says that becoming disgusted with their manner
of living women rebelled, and rising in arms, conquered their male
persecutors by sheer superiority in military skill; and that after they
had overthrown the degrading practices of communal or lawless marriage,
they established monogamy in its stead, under which system woman became
the recognized head of the family.

Children, although they had hitherto succeeded to the father’s name,
were now called after the mother, and all rights of inheritance were
thereafter established in the female line. Not only did women take upon
themselves the exercise of domestic authority and control, but, acting
under a strong religious impulse, they seized the reins of popular
government and completed their title to absolute dominion by wielding
the political sceptre as well, thus declaring themselves unconditional
masters of the situation.

At this juncture in human affairs, the belief began to be entertained
that motherhood was divine while the paternal office was regarded only
in the light of a human relation. Thus, through religion, women were
raised from a state of hetairism, or sexual slavery, to a position of
independence and self-respect. But that which was gained through a
supernatural impulse they were destined subsequently to lose through
the same source; for, when in Greece, the doctrine was promulgated that
the spirit of the child is derived from its father, paternity at once
assumed a divine character, and, as under the new order, the functions
of the mother were only to clothe the spirit, or simply to act as
“nurse” to the heaven-born production of the father, women lost their
supremacy, and under the new régime, maternity and womanhood again
trailed in the dust.

According to Bachofen, however, the cause of mothers did not at once
cease to be the subject of contention and conflict, but ever and
anon fresh battles and renewed struggles proclaimed the discontent
and uneasiness of women and heralded the fact that the contest for
supremacy had not yet ended. But, in process of time, as resistance
proved ineffectual, mothers themselves gradually succumbed to the
new idea of the divine character of the father, and, without further
murmuring or complaint, accepted gracefully the position of nurse to
his children.

The father now became the recognized head of the family, and men at
once seized the reins of government. Descent was henceforth traced in
the male line, and children took the father’s instead of the mother’s
name; in fact all relationships to which rights of succession were
attached were thereafter traced through fathers only. The complete
and final triumph of males having been established by the all-powerful
authority of Roman jurisprudence, the conflict between the sexes was
ended forever. Thus, according to Bachofen, was the supremacy of women
gained and lost.

Through a profound study of the traditions, legends, symbols, and
mythologies of antiquity, this writer was enabled to discover the fact
that at an earlier age in human history women were the recognized
leaders of mankind; that their influence and authority were supreme
over both the family and the community, and that all relationships to
which rights of succession were attached were traced through them.
In attempting to account for this early period of gynecocracy (the
existence of which to Bachofen’s mind no doubt presented a singular
and intricate problem) it first became necessary to set forth a theory
concerning a former condition of society out of which such a state
could have been evolved. But as at the time _Das Mutter-recht_ made its
appearance, the theory of the development of the human species from
pre-existing orders had not been adopted by scientists, and as many
of the various means at present employed for obtaining a knowledge of
primitive races had not been brought into requisition, even the vast
learning of Bachofen did not suffice to furnish a satisfactory solution
of the problem.

We have seen that in addition to the discovery that at an early age
in human experience female influence was supreme, he had arrived at
the conclusion that the natural instincts of women differ from those
of men; yet, notwithstanding this, so accustomed had he become to
the predominance of the masculine instincts in every branch of human
activity as to be unable to conceive of a state of society in which
the characters belonging to females could have controlled the sexual
relations. Evidently he was unable to connect these two facts, or to
perceive that that tendency or quality required for the protection of
the germ and the species, and which so early characterized the female
sex, had constituted the most primitive influence by which the human
race had been governed. As in the earliest ages of human existence no
arbitrary laws regulating marriage and the relations of the sexes had
been in operation, he could discern no condition under which society
could have existed other than that of “lawlessness” or “hetairism”—a
condition under which women were slaves, and men ruled supreme.

As Herr Bachofen was doubtless unaware of the fact that the human
animal is a descendant from creatures lower in the scale of life,
the idea of connecting his history with theirs had probably by him
never been thought of; therefore, judging primitive society, not by
the instincts and the natural laws governing them which mankind had
inherited from their progenitors, but, on the contrary, measuring them
by the standards of later ages when the grosser or disruptive elements
had gained dominion over the finer or constructive qualities in human
nature, he was unable to discern any way in which the conditions of
female supremacy everywhere indicated in the traditions and mythologies
of antiquity could have originated, except in an uprising of women, and
a resort to arms for the protection of their womanly dignity.

In referring to the military exploits of the women of Lycia, and,
in fact, of various portions of Africa and Asia, at a comparatively
late stage in human history, Bachofen says that the importance of
Amazonianism as opposed to Hetairism for the elevation of the feminine
sex, and through them of mankind, cannot be doubted.

There seems to be considerable evidence going to prove that there have
been times in the past history of the race in which women were brave
in war and valiant in defending their rights. Indeed, the accounts
given of the struggles of the Amazons in maintaining their independence
against surrounding nations—notably, the Greeks—are tolerably well
authenticated.[142]

[142] Concerning one of the encounters of this warlike people, the
following has been recounted by Plutarch (_Theseus_):

“And it appears to have been no slight or womanish enterprise; for they
could not have encamped in the town, or joined battle on the ground
about the Pynx and the Museum, or fallen in so intrepid a manner upon
the city of Athens, unless they had first reduced the country round
about. It is difficult, indeed, to believe (though Hellanicus has
related it) that they crossed the Cimmerian Bosphorus upon the ice; but
that they encamped almost in the heart of the city is confirmed by the
names of places, and by the tombs of those that fell.”

Although the fact seems to be well substantiated that in certain
portions of the earth, and at various periods in the history of the
race, women have maintained their independence and protected their
interests by force of arms, it seems quite as certain that actual
warfare carried on by them has been confined to peoples among which
male supremacy had but recently been gained, and among which a resort
to arms represented the last act of desperation to which they were
driven to maintain their dignity and honour. We have reason to believe,
however, that even these cases have been exceptional; at least, from
the facts at hand, we have no reason for thinking that at any stage in
the history of women’s career, armed resistance to masculine authority
has been uniform or protracted among them.

According to scientists, among the lower orders of life, males are
considerably in the excess of females, and among less developed
races men are more numerous than women. It has been shown in a
former portion of this work that the advancement of civilization is
characterized by a corresponding increase in the number of women
among the adult population; hence their evident lack of numbers among
primitive peoples, to say nothing of their probable aversion to war
and bloodshed, would at once preclude the idea that their dominion
was achieved through armed resistance to a foe so superior in numbers
and in fighting qualities. By a natural law governing propagation—
a law which determines the numerical proportion of the sexes, and
which creates an excess in the number of that sex best suited to its
environment, primitive women, had they relied on physical force, would
have had little chance to maintain their independence.

In a former portion of this work it has been observed that it was
neither to lack of numbers nor to their want of physical force that
women were divested of their power; that it was not through their
weakness, but through the peculiar course which the development or
growth of males had taken, that under certain conditions women became
enslaved.

Not merely from the facts laid down by naturalists regarding the
peculiar development of the male, but from later researches into the
conditions and causes which have influenced progress, it is plain that
no restrictions on the range of sexual liberties could have originated
in males. Hence the demand for a more refined state of society must
have begun with females. This fact seems to have been perceived by
Bachofen, but, as according to his reasoning, at an early period of
human existence, women were slaves, exercising none of the powers
necessary to personal control, it is difficult to conceive of any
manner in which it was possible for them to rise to the social position
and moral dignity ascribed to them in _Das Mutter-recht_.

According to the theory set forth by this writer, however, religion
was the cause of the important change which at this time took place
in the positions of the sexes. Although, according to him, the
religion which prevailed during the ages of “lawlessness” was of a low
“telluric chthonic” type, it was nevertheless the cause, or at least
one of the causes which led to the abandonment of promiscuity and the
establishment of the monogamic family. It will doubtless be remembered,
however, that this age of lawlessness or hetairism which Bachofen
has described, represents a very early stage of human existence, in
which, according to his reasoning, the baser instincts ruled supreme;
nevertheless, within it, he would have us believe that a religious
system had been evolved capable of lifting women from a state of
degradation to which they had been consigned by nature, or at least to
which they had always been committed, to a position of influence and
womanly dignity in which they were able to assume supreme control over
the forces by which they had been enslaved. With sexual desire as the
controlling influence in human affairs, and with women in bondage to
this power, it is difficult to conceive of any manner in which such a
religion could have arisen.

As all religious systems are believed to represent growths, and to
indicate a result of the degree of progress attained, it is evident
that had a religion appeared at this early age which was capable of
elevating women from a condition of degradation, as indicated by the
early state described by Bachofen it could not have been the result of
natural development, but, on the contrary, must have proceeded directly
from a divine source; in which event it would doubtless have remained
upon the earth still further to aid development and bless the race.
Such, however, was not the outcome of this remarkable but premature
religion; for it is asserted by this writer that what women gained by
religion they afterward lost through the same source—that in Greece,
the loss first came through the oracle of Apollo, which declared the
father to be the real parent of the child.

Bachofen assures us, also, that through the Bacchanalian excesses which
followed the dominion of males in Greece, hetairism was again restored,
and through this means gynecocracy reappeared. From this it would seem
that although under the earliest stage of hetairism women were without
power and wholly under the control of men, with the return, at a later
age, of a like state of society, the basis was at once laid for female
supremacy.

It is evident that Herr Bachofen’s confusion arises from a
misconception of the early importance of women. Although perhaps more
than any other writer upon this subject he has been able to recognize
the true bias of the female constitution, yet, as he has mistaken
the relative positions of women and men at the outset of the human
career, and as he has been unable to perceive the previously developed
influences which governed these relations, he has failed to furnish
a satisfactory solution of the problem of the early supremacy of
women, which from the evidence adduced, not only by the traditions and
mythologies of past ages, but by later developments in ethnology, may
not be doubted.

Prior to the appearance of mankind on the earth, had there been
developed within the female no higher element than that which
characterized the male, and had she appeared on the scene of human
action as the willing and natural tool of her less-developed male mate,
it is plain that she would have been unable to elevate herself to the
position of dignity which Bachofen assigns her, and which, until a
comparatively recent period in the human career, she had occupied.

As among the orders of creation below mankind the structural organism
of the male has been materially changed through his efforts to please
the female and secure her favours, it is evident that under earlier and
more natural conditions of human life, the appetites developed within
him were still largely controlled by her will. From logical conclusions
to be drawn from the hypotheses of naturalists, it is not likely that
at the outset of human life those restrictions on the nature of the
male imposed by the female throughout the animal kingdom were suddenly
withdrawn, or that the destructive elements which all along the line
of progress had been in abeyance to the higher powers developed in
organized matter, were immediately and without good cause put in
absolute command over the constructive forces of life.

With a better knowledge of the past history of mankind, comes the
assurance that such was not the case, but, on the contrary, that for
thousands of years women were the ruling spirits in human society; that
the cohesive quality—sympathy, which is the result of the maternal
instinct, and which conserves the highest interests of offspring, was
the underlying principle which governed human groups—in fact, that
it was the principle which made organization possible and progress
attainable.




CHAPTER VI

THEORIES TO EXPLAIN WIFE-CAPTURE


The prevalence of wife-capture and the extent to which the symbol of
force in marriage ceremonies appears among tribes and races in the
various stages of development, have given rise to numerous speculations
and theories relative to the origin of these “singular phenomena.”
Notable among the works dealing with this subject are _Primitive
Marriage_, by Mr. J. F. McLennan, and the _Origin of Civilization_, by
Sir John Lubbock, both of which works followed closely the publication
of _Das Mutter-recht_ by Herr Bachofen.

As at the time these works were published the fact of man’s descent
from the lower orders of life had not been established, and as nothing
was then known of the origin and development of organized society it
is not remarkable that theories concerning the early relations of the
sexes should prove worthless except perhaps to show the extent to which
established prejudices may warp the judgment and dwarf the intellectual
faculties even of those who are honestly seeking after truth.

The avowed object of Mr. McLennan’s volume was to trace the origin
of wife-capture which is found to exist either as a legal symbol in
marriage ceremonies, or as a stern reality among peoples which have not
yet reached civilized conditions. This writer declares: “In the whole
range of legal symbolism there is no symbol more remarkable than that
of capture in marriage ceremonies.”

After setting forth numerous examples to prove the prevalence of
wife-capture among uncivilized tribes and races, and after denouncing
as absurd the theories relative to the symbol of force entering into
the marriage ceremonies in Sparta and in Rome, Mr. McLennan observes:

 The question now arises, what is the meaning and what the origin of a
 ceremony so widely spread that already on the threshold of our inquiry
 the reader must be prepared to find it connected with some universal
 tendency of mankind?

Mr. McLennan’s answer to his own query is as follows:

 We believe the restriction on marriage to be connected with the
 practice in early times of female infanticide which rendering women
 scarce led at once to polyandry within the tribe and the capture of
 women from without.

In another portion of this work it has been shown that although
marriage was restricted within the gens, the earliest form of organized
society, this restriction did not extend to the tribe. Marriage was
forbidden among closely related groups. The gentes coalesced to form
the tribe. Although a man might not marry within his own gens, he was
not forbidden to marry within the tribe.

In Mr. Morgan’s work on _Primitive Society_, published in 1871, are
to be found the systems of consanguinity and affinity of 139 tribes
and races representing, numerically, four-fifths of the entire human
family. These systems show conclusively that the restrictions on
marriage observed in the gens did not extend to the tribe. The author
of _Primitive Marriage_ has evidently mistaken a rule of the gens for a
binding tribal decree.

Mr. McLennan’s theory relative to female infanticide is found to be
equally fallacious. Noting the numerical difference in the two sexes
among lower races, he says that as subsistence was scarce, and as war
was the natural and constant condition of primitive groups, only those
of their members would be spared who could contribute to the defence of
the tribe, or who would be able to aid in the supply of subsistence.
Males were possessed of strength, they were by organization and
inclination adapted to war and the chase, and could therefore be
depended upon to assist in defending the tribe against the assaults of
its enemies and in securing the necessary food for its requirements.
On the other hand, women being worthless in war and in the chase were
regarded as useless appendages, and as they constituted a source of
weakness to the tribe, large numbers of them were destroyed at birth.
Through this practice the balance of the sexes was greatly disturbed,
and wives could be obtained only by means of stealth or a resort
to force. Thus in process of time, the stealing of women became a
legitimate practice, and each warrior depended on his skill in this
particular direction to provide himself with a wife.

Finally the children of these alien women began to intermarry and thus
the necessity for wife-capture no longer existed, and the practice
of stealing women for wives was superseded by a system through which
wives from other tribes were habitually obtained either by gift or
sale. Thereafter the symbol of wife-capture was retained in marriage
ceremonies.

With a better understanding of peoples in a less developed state of
society, it is found that infanticide has been less prevalent among
them than was formerly supposed; that when through scarcity of food it
has been practised it has not been confined to females, neither has it
been carried on by tribes in the lowest stages of barbarism.

Regarding this custom in Arabia, Prof. W. R. Smith says that our
authorities “seem to represent the practice of infanticide as having
taken a new development not very long before the time of Mohammed.”
This writer declares that the chief motive for infanticide was
“scarcity of food which must always have been felt in the desert.”

Much has been written in the attempt to explain the practice of
infanticide which to some extent seems to have prevailed during a
certain stage of human development; but with the exception of those
cases in which children of both sexes were slain because of scarcity
of food, the one cause, namely, the dread of capture, is sufficient to
explain this unnatural practice.

Although to a considerable extent, men had come to depend on foreign
tribes for their wives, they nevertheless found little pleasure in
furnishing their quota of women in return, and as mothers doubtless
preferred the death of their female children to the degradation and
suffering which was inevitable in case of capture, female infanticide
no doubt seemed the wisest and in fact the only expedient.

The blood-tie of ancient society which bound together all those born
of the women of the group irrespective of their fathers, must have
emphasized the influence of mothers in the matter of infanticide. It is
not reasonable to suppose that the law of sympathy which had united the
members of a clan by a bond stronger than that which binds together the
members of a modern family was reversed without some deeper cause than
has thus far been assigned for it. It is indeed difficult to believe,
in opposition to all the facts before us, that a practice which
involved the destruction of the female members of the group would have
gained the sanction of the tribe to such an extent that it would have
become an established rule among them.

Regarding the destruction of female infants among early races, Mr.
Darwin remarks:

 They would not at that period have lost one of the strongest of all
 instincts common to all lower animals, namely the love of their young
 offspring, and consequently they would not have practised female
 infanticide.[143]

[143] _Descent of Man_, p. 594.

Another reason why female infanticide could not have prevailed to any
considerable extent is seen in the fact that any diminution in the
number of females, would have involved a scarcity of warriors, thus
weakening their means of defence. From available facts it is quite
evident that the practice of female infanticide throws no light on
wife-capture.

Mr. McLennan declares that women among rude tribes are usually depraved
and inured to scenes of depravity from their earliest infancy; hence
when property began to amass in the hands of men, in order to assure
paternity, it became necessary, that women be brought under subjection.

As the female, when free, is unwilling to pair with individuals for
whom she feels no affection, and as under earlier conditions of human
society women chose their mates, and so long as they remained together
were true to them, it is reasonable to suppose that paternity was
known, or at least that it might have been readily determined.

Mr. Morgan informs us that the “Turanian, Ganowánian, and Malayan
systems of consanguinity show conclusively that kinship through males
was recognized as constantly as kinship through females,” that a man
had brothers and sisters, grandfathers and grandmothers traced through
males as well as through females. Although under gentile institutions
descent and all rights of succession were traced through mothers,
kinship through fathers was easily ascertained.

Hence it is plain that Mr. McLennan’s assumption that women were
enslaved in order to assure paternity, that they became subject to the
dominion and control of men so that fathers might not be compelled to
support children not their own, is not supported by the evidence at
hand.

That it was through capture, the forcible carrying away of women at
first singly and later in groups to foreign tribes, in which as aliens
and dependents they were shorn of their right to the soil, that males
were first enabled to arrogate to themselves the individual right to
property is a fact which has been overlooked by Mr. McLennan.

From the facts at hand relative to the earliest social regulation
of mankind, that into classes on the basis of sex, it is evident
that it was inaugurated for no other purpose than the restriction
of the marital relation—a restriction to prevent the pairing of
near relations. Yet Mr. McLennan would have us believe that “the law
compelling marriage outside the recognized limit of near relationship
originated in no innate or primary feeling against marriage with
kinsfolk.”

The repugnance of females among the lower orders of life to pairing
with those individuals which were distasteful to them, or for which
they felt no genuine affection, has already been referred to in these
pages. At the earliest dawn of human life there probably existed within
woman a naturally acquired aversion to pairing with near relations,
yet doubtless many ages elapsed before an idea of kinship sufficiently
definite to be incorporated into an arbitrary law for the government of
the group was formulated; but in due course of time, with the further
development of the higher characters, the idea of relationship began
to take shape, whereupon was inaugurated a movement which doubtless
represents one of the most important steps ever taken toward human
advancement.

As the female among all the orders of life, when free, is unwilling
to pair with individuals for which she feels no affection, and as the
sex-instinct has ever been restricted or held in abeyance by her, and
as according to the savants, it was through the efforts of women that
from time to time during the earlier ages of human existence the range
of conjugal rights was abridged, it is reasonable to suppose that it
was woman who first objected to the pairing with near relations.

The statement of Mr. McLennan that the women of primitive races were
depraved, that they were inured to scenes of depravity from their
earliest infancy is not borne out by facts. It has been shown in
another portion of this work that the most trustworthy writers, those
who have personally investigated tribes and races in the various stages
of development, agree that chastity was an unvarying rule among them,
that before they were corrupted by civilization, a condition of morals
existed nowhere to be found among the so-called higher races.

After referring to a state of advanced social existence in which every
person knowing what is right would feel an irresistible impulse toward
right-living, Mr. Wallace remarks that among peoples low in the scale
of development “we find some approaches to such a perfect social
state.” He observes: “It is not too much to say that the mass of our
population have not at all advanced beyond the savage code of morals,
and have in many cases sunk below it.”

Most of the reports which come to us regarding the immorality of lower
races are brought by missionaries, who, although unacquainted with the
language, customs, and habits of thought of the peoples whose countries
they visit, nevertheless feel called upon to furnish lengthy reports
of those benighted races which are “utterly destitute of Christian
training.”

As the restrictions on marriage among early peoples were limited to
closely related groups, it is evident that the capture of wives was
not carried on because of any established law of exogamy, neither
was it practised because of the scarcity of women resulting from
female infanticide nor because of a desire for recognized paternity.
Wife-capture arose from a demand for foreign women, aliens, who, torn
from their homes and deprived of the protection of their own kinsfolk,
had no alternative but sexual slavery. These women were much more
desirable than the free-born women of a man’s own tribe.

After having created a false and wholly unwarrantable hypothesis, an
hypothesis in which exogamy and endogamy, two principles which as
applied to tribes never existed, play a conspicuous part, Mr. McLennan
has thrust nearly all the facts which he has observed relative to
primitive society into false positions and forced them to do duty in
bolstering up his thoroughly imaginative theory to account for the
origin of wife-capture. It is perhaps needless to say that the whole
subject, so far as his contribution is concerned, is as much a mystery
as before he attempted a solution of the problem.

       *       *       *       *       *

Sir John Lubbock, like J. F. McLennan, assumes that the earliest
organization of society was that of the tribe, and that a man was first
regarded as belonging only to a group. Subsequently, as the maternal
bond is stronger than that which unites a father to his offspring,
kinship with his mother and her relations was established. In course of
time he was accounted as a descendant of his father only, and lastly he
became equally related to both parents.

Numerous illustrations are cited by this writer, going to show that
among certain peoples descent is still reckoned in the female line, and
that all the rights of succession, both as regards property and tribal
honours, are traced through women.

In his _Origin of Civilization_ the fact is noted that in Guinea,
when a wealthy man dies, his property passes by inheritance, not to
his sons, but to the children of his sister. He quotes also from
Pinkerton’s _Voyages_ to show that the town of Loango is governed by
four chiefs who are sons of the king’s sisters, and from Caillie who
observes that in Central Africa the sovereignty remains always in the
same family, but that the son never succeeds to his father’s position.
These and numerous other instances, similar in character, are cited
from various parts of the world, going to prove that a system of
descent and inheritance through women was once general throughout the
races of mankind.

With Herr Bachofen and Mr. McLennan, Sir John Lubbock is of the opinion
that the earliest conjugal unions of the human race were communal.
Communal marriage was founded on the supremacy of males, or, was based
on the undisputed right of men to the control of women. According to
this writer, communal marriage was succeeded by individual marriage
through capture.

Although Lubbock coincides with McLennan in the belief that under
certain circumstances infanticide has been practised by the lower
races, he does not agree with him as to the extent to which it has
prevailed among them; neither is he of the opinion that it was confined
to the female sex. On the contrary, he cites trustworthy authority to
prove that boys were as frequently disposed of as were girls.

Although with McLennan, Lubbock recognizes the prevalence of
wife-capture and the principle of exogamy, yet, according to the theory
of the former, marriage by capture arose from exogamy, while, according
to the latter, exogamy arose from marriage by capture.

Lubbock accounts for wife-capture by the following theory: As under the
communal system, women of the tribe were the “common property” of the
men of the group, no individual male among them would have attempted
to appropriate one of these women to himself, for the reason that
such appropriation would have been regarded as an infringement on the
rights of the remaining males in the community. A warrior, however,
upon capturing a woman from a hostile people, might claim her as his
rightful possession, and hold her as against all the other members of
the tribe. Since the women of the group were so emphatically the common
property of the men, the exclusive right to one of them in progressive
tribes which had reached a state of friendliness would involve a symbol
of capture to make valid such a claim. This symbol, according to
Lubbock, has no reference to those from whom the woman has been stolen,
but is intended to bar the rights of other members of the tribe into
which she is brought. He thinks that “the exclusive possession of a
wife could only be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the
pre-existing communal rights,” and cites the account given by Herodotus
of the custom existing in Babylonia, where every woman once during
her lifetime must present herself at the temple, there to accept the
proposals of the first man who requests her to follow him.

Although Lubbock declares that the symbol of violence in marriage
ceremonies “can only be explained by the hypothesis that the capture
of wives was once a stern reality,” he claims not to believe that the
early conditions under which men were compelled to capture their wives
by violence, or do without them, were in any degree the result of
feminine will in the matter.

In referring to the fallacious theory of Mr. McLennan, that the capture
of women for wives arose from the practice of female infanticide,
which, by producing a scarcity of women, created a necessity for
marriage without the limits of the tribe, Sir John Lubbock, although
seemingly unable to recognize the actual force which was in operation
to prevent the “appropriation” of women by men, has nevertheless shown
himself able to perceive the reason why foreign women were captured,
and what the tendency in males was which demanded their presence.

After referring to the fact that no male could appropriate to himself a
female belonging to the tribe, he says:

 Women taken in war were, on the contrary, in a different position. The
 tribe, as a tribe, had no right to them, and men surely would reserve
 to themselves exclusively their own prizes. These captives then would
 naturally become wives in our own sense of the term.

Foreign women would become dependents, their captors having the
undisputed right to the control of their persons.

At the outset, Sir John Lubbock finds himself confronted with the
fact that a system of reckoning descent through women once prevailed
over the habitable globe. According to his own reasoning, this system
presupposes a condition of society under which property rights and
all rights of succession were traced through women, still we find
him offering the following belief concerning the matter. “I believe,
however, that communities in which women have exercised the supreme
power are rare and exceptional, if, indeed, they ever existed at all.”

Were we not already acquainted with the prejudices of most of the
writers who have thus far dealt with this subject, in view of the facts
everywhere represented going to prove that a system of gynecocracy once
prevailed over the entire earth, this “belief” of Mr. Lubbock would be
truly remarkable, especially when we learn the reason given by him for
his conclusion. He says:

 We do not find in history, as a matter of fact, that women do assert
 their rights, and savage women would, I think, be peculiarly unlikely
 to uphold their dignity in the manner supposed.[144]

[144] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 99.

It is quite true that it is not observed “in history” that women assert
their rights. It has been shown, however, that prior to the historic
age, through capture and the individual ownership of land, women had
become dependent upon men and wholly subject to their control. After
thousands of years of subjection to male influence, the movements of
women, who are still dependent upon men, furnish little satisfactory
information regarding the character of free women at a time before
they had succumbed to the exigencies of brute force, and the unbridled
appetites of their male masters. Slaves seldom assert their rights, or,
if they do, of what avail is it?

Were we in possession of no other facts in support of the theory of
an early age of female supremacy than that all relationships to which
rights of succession were attached were formerly traced through women,
the evidence in its favour would be sufficient to prove it true, but
this manner of reckoning descent represents only one of the many
indications of such an age which Lubbock himself has been constrained
to record; yet, because—during the historic age—an age throughout which
the masculine element has ruled supreme, women have not asserted their
rights, this writer feels inclined to ignore all the evidence bearing
upon the subject, at the same time declaring that women could not
have “upheld their dignity in the manner supposed”; that the female,
on gaining human conditions, could not have exercised the instincts
inherited by her from her dumb progenitors.

If the females among insects, birds, and many species of mammals are
able to control the relations between themselves and their male mates,
why should it not be inferred that the female of the human species
would still be able to uphold the natural dignity of the female sex?

As an argument in support of his theory that the influence of women
was never supreme, Sir John Lubbock alludes to the position of
Australian women as being one of “complete subjection,” and as the
native Australians represent perhaps the lowest existing stage of human
society, he doubtless thinks his argument unassailable. However, that
the position of Australian women cannot be taken as a reliable guide in
estimating primitive womanhood is shown by the writer’s own reasoning
when he says:

 It must not be assumed, however, that the condition of primitive
 man is correctly represented by even the lowest of existing races.
 The very fact that the latter have remained stationary, that their
 manners, habits, and mode of life have continued almost unaltered for
 generations, has created a strict, and often complicated, system of
 customs, from which the former was necessarily free, but which has in
 some cases gradually acquired even more than the force of law.[145]

[145] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 2.

Yet we find him comparing primitive women with this race which for
thousands upon thousands of years, because of its environment, or
through some cause which is not understood, has been unable to advance.

While this writer perceives clearly that foreign women were much more
desirable for wives than those belonging to a man’s own tribe, he has
not been able to discover the reason why this was so, but, continuing
to babble about the “rights” of the men of the group, overlooks the
fact that native-born women were free, and as only those women who had
first been torn from their friends and shorn of their independence
could at this stage of human existence be forced into the position of
wife, it became necessary to secure them by violence from surrounding
tribes. He is not blind to the fact that it was a desire to extend
the limit of conjugal liberties on the part of males which prompted
wife-capture; yet he would have us believe that although women were
absolutely independent of men, and although they were the recognized
heads of families, and the source whence originated all the privileges
of the gens, it was in no degree owing to their influence that the
conjugal liberties of males were restricted within the tribe, but, on
the contrary, that this restriction was enforced out of regard for
the “proprietary rights” of the men of the group. He says: “We must
remember that under the communal system the women of the tribe were
all common property. No one could appropriate one of them to himself
without infringing on the general rights of the tribe.”

As well might we say of the female bird for whose favours the male
fights until overcome by exhaustion and loss of blood, that she belongs
to him, or that he may appropriate her, as to say that the men of early
groups could “appropriate” women. From all the facts relative to the
condition of early society, it is plain that if either sex could with
propriety be designated as property it must have been the male. It is
evident that women were stolen from distant tribes for the express
purpose of sexual slavery, a position to which free, native-born women
could not be dragged; therefore, when Lubbock assures us that these
foreign women naturally “became wives in our own sense of the term,”
we may be sure that he is neither unmindful of the origin of our
present social system, nor of the true significance attached to the
position of wife. Indeed, he informs us that the “origin of marriage
was independent of all sacred and social conditions,” and proves
the same by actually producing the evidence. He has no hesitancy in
declaring that marriage is a masculine institution, established in the
interest (or supposed interest) of males; that it was “founded not on
the rights of the woman, but of the man,” and that there was not on
the woman’s part even the semblance of consent. In fact he declares
that he regards it as an illustration of the good old plan that “he
should take who has the power, and he should keep who can.” He says
also that it had nothing to do with mutual affection or sympathy,
that it was invalidated by no appearance of consent, and that it was
symbolized not by any demonstration of warm affection on the one side
and tender devotion on the other, but by brutal violence and unwilling
submission. To prove that the connection between force and marriage
is deeply rooted, Sir John Lubbock, like Mr. McLennan, has furnished
numerous examples of peoples among whom marriage by actual capture
still prevails, as well as many among which the system has passed into
a mere symbol. He is quite certain that the complete subjection of
the woman in marriage furnishes an explanation to those examples in
barbarous life in which women are looked upon as being too great to
marry—and cites the case of Sebituane, chief of the Bechuanas, who told
his daughter, Mamochisáne, that all the men were at her disposal—“she
might take any one, but ought to keep none.”

This instance, together with numberless others which might be cited,
proves that long after the practice of appropriating solitary women for
sexual purposes had become general, the position of wife was considered
too degrading to be occupied by women of rank.

Attention has been called to Lubbock’s idea concerning the “rights”
of the males of the group. We have seen that it is his opinion that
the exclusive possession of a woman could only be legally acquired by
a temporary recognition of the pre-existing communal rights, and that
the account in Herodotus of the debasement of Babylonian women was
cited by him as evidence to prove his position. He seems, however, to
forget that this custom, which was practised in various nations, is a
religious rite, and was inaugurated at a time when the adoration of the
sun, as the source of all life and light, had degenerated into the most
degrading phallic worship. To those who have given attention to the
growth of the god-idea, the supposed cases of “expiation for marriage,”
cited by Lubbock, are to be explained by the peculiar practices
inaugurated under fire and passion worship at a time long subsequent to
the establishment of _ba’al_ marriages.

In his chapter on “The Origin of Marriage by Capture,” this writer
says:

 That marriage by capture has not arisen from female modesty, is, I
 think, evident, not only because we have no reason to suppose that
 such a feeling prevails especially among the lower races of man; but
 also, firstly, because it cannot explain the mock resistance of the
 relatives; and, secondly, because the very question to be solved
 is why it became so generally the custom to win the female not by
 persuasion but by force.[146]

[146] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 106.

That female modesty may not account for marriage by capture will
scarcely be disputed; it is not impossible, however, that disgust, or
aversion, on the part of women, may, in a measure, serve to explain it.

Sir John Lubbock should bear in mind that “choice” in the matter of
pairing was an early prerogative of the female; that true affection, a
character differing widely from the sex instinct developed in the male
was necessary before she could be induced to accept the attentions of
the male. While the women among primitive peoples abhorred strangers or
foreigners, it may scarcely be said of them that they were too modest
to accept them as suitors. Evidently, modesty is not the term to be
employed in this connection.

In seeking a reason to explain why force rather than persuasion was
used in the consummation of early marriages, we have to remember the
wide difference existing between the position of free women and that
of those who were obliged to accept the _ba’al_ form of marriage. If,
as we have reason to believe, as late as the beginning of the second
or Middle Status of barbarism, instead of following the father of her
children to his house as his slave, a woman remained in a home owned,
or at least controlled jointly by herself, her mother, her sisters, and
her daughters, it is plain that a state of female independence existed
which was incompatible with female subjection. Add to this the fact
that a woman’s children belonged exclusively to herself, or to her
family, and that all hereditary honours and rights of succession were
traced through females, and we have a set of circumstances which would
seem sufficient to explain why force was necessary to bring women into
the marital relation.

That the capture of women for wives arose because the independence
of free women was a bar to the gratification of the lower instincts
in man, can, in the presence of all the facts at hand, scarcely be
doubted; and that women submitted to the position of wife only when
obliged to do so, or when deprived of liberty and dragged from home and
friends, is only too apparent. While modesty as a cause for capture
may not account for the resistance of the relations, the sacrifice of
a daughter may serve to explain even this knotty point. If the capture
of a free and independent girl from her mother by a band of marauders
from a hostile tribe for purposes of the most degrading slavery, cannot
account for the resistance of the mother-in-law, among most of the
so-called lower races, then indeed it is difficult to conjecture any
provocation or any set of circumstances which can account for it.

This writer’s assertion that it is “contrary to all experience that
female delicacy diminishes with civilization,” proves conclusively that
he regards the slight degree of reserve which he is pleased to accredit
to women in modern times, as a result of civilization—a civilization,
too, which he evidently considers as wholly the result of masculine
achievement; in other words, he doubtless thinks that the degree of
self-respect observed among women at the present time is the result not
of the innate tendencies in the female constitution, but of masculine
tuition and training, an assumption which, when viewed by the light
which in recent years has been thrown upon the development of the two
diverging sex columns, is as absurd as it is arrogant and false. Some
time will doubtless elapse before Sir John Lubbock and the class of
writers which he represents will be willing to admit that civilization
has been possible only because of the checks to the animal nature of
the male, which are the natural result of the maternal instinct.

With a system, however, under which for six thousand years every
womanly instinct has been smothered, and under which female activity
has been utilized in the service of the strong sex instinct developed
in males, the outward expression of female delicacy has doubtless
diminished; and, in their weakened mental and physical condition,
women, dependent not only for all the luxuries but the necessities
of life as well, upon pleasing the men, have doubtless given them,
blinded as they have become by the conditions of their own peculiar
development, some reason for believing that within the female as within
the male, passion has been the ruling characteristic.

Sir John Lubbock, as well as other writers who have dealt with this
subject, should bear in mind the fact that female delicacy is a subject
which can be satisfactorily discussed only in relation to free and
independent women; hence the degree of its manifestation at any time
during the past six thousand years may bear little testimony concerning
the natural tendencies of women, or the condition of society under a
system where female influence was in the ascendency.

To those individuals whose minds are not clouded by prejudice, the fact
will doubtless be apparent, that the valuable information which has
been presented by three of the foremost writers on the subject of the
early relations of the sexes and the origin of marriage, instead of
serving as evidence to substantiate the fallacious theories which they
have propounded, is found to lie in a direct line with the facts and
principles which have been put forward by scientists in the theory of
natural development.

A review of the theories set forth by these three writers shows
that about the only point on which they agree is the lawlessness, or
promiscuity, of early races. As they have all started out with a false
premise, it is not singular that none of them has succeeded in setting
forth a consistent and reasonable hypothesis to account either for the
symbol of wife-capture, or for the early supremacy of women.




                               PART III

                        Early Historic Society




CHAPTER I

EARLY HISTORIC SOCIETY FOUNDED ON THE GENS


The result of recent research into the early organization of society,
the growth of the governmental idea, and the development of the
family, among tribes in the ascending scale, serve to throw new and
unexpected light upon the customs, ideas, institutions, and legends
of early historic peoples. Upon investigation it is observed that the
construction of Greek and Roman society corresponds exactly with that
of existing tribes occupying a lower plane in the scale of development,
and that all the institutions of these nations, although in a higher
state of advancement, involve the same original principles and ideas.

That the Greek and Roman tribes before reaching civilization had
passed through exactly the same processes of development as have been
witnessed in the ascending scale among the North American Indians,
the Arabians, and all other extant peoples, is shown not alone by
the manner in which early society was organized and held together,
but by the similarity observed in their myths, legends, traditions,
institutions, and social usages.

Whether or not a more advanced stage of civilization had been attained
by the progenitors of the Greeks and Romans is a question that does not
here concern us; for, if at any time prior to the appearance of these
peoples in history, a higher plane of life had been reached, it is
reasonable to suppose that such a state was gained under gentile forms
of society, especially as their various institutions at the beginning
of the historic period represent them as still to a considerable extent
governed by the ideas peculiar to the gens.

The earliest authentic accounts which we have of the Greeks represent
them as composed of the Doric tribes, who were Hellenes, and the
Ionians, who were of Pelasgic origin. The Dorians were a conservative
people, exclusive in their tastes and intolerant of innovations, while
the Ionians, who occupied the seacoasts and the adjacent islands,
were restless, fond of novelty, and not averse to intercourse with
surrounding nations.

Of the original inhabitants of Rome, it is observed that they consisted
of wandering tribes, bands of outlaws, and refugees from various
countries. Concerning the true origin of these peoples, however, and
of the history of their earliest settlements, they themselves were
evidently ignorant, and the fragmentary accounts of them which have
been preserved to us, when viewed independently of the light reflected
upon them by recent investigation, furnish but a dim picture in the
outline of which the most prominent figures appear only as indistinct
shadows or as objects without definite shape. It is true there was no
lack of myths and traditions which had come down to the Greeks and
Romans as genuine history, and which were doubtless regarded by them
as trustworthy accounts of their ancestors. Theseus who united the
Attic tribes, and Romulus who founded Rome, were heroes in whom the
divine and human were so nicely adjusted and so evenly balanced that
the history of their earthly career presents no shade of error either
in public or in private life. Indeed, both had sprung from immortal
sources, and their exploits were such as might be expected from the
mythical heroes of a forgotten age.

Although Greek society when it first came under our observation was
under gentile organization, the gens had passed out of its archaic
stage. This ancient institution, which had carried humanity through
to civilization, was gradually losing its vitality; it had lost its
efficiency as a governing agency, and was about to give place to
political institutions.

With the facts at present accessible regarding peoples in the lower
and middle stages of barbarism, the various steps in the growth of
government as administered in the upper or latter stage of barbarism
are clearly observed; also by close attention to the conditions
surrounding extant peoples in the latter stage of barbarism and the
opening ages of civilization, the processes involved in the transfer
of society from gentile to political institutions are easily traced,
together with the principal ideas and motives underlying the growth of
all the institutions belonging to early historic nations.

Until civilization was reached the gens constituted the unit of
organized society. This fact, however, until a comparatively recent
time, seems to have been overlooked. Without attempting to explain
the origin of the gens and phratry as they existed in Greece, Mr.
Grote observes: “The legislator finds them pre-existing, and adapts or
modifies them to answer some national scheme.” Unacquainted as this
writer evidently was with the construction of primitive society, he
failed to observe that originally, in Greece, all the powers of the
legislator himself were derived from and circumscribed by the gens.
Indeed, that this organization upon which the superstructure of Grecian
society rested was the original source whence proceeded all social
privileges and all military rights and obligations, is a condition
which until a comparatively recent time has been overlooked. While
discussing the relations of the family to the gens, the gens to the
phratry, and the phratry to the tribe, Mr. Grote says: “The basis of
the whole was the house, hearth, or family—a number of which, greater
or less, composed the gens, or genos.”[147]

[147] _History of Greece_, vol. iii., p. 54.

Mr. Morgan has shown, however, that the family could not have
constituted the basis of the gens, for the reason that the heads of
families belonged to separate gentes. We are assured that the gens is
much older than the monogamic family, and therefore that the latter
could not have formed the basis of the gentile organization; but even
had the family preceded the gens in order of development, as its
members belonged to different gentes it could not have constituted the
unit of the social series.

In order to gain a clear understanding of the processes and principles
involved in the early Grecian form of government, it first becomes
necessary briefly to review the various steps in the growth of the
governmental functions through two ethnical periods.

The tribe is a community of related individuals possessed of equal
rights and privileges, and bound by equal duties and responsibilities.
It has been shown that in the Lower Status of barbarism the government
consisted of only one power—a council of chiefs elected by the people.
During the Middle Status of barbarism two powers appear,—the civil and
military functions have become separated, the duties of a military
commander being co-ordinated with those of a council of chiefs. The
military commander, however, has not succeeded in drawing to himself
the powers of a ruler or king. In the Second Status of barbarism
tribes have not begun to confederate. A single tribe, its members
bound together by the tie of kinship and united by common rights and
responsibilities, owning their lands in common, and each contributing
his share toward the common defence, so long as it was able to maintain
its independence, had little need for an elaborate form of government.
As yet no strifes engendered by envy and extreme selfishness had arisen
to disturb the simplicity of their lives, or to check the development
of those early principles of liberty and fraternity which were the
natural inheritance of the gens. A council of chiefs elected by the
gentes and receiving all its powers from the people had thus far
performed all the duties of government.

After the Upper Status of barbarism is reached we find confederated
tribes dwelling together in walled cities surrounded by embankments,
and a state of affairs existing which called for a further
differentiation of the functions of government, and a redistribution of
the powers and responsibilities of the people. In process of time, with
the accumulation of property in masses in the hands of the few, and
the consequent rise of an aristocracy, a government founded on wealth,
or on a territorial basis, rather than on the personal relations of an
individual to his gens, was demanded; and, finally, those principles,
rights, and privileges which constitute a pure democracy, and which
had always formed the basis of gentile institutions were gradually
ignored; that personal influence which was originally exercised by each
and every gentilis being transferred to a privileged class—a class
which controlled the wealth, and at the head of which was the military
commander or _basileus_. Such was the condition of Grecian society as
it first appears in history.

A comparison instituted by Mr. Morgan between the Iroquois gens and
that of the Greeks shows the former at the time when it first came
under European observation to have been in the archaic stage, with
descent and all the rights of succession traced in the female line;
while the latter, at the time designated as the heroic age, had not
only changed the manner of reckoning descent from the female to the
male line, but was evidently about to give place to political society
which, instead of being founded on kinship, was based on property and
territory, or upon a man’s relations to the township or deme in which
he resided.

While the Iroquois tribe of Indians represents the gens in its original
vitality, the Greeks appear to have reached a stage at which the
archaic form of government instituted on the basis of kin was found
inadequate to meet their necessities; hence the confusion arising
from disputed authority, at the almost interminable struggle between
the various classes which had arisen, and the evident disaffection
and unrest manifest among the entire Grecian people during the ages
intervening between Codrus, nearly eleven hundred years B.C., and
Clisthenes, five hundred years later.

That degree of jealousy with which individual liberty was guarded
during the earlier ages of historic Greece, that thirst for freedom,
and that restlessness under tyranny which characterized the Grecian
people throughout their entire career, are explained by the fact that
prior to the age of Clisthenes they were under gentile institutions,
the fundamental principles of which were liberty, equality, and
justice. From all the facts which may be gathered bearing upon this
subject, it is evident that although at the beginning of the historic
period the Greeks had lost much of that independence which belonged to
an earlier stage of human development, their institutions still partook
of the character of a democracy.

Of the similarity of the customs and institutions of early historic
Greece and those of a more primitive age we have ample evidence. In
ancient Greece, as among the Iroquois tribe of Indians, “property
was vested absolutely in the clan, and could not be willed away from
it.”[148] Not only did the members of a clan hold their property in
common, but they were obliged to help, defend, support, and even
avenge those of their number who required their assistance. Young
females bereft of near relations were either furnished with husbands or
provided with suitable portions. Descent must still have been reckoned
in the female line, for foreigners admitted to citizenship were not
members of any clan, neither were their descendants, unless born of
women who were citizens. Citizens were enrolled in the clan and phratry
of their mothers.[149]

[148] George Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.

[149] _Ibid._

In the administration of the government, however, are to be noted a
few important changes. The complications which had arisen as a result
of the individual ownership of property, the change in the reckoning
of descent from the female to the male line which followed, and the
growth of the aristocratic element, had produced a corresponding change
in the control and management of the government. Solicitude for the
common weal, although still felt by the great mass of the people, had
among the rulers given place to extreme egoism, and that association
and combination of interests, which since the dawn of organized society
had characterized the gens, was rapidly giving way before the love of
dominion, the thirst for power, and the greed of gain—characters which
in process of time came to represent the mainspring of human action.

With the changes which took place in the conditions of the people,
it is seen that the administrative functions became still further
differentiated. Co-ordinate with the Greek _basileus_ or war-chief are
to be observed not only a council of chiefs who were the heads of the
gentes, but also an assembly of the people, these three governmental
functions corresponding in a general way to our President, Senate, and
House of Representatives.

The Ecclesia or general assembly at Sparta was originally composed
of all the free males who dwelt within the city. Although this body
originated no measures, it was invested with authority to adopt or
reject any proposed legislation or plan of action devised by the
chiefs. “All changes in the constitution or laws, and all matters of
great public import, as questions of peace or war, of alliances, and
the like, had to be brought before it for decision.”[150] Thus may be
observed the precautions which during the latter stages of barbarism
had been taken to guard the rights of the people, and to insure them
against individual and class usurpation.

[150] George Rawlinson, book v., essay i.

Curtius assures us that the Dorian people

 did not feel as if they were placed in a foreign state, but they were
 the citizens of their own—not merely the objects of legislation, but
 also participants in it, for they only obeyed such statutes as they
 themselves had agreed to.[151]

[151] _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.

Although Mr. Grote would have us believe that the assembly of the
people was simply a “listening agora,”[152] it is plain that it was
originally invested with sufficient power to protect the people against
despotism. In the further differentiation of the administrative
functions the powers of the subordinate officers are all drawn from
the sum of the powers invested in the three principal branches of
the government, the ill-defined duties of each giving rise to those
unabated dissensions and fierce and unrelenting strifes which in course
of time became such a fruitful source of devastation and bloodshed.

[152] Vol. ii., p. 348.

From what is known at the present time regarding Greek society prior
to the age of Theseus, it is not at all likely that it was organized
on monarchial principles, or that any form of government prevailed in
Greece other than that of a military democracy. It is true that by most
of the writers who have dealt with the subject of the government of the
early Greeks, the _basileus_ has been designated as king, and that he
has been invested by them with all the insignia of a modern monarch.
In later times, however, with a better understanding of the principles
underlying early society, this view of the matter is seen to be false.
Mr. Morgan, a writer who as we have seen has given much attention to
the constitution of gentile society, informs us that in the Lower and
also in the Middle Status of barbarism the office of chief was elective
or during good behaviour, “for this limitation follows from the right
of the gens to depose from office.”[153]

[153] _Ancient Society_, p. 262.

When descent was in the female line this office descended either to a
brother of the deceased chief or to a sister’s son, but later, when
descent began to be traced in the male line, the eldest son was usually
elected to succeed his father. Upon this subject Mr. Morgan says
further:

 It cannot be claimed, on satisfactory proof, that the oldest son of
 the _basileus_ took the office, upon the demise of his father, by
 absolute hereditary right.... The fact that the oldest, or one of
 the sons, usually succeeded, which is admitted, does not establish
 the fact in question; because by usage he was in the probable line of
 succession by a free election from a constituency. The presumption on
 the face of Grecian institutions is against succession to the office
 of _basileus_ by hereditary right; and in favour either of a free
 election, or of a confirmation of the office by the people through
 their recognized organization, as in the case of the Roman rex. With
 the office of _basileus_ transmitted in the manner last named, the
 government would remain in the hands of the people. Because without an
 election or confirmation he could not assume the office; and because,
 further, the power to elect or confirm implies the reserved right to
 depose.[154]

[154] _Ancient Society_, p. 262.

There is no lack of evidence at the present time going to prove
that all these early tribes were originally organized on thoroughly
democratic principles, and that there never was any dignity conferred
on the leader of the early Grecian hosts answering to the present
definition of king; also that prior to the time of Romulus, no
chieftain of the Latin tribes was ever invested with sufficient
authority to have constituted him an imperial ruler. The term
_basileus_, as applied to a leader of a military democracy in the early
ages of Grecian history, doubtless implies simply the war-chief of the
primitive tribe, an officer chosen from among the chiefs of the gentes
as a leader of the hosts in battle, but as claiming no civil functions,
and as possessing no authority outside the office of military
chieftain.

The Homeric writings, which contain the earliest direct information
which we have of the Greeks, and in which are doubtless mirrored forth
a tolerably correct picture of the customs, institutions, and manners
of this people, when read by the light of more recently developed facts
relative to the early constitution of society, are invested with new
interest, and a fresh charm and a new significance are added to every
detail connected with the narrative. As to the extent of authority
attached to the office of military leader among the Greeks, Homer has
given us a fair illustration in the person of Agamemnon—“shepherd of
the people.” That the position of this chieftain differs widely from
that occupied by the king of succeeding ages is apparent. At the outset
we find the injured Achilles, after he has taunted the chieftain with
being the “greediest of men,” addressing him in the following language:

    Ha, thou mailed in impudence
    And bent on lucre! Who of all the Greeks
    Can willingly obey thee, on the march,
    Or bravely battling with the enemy![155]

[155] _The Iliad_, book i., Bryant’s translation.

Then Pelides takes up the strain and with opprobrious words thus
addresses the son of Atreus:

    Wine-bibber with the forehead of a dog
    And a deer’s heart. Thou never yet hast dared
    To arm thyself for battle with the rest,
    Nor join the other chiefs prepared to lie
    In ambush,—such thy craven fear of death.
    Better it suits thee, midst the mighty host
    Of Greeks, to rob some warrior of his prize
    Who dares withstand thee.[156]

[156] _The Iliad_, book i., Bryant’s translation.

Even the brawler Thersites,

    Squint-eyed, with one lame foot, and on his back
    A lump, and shoulders curving towards the chest,

dares to insult this chief—this king as he is represented by most
modern writers, and to his face taunt him with his injustice towards
Achilles. To Agamemnon he says:

    Of what dost thou complain; what wouldst thou more,
    Atrides? In thy tents are heaps of gold;
    Thy tents are full of chosen damsels, given
    To thee before all others, by the Greeks,
    Whene’er we take a city. Dost thou yet
    Hanker for gold, brought by some Trojan knight,
    A ransom for his son, whom I shall lead—
    I, or some other Greek—a captive bound?
    Or dost thou wish, for thy more idle hours,
    Some maiden, whom thou mayst detain apart?
    Ill it beseems a prince like thee to lead
    The sons of Greece, for such a cause as this,
    Into new perils. O ye coward race!
    Ye abject Greeklings, Greeks no longer, haste
    Homeward with all the fleet, and let us leave
    This man at Troy to win his trophies here,
    That he may learn whether the aid we give
    Avails him aught or not, since he insults
    Achilles, a far braver man than he.[157]

[157] Book ii.

It is true Ulysses smote Thersites as he upbraided him for this insult
to Agamemnon. It is plain, however, that the chastisement was of a
private nature. It seems not to have been a crime openly to berate
their chief. Indeed the position of “shepherd of the people” was not
one of such dignity that any warrior among the hosts might not with
impunity freely speak his mind concerning him, or to his face confront
him with improper behaviour. When Agamemnon compared unfavourably
the valour of Diomed with that of his father, Tydeus, Sthenelus, the
honoured son of Capaneus, hesitated not to remind the chief of his
folly, and to his face upbraid him. “Atrides, speak not falsely when
thou knowest the truth so well.”[158]

[158] Book iv.

Regarding the office of king, Mr. Morgan says:

 Modern writers, almost without exception, translate _basileus_ by
 the term _king_, and _basileia_ by the term _kingdom_, without
 qualification, and as exact equivalents. I wish to call attention
 to this office of _basileus_, as it existed in the Grecian tribes,
 and to question the correctness of this interpretation. There is no
 similarity whatever between the _basileia_ of the ancient Athenians
 and the modern kingdom or monarchy.... Constitutional monarchy is
 a modern development, and essentially different from the _basileia_
 of the Greeks. The _basileia_ was neither an absolute nor a
 constitutional monarchy; neither was it a tyranny nor a despotism. The
 question then is, what was it?

Mr. Morgan’s answer to the question is as follows:

 The primitive Grecian government was essentially democratical,
 reposing on gentes, phratries, and tribes organized as self-governing
 bodies, and on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

This writer says further:

 Our views upon Grecian and Roman questions have been moulded by
 writers accustomed to monarchical government and privileged classes,
 who were perhaps glad to appeal to the earliest known governments of
 the Grecian tribes for a sanction of this form of government, as at
 once natural, essential, and primitive.[159]

[159] _Ancient Society_, p. 247.

We have noted the precautions which during the second and latter
periods of barbarism were necessary to keep in check the increasing
thirst for power, and it may not be doubted that through the growth of
the aristocratic tendency during the latter ages of the existence of
the gens, the office of _basileus_ gave to its incumbent a degree of
distinction closely allied to that of king.

In the eleventh century B.C. upon the death of Codrus, so necessary
had it become to check the continually increasing power of the military
chieftains that the office was abolished and the archonship established
in its place; but as an election or confirmation was necessary before
the duties of either office could be entered upon, it is plain that at
the period referred to a democratic form of government still prevailed.

Now archon is the term which had been applied to the chief of the
early gentes at a time when fraternity, liberty, and equality were
the cardinal virtues of society; and the abolition of the office of
_basileus_, to which had become attached a considerable degree of
power, was doubtless an attempt on the part of the people to return
to the simpler and purer methods of government which had formerly
prevailed; but the institution known as the Agora, Ecclesia, or
Appella, which had proved the great bulwark of safety to early
democratic institutions, had, through the strengthening of the
aristocratic element, become gradually weakened, hence the nobles
were in a position to draw to themselves not only much of the power
originally exercised by the military commander, but that also which
had formerly belonged to the assembly of the people. We have observed
that not only among the Greeks of the heroic age, but among the
tribes and nations which preceded them, as far back in the history
of the past as the close of the second stage of barbarism, there had
always been an assembly of the people whose duty it was to guard the
rights of the tribe, to protect it against usurpation, and to keep
down the rising tendency toward imperialism. Of this institution, Mr.
Rawlinson says: “Thus at Athens, as elsewhere, in the heroic times,
there was undoubtedly the idea of a public assembly consisting of all
freemen.”[160]

[160] George Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.

Theseus, _basileus_, or military chieftain of the Athenian tribes,
a personage who belongs to the legendary period, was the first to
perceive the insufficiency of gentile institutions to meet the needs
of the people. Although the primary idea involved in the establishment
of political society was the transference of the original governmental
functions from the gens to a territorial limit, so deeply had the
instincts, ideas, and associations connected with the personal
government of the gens taken root that several centuries were required
to accomplish the change. To establish the deme or township, in which,
irrespective of kinship or personal ties, all its inhabitants (except
slaves) should be enrolled as citizens, with rights, privileges, and
duties adjusted according to the amount of property owned by each, and
which should be a unit of the larger and more important institution—the
State,—was an undertaking the mastery of which although seemingly
simple, nevertheless involved intricacies and obstacles of such
magnitude as to baffle all attempts of the Greeks from the time of
Theseus to that of Clisthenes, at which time political society was
established, and the gens, shorn of its utility and power, remained
only as the embodiment of certain social ideas, or survived as a
religious centre, over which their eponymous ancestor, as hero or god,
still presided.

The age of Theseus could not have been later than 1050 B.C., and the
final overthrow of gentile government did not, as we have seen, occur
until the age of Clisthenes, five hundred years later. Throughout the
intervening time between Theseus and Clisthenes little real advancement
is noted among the Greeks; none, perhaps, except that connected with
the growth of the idea of government as indicated by the change
from gentile to political institutions, and even this growth, when
we observe that nearly five centuries and a half were required to
establish it, or to substitute the deme or township in the place of the
gens as the unit in the governmental series, can scarcely be regarded
as evidence of remarkable genius, or as indicating a notable degree
of ingenuity. In the transference of society, however, from gentile
to political institutions may be observed a progressive principle,
inasmuch as by it the limits of the gens and tribe were gradually
broken down or obliterated, and the enlarged conception of the state
established in their stead. After the age of Clisthenes an isolated
community bound together by kinship, and with interests extending no
further than the tribe of which it was a part, no longer constituted
the fundamental basis upon which the superstructure of society was to
rest; but, on the contrary, the deme or township, with all its free
inhabitants, of whatsoever tribe or gens, was to become the recognized
unit in organized society.

Prior to the age of Theseus, Attica was divided into petty states,
each with a council-house of its own. According to the testimony of
Thucydides, from the time of Cecrops to Theseus

 the population of Athens had always inhabited independent cities, with
 their own guild-halls and magistrates; and at such times as they were
 not in fear of any danger they did not meet with the king to consult
 with him, but themselves severally conducted their own government, and
 took their own counsel.[161]

[161] Thucydides, _The History of Peloponnesian War_.

The _basileus_ or war-chief exercised no civil functions,[162] and his
services were never called into requisition except in times of danger.

[162] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 250.

Theseus upon receiving the office of military chieftain “persuaded” the
people in the adjacent country to remove to the city.[163] According
to Plutarch he “settled all the inhabitants of Attica in Athens and
made them one people in one city.”[164] He persuaded them to abolish
their independent city governments and to establish in their stead,
at Athens, a council-house which would be common to all. Thus, under
his direction, the Attic peoples coalesced, or were united under
one government. Theseus, we are told, divided the people into three
classes, irrespective of gentes, on the basis of property and social
position. The chiefs of the several gentes with their families, and
the citizens who through their great wealth had become influential,
constituted the first class; the second class were the husbandmen,
and the third the mechanics. All the principal offices both of the
government and the priesthood were in the hands of the nobles or the
moneyed and aristocratic classes. Thucydides refers to the fact that
“when Greece was becoming more powerful, and acquiring possessions
of money still more than before, tyrannies were established in the
cities.”[165]

[163] Thucydides, book ii., 14.

[164] _Theseus._

[165] Book i., 13.

Upon this subject Mr. Rawlinson says:

 All important political privilege is engrossed by the Eupatrids, who
 consist of a certain number of “clans” claiming a special nobility,
 but not belonging to any single tribe, or distinguishable from the
 ignoble clans, otherwise than by the possession of superior rank and
 riches. The rest of the citizens constitute an unprivileged class,
 personally free, but with no atom of political power, and are roughly
 divided, according to their occupation, into yeoman-farmers and
 artisans. The union of the Eupatrids in the same tribes and phratries
 with the Geomori and Demiurgi, seems to show that the aristocracy of
 Athens was not original, like that of Rome, but grew out of an earlier
 and more democratical condition of things—such, in fact, as we find
 depicted in the Homeric poems.... Thus at Athens, as elsewhere, in the
 heroic times, there was undoubtedly the idea of a public assembly,
 consisting of all free-men; but this institution seems entirely to
 have disappeared during the centuries which intervened between Codrus
 and Solon.[166]

[166] Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.

During the three hundred years which followed the death of Codrus,
nothing of great importance is observed concerning the growth of
Grecian institutions. Doubtless their development was characterized
only by the strengthening of the aristocracy and the stimulation of
those egoistic principles which are essential in the establishment of
an oligarchy. That in course of time the power attached to the office
of archon also became a menace to the people’s liberties is shown in
the fact that in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, B.C., 752, the
life archonship was brought to a close and the term of office reduced
to ten years. Although the office was still limited to the family of
Codrus, the incumbent became amenable to the elders or chiefs for his
acts. However, that this movement was not wholly in the interest of the
masses of the people is shown in the fact that during the following
thirty years the Eupatrids, or members of the aristocratic party, had
drawn to themselves all the power belonging to the archonship. It
is observed that during the reign of the fourth decennial archon, a
pretext having been found to depose him, the reigning family or gens
was declared as having forfeited its right to rule and the office was
thrown open to all Eupatrids. Nine archons from among the aristocratic
party, with all the powers formerly belonging to the supreme archon,
conveyed to them, were chosen as a governing board,[167] and were
to continue in office for one year. Selected by and from among the
Eupatrids, their legislation was wholly in the interest of the wealthy
and privileged classes.

[167] Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.

From 684 B.C. to 624 B.C., the aristocratic party exercised unlimited
control over the Athenian state, and during the entire sixty years used
their great power to crush out even a semblance of free institutions.
The thirst for power among them was equalled only by their greed for
gain; hence while wielding the former, they gratified their cupidity
by gathering into their own coffers almost the entire wealth of the
nation. With the machinery of legislation turned against them, the
middle and lower classes were soon robbed even of their means of
support. Most of the land was mortgaged, and the persons of the owners
held by the Eupatrids for debt. Men sold their children and their
sisters to satisfy the demands of creditors,[168] and such was the
inequality existing between various classes that dissensions arose on
every hand, and a general state of confusion, disorder, and discontent
prevailed. Thus may be observed some of the processes by which the
early principles of fraternity, liberty, and justice were overthrown.

[168] _Ibid._

At length the sufferings of the people caused by the injustice and
rapacity of their rulers became unbearable, and by means of various
signs of discontent, notably that of a popular demand for written
laws, it became evident that a crisis had been reached. The Eupatrids,
pretending to heed the popular demand, elected Draco, one of their
number, to the office of archon, with the understanding that a code of
written laws defining the rights of the several classes be prepared.

As the Greeks of the Draconian and Solonic age were but a few
centuries removed from a time when individual liberty and equality had
constituted the cardinal principles upon which society was founded, we
may believe that that spirit of personal independence and self-respect
which had been inherited from gentile institutions, although it had
perhaps slumbered, had never been crushed; therefore, a condition
of subjection or slavery, although for a time endured, could not be
willingly accepted as a settled fact.

As the laws prepared by Draco tended only to aggravate the abuses
of which the people complained, it is quite evident that no reform
was intended; the Eupatrids, however, had mistaken the temper of the
people, and the fact soon became manifest, even to the members of the
governing classes themselves, that certain concessions must be made
to the popular demand for justice. An idea of the rapacity, greed,
dishonesty, and cupidity which prevailed at this stage of Greek life
may be obtained from the writings of Theognis, a poet of Grecian Mega,
who lived about five hundred and seventy years B.C. Among his Maxims
appear the following:

 Now at length a sense of shame hath perished among mankind, but
 shamelessness reigns over the earth. Everyone honours a rich man but
 dishonours a poor: And in all men there is the same mind.... No one of
 the present race of men doth the sun look down upon, being entirely
 good and moderate.... When I am flourishing, friends are many; but
 should any calamity have chanced upon me, few retain a faithful
 spirit. For the multitude of men there is this virtue only, namely, to
 be rich: But of the rest, I wot, there is no use.

The fact is obvious that already in the history of the Greeks the love
of property and the rise of the aristocratic spirit had gained such a
foothold that a democracy was no longer desired by the more influential
citizens, and that it was the moneyed classes and the aristocratic
party who were growing restless under institutions which acknowledged
the equality of all free-born citizens.

Doubtless the power which had been hitherto exercised by the gentes
had already been drawn to the moneyed classes; still, this attempt to
organize society into classes on the basis of property and station was
perhaps the first regulated movement openly to curtail the hitherto
recognized power of the individual members of the gens, and doubtless
constituted the first formulated step towards the subsequent removal of
this ancient institution from its original position as the unit in the
governmental series.

From accessible facts to be gathered relative to early Greek society,
it is plain that individual liberty perished with the gens, and that
monarchy, aristocracy, and slavery were the natural results of the
decline of the altruistic principles upon which early society was
founded.




CHAPTER II

WOMEN IN EARLY HISTORIC TIMES


As it is claimed that the history of the natural growth of society is
represented by the extant tribes in the varying stages of advancement
from savagery to civilization, and as upon our first acquaintance with
the Greeks we find them just emerging from barbarism and preparing to
enter upon a civilized career, we may naturally expect to find in their
various traditions, customs, forms of marriage, etc., some hint of that
influence which, but little more than one ethnical period before, had
been exercised by women, and some clue to the processes involved in the
change from female to male supremacy.

From the facts which are gradually coming to light concerning society
in the early historic period, it is observed that the extant mythoses
and traditions of the ancients contain a mixture of history, mythology,
and astrology. Until a comparatively recent time no attempt has been
made to separate the former from the latter two.

Herodotus opens his account of the Greeks with a story of the capture
of women. The Phœnicians, the great maritime people of that time,
had sent ships loaded with merchandise to Argos. When nearly all was
disposed of there came down to the beach several women among whom was
Io, child of Ianchus the king. As the women were standing by the stern
of the ship attending to their purchases, the foreign sailors rushed
upon them and attempted to carry them off. The most of them made their
escape, but a number were taken away and Io amongst them.[169]

[169] Rawlinson, book i., 1.

Doubtless beneath this myth is concealed a religious doctrine which
had an historical basis. The original version of the legend was that
Io who was carried to Egypt by a god became the mother of a race of
hero-kings; but when the true significance of the early physiological,
religious myth was forgotten, this one of Io, too, after having become
mutilated and distorted to suit a more degenerate time, was accepted in
a purely literal sense and made to do duty as actual history. Following
this narrative in the history of Herodotus is the story of Europa who
was carried away by the Greeks.

In the next generation was enacted the seizure of Helen by Paris,
son of Priam, a deed which, whether committed for revenge or lust,
is supposed to have constituted the sole cause of the Trojan War—a
struggle which continued for nine years. Helen had previously, and
while but a child, according to Plutarch, been carried off by Theseus,
founder of Athens, and borne away to Egypt. Indeed it would seem from
the accounts of this hero that his exploits were instigated for the
most part by a desire to possess himself of women. Even later in the
history of the Greeks we find that Pausanius, King of Sparta, upon
the defeat of the barbarians, received as his share of the booty, ten
specimens of the following articles: “women, horses, talents, and
camels.” The familiar story of the seizure of the Sabine women by the
Romans is regarded as a probable myth or as a doubtful fact; yet, when
we remember that not far distant in the past, capture constituted the
only form of marriage, the acts of violence committed on women are
invested with a fresh interest, for by them we are enabled to trace the
identity of the processes of development between historic nations and
the tribes occupying a lower position in the scale of advancement.

Although Homer traces genealogies through fathers, the fact will
doubtless be observed that two generations generally suffice to carry
men back to an unknown or divine progenitor. Indeed many of the Greeks
of Homer’s time sprang directly from gods. Tlepolemus was of the stock
of Hercules. Priam and his sons were descendants of Zeus, and many of
the noblest Greeks derived their origin from Mars. Helen also was the
descendant of Zeus.

A tradition from Varro in reference to the decline of woman’s power in
Athens is as follows:

 In the age of Cecrops two wonders sprang from the earth at the same
 time, one of which was the olive tree, the other water. The king in
 terror dispatched a messenger to Delphi to ascertain what he was to
 do in the matter. The oracle in response answered that the olive tree
 signified Minerva (Athene), and the water Neptune (Poseidon); and
 that it was optional with the Burgesses after which of the two they
 would name their town. Cecrops convened an assembly of the Burgesses,
 both men and women, for it was customary then for the women to take
 part in the public counsels. The men voted for Poseidon, the women
 for Athene, and as there were more women than men by one, Athene
 conquered. Thereupon Poseidon became enraged, and immediately the sea
 flowed over all the land of Athens. To appease the god the Burgesses
 were compelled to impose a three-fold punishment upon their wives:
 They were to lose their votes; the children were to receive no more
 the mother’s name; and they themselves were no longer to be called
 Athenians after the goddess.

We are assured that prior to the struggle between Athene and Poseidon
for the mastery in Athens, children in Attica and Lycia were named
after their mothers, and that the people as a body were called after
the goddess. Formerly the women were actual Burgesses but after the
decision that the office of father in the processes of reproduction
is superior to that of the mother the women lost their position as
Burgesses and became only the wives of Burghers. It is the vote of
Athene herself which decides that the child is the production of the
father. The ancient Attic traditions are full of references to female
supremacy. Indeed, Herr Bachofen is certain that he has found proof of
female descent and supremacy not only among the early Greek tribes but
in every branch of the Indo-Germanic family.

The Grecian tribes were named after women, as were also the ancient
cities of Greece. The founders of these cities and the eponymous
leaders of the various peoples were women who had been “carried off by
gods.” Sarpedon and Minos who quarrelled over the government of Lycia
were the sons of Europa[170] who had been carried off from Tyre on the
Phœnician coast. Thebe, the eponymous leader of the Thebans, and Egina,
the founder of Egina, were sisters. Therefore when the oracle commanded
the Thebans to seek succour from their nearest of kin, they applied to
the Eginetans, thereby proving that at that time relationships were
still traced through women.

[170] Herodotus, book i., 173.

The Greek tradition of the Scythian nation is as follows: As Hercules
was passing through the country he came to a district called the
Woodland. While he slept, the mares which he had loosed from his
chariot wandered away, and while in quest of them he came to a cave in
which dwelt a being with the head of a woman and the body of a serpent,
probably a goddess representing the two creative principles throughout
nature. Upon being asked by Hercules if she had seen his mares, she
replied, “yes,” but that unless he would remain with her she would not
yield them to him, whereupon he consented to do her bidding. Later, as
she questioned him as to his wishes concerning the three sons which she
had borne him, she said: “Wouldst thou wish that I should settle them
here in this land whereof I am mistress, or shall I send them to thee?”
Hercules placed in her hand a bow with instruction that the son which
when grown to manhood should bend it in a certain way should remain as
king of the land. Scythes, the youngest son of the goddess, was the
successful competitor. From this time gods, not goddesses, are in the
possession of the country.[171] Europe, Asia, and Lybia (Africa) are
named after women, and in nearly all the earliest traditions, a woman,
either divine or human, appears as the eponymous leader of the people.

[171] Herodotus, book v., 80.

The tradition respecting the daughters of Danaūs fleeing from their
native land to avoid the hateful caresses of the sons of Egyptus,
doubtless refers to a time when relationships were beginning to be
traced through males, and when under the _ba’al_ form of marriage they
were beginning to claim the right to control the women of their own
group.

Egyptus and Danaūs were brothers, the former of whom had fifty sons,
the latter fifty daughters. Upon the sons of Egyptus demanding that
their cousins unite with them in marriage, the women immediately fled
by sea to Argos and placed themselves under the protection of Pelasgus.
Although hotly pursued by their tormentors, they reached Argos in
safety; the following is their supplication as set forth by Æschylus:

    On this moist shore, drive them into the deep,
    With all their flying streamers and quick oars,
    There let them meet the whirlwind’s boisterous rage,
    Thund’rings and lightnings, and the furious blasts
    That harrow up the wild tempestuous waves,
    And perish in the storm, ere they ascend
    Our kindred bed, and seize against our will
    What nature and the laws of blood deny.[172]

[172] _The Supplicants._

After having reached Argos and after having besought Pelasgus to
espouse their cause, he says:

    If by your country’s laws Egyptus’ sons,
    As next of blood, assert a right in you,
    Who should oppose them? It behooves thee then
    By your own laws to prove such claim unjust.

To which they make answer:

    Ah! never may I be perforce a thrall
    To man. By heaven-directed flight I break
    The wayward plan of these detested nuptials.
    Arm justice on thy side, and with her aid,
    Judge with what sanctity the gods demand.

The reply of Pelasgus is as follows:

    No easy province: Make not me your judge,
    Great though my power, it is not mine to act,
    I told thee so, without my people’s voice
    Assenting.

It is plain that these lines refer to a time when woman was not “a
thrall to man.” It relates also to a time when the _basileus_ or chief
could not act without the consent of his people.

That in the earliest traditions and accounts of the Greeks, women
occupy a much more exalted position than they do four or five centuries
later, is a fact which can be explained only by the truths which have
been set forth in the foregoing pages; namely, the capture of women
for wives, at first singly and finally in groups. We have seen that
during the period designated as the Latter Status of barbarism, wars
were frequently undertaken upon no other pretext than that of securing
women for wives. Cities were attacked and destroyed, the men murdered,
and the women carried away captives. Property both landed and personal
was seized and held by the conquerors, and as these captured women
were strangers, aliens, and dependents in the countries to which they
were taken, they became simply sexual slaves, or wives, and in process
of time sank to the position in which we find them under Solon, the
lawgiver of Athens.

The difference in the sentiments entertained toward women during
Homer’s time and those which had come to prevail among the Greeks in
the sixth century, B.C., may be observed in the following lines from
Æschylus, and also in a quotation from _The Iliad_, which follows.
At the siege of Thebes, when the women, fearing captivity more than
death, appeared before the sacred images to pray for protection,
Etiocles the chief, trembling with fear, and himself praying loudly to
Jove, to Earth, and “all the guardian gods,” being displeased with the
attitude of the female supplicants, and doubtless eager to exercise his
authority over women thus displays his contempt for them:

    It is not to be borne, ye wayward race;
    Is this your best, is this the aid you lend
    The State, the fortitude with which you steel
    The souls of the besieged, thus falling down
    Before these images to wail, and shriek
    With lamentations loud? Wisdom abhors you.
    Nor in misfortune, nor in dear success,
    Be woman my associate. If her power
    Bears sway, her insolence exceeds all bounds,
    But if she fears, woe to that house and city.
    And now, by holding counsel with weak fear,
    You magnify the foe, and turn our men
    To flight: thus are we ruined by ourselves.
    This ever will arise from suffering women
    To intermix with men. But mark me well,
    Whoe’er henceforth dares disobey my orders,
    Be it man or woman, old or young,
    Vengeance shall burst upon him, the decree
    Stands irreversible, and he shall die.
    War is no female province, but the scene
    For men: hence home; nor spread your mischiefs here,
    Hear you, or not? Or speak I to the deaf?[173]

[173] _The Seven Chiefs against Thebes._

From this scene pictured by Æschylus five centuries and a quarter B.C.,
let us return to the siege of Troy, three centuries earlier, and listen
to Homer. During the thickest of the fight Helenus, approaching Eneas
and Hector, his brother, thus addresses the latter:

        But, Hector, thou depart
    To Troy and seek the mother of us both
    And bid her call the honoured Trojan dames,

that at the fane of Pallas they may supplicate for mercy in behalf of
the wives and little ones of the defenders of Troy. Whereupon the noble
Hector calls aloud:

    O valiant sons of Troy, and ye allies
    Summoned from far! Be men, my friends; call back
    Your wonted valour, while I go to Troy
    To ask the aged men, our counselors,
    And all our wives, to come before the gods
    And pray and offer sacrifice.[174]

[174] _The Iliad_, book vi., Bryant’s translation.

After referring to the generally conceded fact that in Europe the
spread of civilization has been commensurate with the influence
exercised by women, Mr. Buckle expresses himself as being unable
to account for the seeming inconsistencies which are presented by a
comparison of the position occupied in Greece by the women of Homer’s
time, and that as pictured by the laws, usages, and social customs in
the age of Plato and his contemporaries.

Although the Greeks during the ages which intervened between Homer
and Plato had made many notable improvements in the arts of life, and
in various branches of speculative and practical knowledge, women had
evidently lost ground, “their influence being less than it was in the
earlier and more barbarous period depicted by Homer.”[175]

[175] _The Influence of Women on the Progress of Knowledge._

The fact will doubtless be borne in mind that at the time Mr. Buckle
penned these words comparatively little concerning the construction or
organization of primitive society was known. That one ethnical period
and a half prior to the earliest age of the historic Greeks, woman’s
influence was supreme in the family and in the gens, that descent was
reckoned in the female line, and that all rights of succession were
traced through mothers, are facts with which this writer was evidently
unacquainted; hence, we are not surprised that in contemplating a
social phenomenon like that presented by the diminution of woman’s
influence during the ages between Homer and Plato, he should have been
at a loss to account for it, and that he should have declared that
the “causes of these inconsistencies would form a curious subject for
investigation.”

Mr. Lecky, also, in referring to the same subject, says:

 A broad line must, however, be drawn between the legendary or poetical
 period, as reflected in Homer and perpetuated in the tragedians, and
 the later historical period. It is one of the most remarkable, and to
 some writers one of the most perplexing, facts in the moral history of
 Greece, that in the former and ruder period women had undoubtedly the
 highest place, and their type exhibited the highest perfection.[176]

[176] _European Morals_, vol. ii., p. 295.

Of marriage in the legendary period of Greek history, Mr. Grote says:

 We find the wife occupying a station of great dignity and influence,
 though it was the practice for the husband to purchase her by valuable
 presents to her parents.... She even seems to live less secluded
 and to enjoy a wider sphere of action than was allotted to her in
 historical Greece.... A large portion of the romantic interest which
 Grecian legend inspires is derived from the women.[177]

[177] _History of Greece_, vol. ii., p. 83.

From the facts which have been brought to light in relation to the
position occupied by women in the age in which Homer wrote, it may be
observed that much of the seeming inconsistency noticed by Mr. Buckle,
Mr. Lecky, Mr. Grote, and others, between the picture of Greek life
as it appeared at this time, and that noticed six or seven centuries
later in the age of Plato, may be easily explained. The triumph of
the male over the female in human society as exemplified amongst the
earliest Greeks, was of such a recent date that the influence of women
was not wholly extinct, and the deference due them had not entirely
given place to that lofty contempt and biting scorn which characterized
the treatment of women by Greek men at a later stage of their career.

Although later in the history of this people, mothers were not regarded
as related to their own children, and although in the age of Homer
relationships had begun to be reckoned through fathers, in many places
this writer reveals to us the fact that the bond between mother and
child was stronger than that between father and child, or that the tie
between sisters and brothers of the same mother was closer than that
between the children of the same father. In Apollo’s address before
the assembled gods, in which he advocates the ransoming of the body of
Hector by Priam and his sons, Homer puts the following words into the
mouth of the oracle:

  A man may lose his best-loved friend, a son,
  Or his own mother’s son, a brother dear.[178]

[178] _The Iliad_, book xxiv., Derby’s translation.

Numerous illustrations might be drawn from _The Iliad_ as proof of the
fact that the tie between mother and child was still regarded as more
binding than that between father and child. Homer doubtless represents
an age in which the manner of reckoning descent was in dispute, certain
tribes acknowledging only the tie between children born of the same
mother, others only the bond between those of the same father, while
still others acknowledge both, though with a preference for either one
or the other. In the _Eumenides_ of Æschylus the idea of male descent
is put forth as a new doctrine. Orestes, who has murdered his mother,
Clytemnestra, asks: “Do you call me related to my mother?” Although
reproaches and imprecations are heaped upon him for his inhumanity, it
is found that the new doctrine in which the father is represented as
the only real parent, has many adherents—that the gods have concurred
in it, Athene herself having succumbed to the new faith.

No one, I think, who is acquainted with the recently developed facts
relative to human growth, can carefully read _The Iliad_ without
observing the similarity existing between the position occupied by
the women of Greece in Homer’s time, and that of the women among the
tribes and races in a somewhat lower stage of development. On board
the “roomy ships” of the Greeks, the prizes parcelled out to the
chiefs were women. We observe that even the daughters of influential
and wealthy priests, like the oracle of Apollo, might be “carried
off”—an act for which there was absolutely no redress except perhaps
an appeal to the gods. Briseis also was a captured prize assigned to
Achilles by the Greek warriors. Notwithstanding the fact that wives
were still captured, we frequently find women possessed of both wealth
and influence. Helen, although the wife of Meneluas, had vast treasure
which she was able to take away with her when she was carried off by
Paris—treasure over which neither of her husbands seems to have had any
control. Laothoë, the aged wife of Priam, had gold and brass of her own
with which to ransom her sons,[179] and Andromache, the wife of Hector,
who came to Ilium from “among the woody slopes of Placos,” brought with
her not only wealth but sufficient influence to secure for her the
respect of the king’s household.[180]

[179] _The Iliad_, book xxii.

[180] _Ibid._, book vi.

We have seen that in an earlier age, at a time when women were free,
wives had to be captured from foreign tribes; but later, after the
_ba’al_ form of marriage had become established, wives were for the
most part selected from the ranks of native-born women, while foreign
women were usually utilized as concubines. It is true that in the
Homeric age, foreign women sometimes became the wedded wives of their
captors, but unless they possessed great wealth, or unless they were
the daughters of kings, they were unable to command that degree of
consideration due to those who were native-born. The practice, during
the early history of the Greeks, of securing foreign women for
concubines is doubtless the source whence sprang the custom among the
Athenians of later times, of importing all classes of “kept women” from
other countries, Athenian women only being reserved for wives.

During the latter stage of barbarism a marked change in the government
and in the fundamental principles regulating human conduct had taken
place. A review of the facts connected with the history of Greek
society during the ages between Homer and Solon shows that coeval with
the decline of the cardinal principles of the gens, namely, justice,
equality, and fraternity, there had been also a corresponding change
in the relations of the sexes; that during the time in which egoism
or selfishness had gained the ascendancy over the early altruistic
principles developed in human society, woman’s influence had steadily
declined.[181]

[181] A similar change had taken place in the god-idea. Jove was no
longer the “terrible virgin” who “breathes out on crime, misery, and
death,” but, on the contrary, had come to represent a male god who had
given birth to Minerva.




CHAPTER III

ANCIENT SPARTA


Although in the writings commonly ascribed to Homer is to be observed
a fairly correct picture of many phases of Greek life, the earliest
authentic historical accounts which we have of this people are
perhaps those of Aristotle and Plutarch. In the accounts given of the
Lacedæmonians by the last named of these writers, the fact is shown
that male influence among the Spartans of the time of Lycurgus had not
reached that state of intense and overshadowing domination in which we
find the Athenians of the Solonic period submerged.

The early Dorians were ever ready to uphold the ancient customs
as opposed to innovations. In the management of public affairs
they trusted to the ties of relationship rather than to political
organization based on property. The policy of the Athenians, on the
contrary, as enunciated by Pericles, was that “it is not the country
and the people, but movable and personal property, in the proper sense
of the word, which make states great and powerful.” The one policy was
essentially Doric, the other Ionic.[182]

[182] Müller, _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book i., 9,
13.

The exact time at which Lycurgus occupied the position of lawgiver to
the Spartans is not known, but it is claimed by Xenophon that he lived
shortly after the age of Homer. If the accounts of the Lacedæmonians
which have come down to us in connection with the name of this
legislator belong to that early age, if scarcely one ethnical period
had elapsed since woman’s influence was supreme in the home and in the
group, we would naturally expect to find in their customs, usages, and
regulations for the management of society, certain traces of a former
state of female independence, and a hint, at least, of those principles
of liberty and equality in the establishment of the commonwealth
which were the result of female influence; especially would this be
true as we are informed that the Spartans were a conservative people,
clinging to the prejudices of more ancient times. A glance at Spartan
institutions at the time indicated, furnishes ample proof of the fact
that the Lacedæmonians were still to a considerable extent living under
conditions which had been established under the archaic rule of the
gens.

The Spartan senate as reconstructed by Lycurgus was composed of thirty
members including the two kings or military leaders.[183] These chiefs
were the heads of the several gentes. The Ecclesia, or assembly of the
people, “contained originally all the free males who dwelt within the
city were of a legal age.”[184] Hence may be observed the fact that
the constitution of the state was the same as that in the Upper Status
of barbarism; yet the spectacle of a double monarchy (notwithstanding
the fact that it has been designated as a kind of irresponsible
generalship)[185] shows that the power attached to the office of
_basileus_ had become a menace to the liberties of the people; hence
this equal division of responsibility and authority.

[183] Grote, _History of Greece_, vol. ii., p. 345.

[184] Rawlinson, book v., essay i.

[185] Aristotle, _Politics_, book iii., Jowett’s translation.

The Spartan men were warriors who had subjugated the country, making
serfs of the original inhabitants. In the time of Lycurgus these
gentlemen soldiers constituted an aristocratic class who spent their
lives in the performance of public duties, leaving the cultivation of
the soil to the serfs. Helots, the name given to the serfs, signifies
“captives.” They were the slave population of Laconia.[186] The
manufacturers and tradespeople of the towns and country districts
around Sparta were free, but had been deprived of their political
rights. It is evident from these facts that although the constitution
of the state had not been changed, the division of the people into
classes, a division which since the latter part of the Second Status
of barbarism had been threatened, had through spoliation and conquest
already taken place. Add to this the fact that property had passed
into the hands of private individuals, and we shall observe that the
conditions had already become favourable for the development of that
thirst for wealth and power which characterizes monarchial institutions.

[186] Rawlinson, book v., essay i.

If we carefully note the early condition of Spartan society, and
studiously observe the processes involved in the growth of human
institutions, we shall be enabled to perceive the nature of the “load”
under which the Spartans “groaned” in the time of Lycurgus. The fact
has been noted that, throughout an entire ethnical period, human
ingenuity had been taxed to the utmost to subdue or keep in check the
growing tendency toward usurpation and tyranny, and the spectacle of
a double monarchy, or of two military chieftains as they appeared in
ancient Sparta, indicates an attempt on the part of the people to
divide the power which had become attached to this office, and which
was doubtless already menacing the popular rights.

In addition to the turmoil and strife engendered by the thirst for
power were the turbulence and frequent insurrections of the serfs, who,
it will be remembered, had previously been free, and who were therefore
restless and impatient under the tyranny of their Spartan masters.

Although wealth had greatly increased in Sparta during the ages
immediately preceding the Lycurgan system, yet that the disorders which
prevailed were in no wise attributable to luxury and enervation is
shown in the fact as given by Aristotle, that the men during their
frequent campaigns had become inured to the rigours and hardships of a
soldier’s life. He says:

 For, during the wars of the Lacedæmons, first against the Argives,
 and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were
 long away from home, and on the return of peace, they gave themselves
 into the legislator’s hands, already prepared by the discipline of
 a soldier’s life (in which there were many elements of virtue), to
 receive his enactments.[187]

[187] _Politics_, book ii.

It is indeed plain that the state of disorder which prevailed at Sparta
in the time of Lycurgus can be accounted for in no other way than
that the people were no longer able to keep in check the constantly
increasing egoism and selfishness developed within the governing
classes.

The extent to which all wise regulations are attributed to the
governing head is plainly apparent in the view taken of the management
of Sparta which Herodotus and Plutarch ascribe to Lycurgus, but which
in the very nature of the case must have originated from other sources.

It is in no wise probable that Lycurgus instituted any such radical
changes in the constitution of the state as have been ascribed to him
by the above writers, for, as we have seen, prior to his appearance
as lawgiver the government was administered by a military chieftain
or _basileus_, a senate, and an assembly of the people. In order to
strengthen their authority, the kings had made common cause with the
assembly of the people, and through this means had drawn to themselves
nearly all the powers originally vested in that body; while the senate,
destitute of support, had gradually yielded up its functions to them.

Before accepting the statements of these writers, attributing to
Lycurgus that almost unparalleled degree of genius by means of which
was originated an entirely new set of institutions, all the accessible
facts relative to these institutions should without prejudice be
closely scrutinized, especially as they involve principles and actions
which could scarcely have been forced upon a people through an
arbitrary stretch of power in the hands of a single individual.

Doubtless the principal changes in the government inaugurated by
Lycurgus were, first, the importance which he caused to be attached to
the assembly of the people, and second, the restoration of the senate.
By strengthening this body, which was originally composed of the heads
of the gentes, the gentile organization was in a measure restored to
its original dignity. The extreme anxiety felt in the time of Lycurgus
lest the people’s rights be invaded, is shown in the fact that the
three administrative functions of the government were supplemented
by five ephors chosen annually as agents of the people, whose chief
prerogative it was to scrutinize the acts of the chief magistrate and
other guardians of the commonwealth. Although the office of the ephors
is much older than the Lycurgan legislation,[188] it had previously
been abolished, or had sunk into disuse. The ephors of Lycurgus were
“probably appointed for the special purpose of watching over the
Lycurgan discipline, and punishing those who neglected it.”[189]

[188] Curtius, _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.

[189] Rawlinson, book v., essay i.

Later, however, when through the greed for gain and the inordinate
thirst for power, the ephors in their turn had drawn to themselves
the greater share of the powers belonging to the state, the military
commander, or so-called king, became responsible to them for his
conduct even while directing the army in the field. He received his
orders from them, and although in cases of emergency he was authorized
to exercise the power of life and death, according to Xenophon, they
could accuse the king and compel him to defend his acts or suffer the
penalty of death. By a gradual process of usurpation the ephors had,
“by the time of Thucydides, completely superseded the king as the
directors of affairs at Sparta.”

The fact has been observed that the authority of the senate, a body
which in earlier times had been composed of the heads of the genets,
who were elected by all the people, and who held their office only
during good behaviour, had, in the time of Lycurgus, through the growth
of the monarchial and aristocratic party become weakened; and that,
as the kings had drawn to themselves the powers formerly belonging to
the popular assembly, the people were no longer represented, but had
been obliged to surrender their independence to the authority of the
military leaders. It is altogether likely, therefore, that the load
under which the Spartans are said to have groaned, and from which
Lycurgus is supposed to have released them, was the undue assumption
of power by the _basileus_ and the aristocratic party; and that the
chief service which he lent to the state was the sanction which he gave
to those principles of equality and liberty which had been recognized
and practised at a time when the gens as the unit of human society was
still in its original vitality and strength, and when woman’s influence
was therefore in the ascendency.

Most modern writers agree in the opinion that Lycurgus instituted no
fundamental changes in the constitution of the state; indeed all the
accessible facts relative to this subject go to prove that the attempt
at legislative reform in the time of this lawgiver did not begin with
him; but, on the contrary, that all along the line of development, for
an entire ethnical period, there had been a struggle between the people
on the one hand and the constantly increasing power exercised by their
rulers on the other.

Concerning the measures instituted by Lycurgus, and the way in which
the political power was distributed by him, we are assured that it was
according to a Rhetra of this legislator given under the direction of
the Pythian Apollo:

 _Build a temple to Jupiter Hellanius and Minerva Hellania; divide
 the tribes, and institute thirty obas; appoint a council, with its
 princes; convene the assembly between Babyca and Cnacion; propose
 this, and then depart; and let there be a right of decision and power
 to the people._[190]

[190] Müller, _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book iii.,
chap. v.

By this decree the assembly was invested with authority to reject
or accept any proposed measures of the council and princes. Later,
however, when the chiefs and the military leaders would draw to
themselves a portion of the power which had been delegated to the
people, we find subjoined to the original document of the priestess the
following clause: “But if the people should follow a crooked opinion,
the elders and the princes shall dissent.” Or, according to Plutarch:
“If the people attempt to corrupt any law, the senate and chiefs shall
retire,” meaning that “they shall dissolve the assembly and annul the
alterations.”[191]

[191] _Lycurgus._

According to the testimony of Plutarch, when Lycurgus entered upon
the duties of lawgiver he went to Crete, and while there examined the
laws of that people; those of them which he considered wise and suited
to the needs of a commonwealth and which were based on principles
involving the highest interests of the people, he incorporated into
his system. Now the Cretans were a branch of the Doric stock,[192]
and as among them descent and rights of succession were still traced
through women, it would seem that they had preserved much of that
simplicity of manner which characterizes primitive society. Upon his
return from Crete Lycurgus made an equal division of the land, and
as he could not induce the people to surrender their treasures, he
prohibited the use of gold and silver currency and substituted iron in
its place. To a great quantity and weight of this metal he assigned
a slight value, so that to lay up a small amount of wealth a whole
room was required, and for the removal of a moderate sum of money a
yoke of oxen must be employed. When this became current many kinds of
injustice ceased in Lacedæmonia. “Who would steal or take a bribe,
who would defraud or rob, when he could not conceal the booty, when
he could neither be dignified by the possession of it, nor if cut in
pieces be served by its use?”[193] There is little evidence in support
of the statement of Plutarch that Lycurgus attempted to establish a
community of goods among the Spartans. Although he caused the landed
possessions which had been parcelled out to individuals to be returned
to the state, too much interest had already become attached to personal
possessions to have made a division of this kind of wealth possible.

[192] Aristotle’s _Politics_, book ii.

[193] Plutarch’s _Lycurgus_.

A legislator may not enact laws with the expectation of seeing them
enforced which are not in accord with the temper of the people, and the
degree of success which attended the legislation ascribed to Lycurgus
proves that the great mass of the people were in sympathy with many of
the measures which he proposed for the government of Sparta.

It is plain that the object of the person or persons, whom history
has named Lycurgus, was a return to the simpler manners and purer
customs of a more primitive age, which the growth of the aristocratic
spirit and the accumulation of wealth in masses in the hands of the
few threatened entirely to subvert; and, as a community of goods was
at this time impossible, he, or they, sought to level the distinctions
between rich and poor by exalting virtue and moral excellence above the
mere possession of wealth and hereditary titles.

It is the opinion of some writers that although Lycurgus did not
inaugurate a new set of institutions, nor materially change the
constitution of the state, the great service which he rendered to the
Spartans was the remarkable system of discipline which he is supposed
to have inaugurated. Of this Mr. Rawlinson says: “It must always remain
one of the most astonishing facts in history, that such a system was
successfully imposed upon a state which had grown up without it.”[194]
Of the fact, however, that the state had not grown up without it there
is ample evidence. On this subject Curtius remarks:

 It is certain that the Spartan discipline in many respects corresponds
 to the primitive customs of the Dorians, and that by constant
 practice, handed down from generation to generation, it grew into the
 second nature of the members of the community.[195]

[194] Book i., essay i.

[195] _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.

From the facts at hand it is quite evident that Lycurgus did not
originate that system of discipline through which it is claimed Spartan
greatness was achieved. The fact has been noted that when he entered
upon the duties of lawgiver he sailed for Crete, and, “having been
struck with admiration of some of their laws,” he resolved to make use
of them in Sparta.[196] As the discipline of Lycurgus constitutes the
principal feature of the government ascribed to him, and as his models
were for the most part drawn from the Cretans, it is only reasonable
to suppose that this remarkable system was itself, in part at least,
copied from them. It appears that among the Cretans, as among all
peoples among whom female influence is in the ascendency, the children
belonged to the mother, and that women owned, or at least controlled,
their own households; they did not, therefore, follow the fathers of
their children to their homes. In Crete, “the young Dorians were left
in the houses of their mothers till they grew up into youths.”[197] As
Cretan mothers had charge of their sons until they were grown up, it is
not unlikely that the discipline which Lycurgus attempted to copy was
a system inaugurated under matriarchal usages, but which in Sparta in
the time of Lycurgus may have become somewhat relaxed. However, that
the primitive discipline of the Dorian people was not extinct among
the Spartans of this time is observed in the warlike character of the
males, and in the express testimony of Aristotle that Spartan men had
become inured to hardships by means of their frequent campaigns. To
restore, or rather to intensify this discipline, seems to have been the
object of Lycurgus; yet that he lacked greatly in judgment is shown by
the measures which he put into execution. We are informed that

[196] Plutarch’s _Lycurgus_.

[197] Curtius, _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.

 Spartan boys were as early as their eighth year taken into public
 training, and assigned their places in their respective divisions,
 where they had to go through all the exercises introductory to
 military service, and accustom their bodies to endurance and exercise,
 in exact obedience to the forms acquired by the state through its
 officers.[198]

[198] _Ibid._

This interference with the natural development of the Spartan youth was
not without its effect upon his character; and especially so as the
policy adopted was such as to narrow his mental horizon, and confine
his ideas within the scope of Spartan possibilities.

From all the evidence to be gathered about the individual whom
historians call Lycurgus, it would appear that he was a fanatic, who,
doubtless feeling deeply the disorders which had fastened themselves
upon society, attempted to manage not only the affairs of the state,
but to impose his authority also upon individual conduct.

Of the position occupied by women at the time when Lycurgus is said to
have been lawgiver at Sparta, there seems to be much evidence going
to show that they were in the possession of a remarkable degree of
liberty, and that they were possessed of great power and influence.
We have seen that while the men of Sparta were away from their homes
engaged in warfare, the country had become wealthy and prosperous. Not
only was the land controlled by women, but nearly two-fifths of it was
theirs by actual possession.[199] Therefore, when Aristotle informs
us that when Lycurgus “wanted to bring the women under his laws,
they resisted, and he gave up the attempt,”[200] we are by no means
surprised. Indeed, Aristotle himself says that this license of the
Lacedæmonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what
might be expected.[201] It is altogether likely that in the time of
Lycurgus, Spartan women had not been brought under subjection to male
authority.

[199] _Politics_, vol. ii., p. 9.

[200] _Ibid._

[201] _Ibid._

According to the accounts given by Aristotle and Plutarch, under
regulations made by Lycurgus, the men dined on the plainest fare at
the public table, or mess, while the women remained within their own
homes. That a considerable degree of success crowned this legislator’s
efforts to control the conduct and private life of men, from the facts
at hand may not be doubted; among the women, however, the case seems to
have been altogether different. Of the Spartans, Aristotle says: “In
the days of their greatness many things were managed by their women.
But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are
ruled by women.”[202] Because, however, the Spartan women preferred
to remain within their own homes, and refused to allow their private
affairs to be controlled by Lycurgus, Aristotle accuses them “of
intemperance and luxury.” He says:

[202] _Politics._

 For a husband and a wife, being each a part of every family, the state
 may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and,
 therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad,
 half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has
 actually happened at Sparta, the legislator wanted to make the whole
 state temperate, and he has carried out his intentions in the case of
 the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of
 intemperance and luxury.[203]

[203] _Ibid._

So far, however, from the Spartan women refusing to concur in those
movements which were in operation to make the whole state hardy and
temperate, we have ample evidence going to prove that it was women
themselves who in former times had encouraged the healthful and
moderate exercise of body and limb among the youth of both sexes.
Indeed, from natural inferences to be drawn from the facts at hand,
it is probable that these exercises which had originated among the
primitive Dorians, while under the matriarchal system, had not only
been encouraged, but practised, by women while their husbands and
fathers were absent on their campaigns.

We have seen that, according to Aristotle, women refused to unite
in those movements in operation in the time of Lycurgus for the
strengthening and general improvement of the youth. Plutarch, on
the contrary, ascribes all the physical strength and vigour of mind
possessed by Spartan women to the wise regulations of Lycurgus;
and, notwithstanding the fact that, according to his own testimony,
they were possessed of great liberty and power, he imputes to this
legislator the inauguration of all those practices for the promotion
of perfect freedom among women which were so salutary in producing or
continuing a healthful state of public morals.

It is plain that the position occupied by Spartan women presented
difficulties to the minds of Aristotle and Plutarch which they were
wholly unable to explain. With regard to the supposition of Plutarch
that the exercises performed by the young women of Sparta while in a
nude or semi-nude condition were inaugurated by Lycurgus, it is too
unreasonable for serious consideration. It is to be doubted if there
has ever existed, either in ancient or modern times, a legislator, who,
unaided and alone, and simply through a stretch of arbitrary power,
has been able to regulate the dress, amusements, bodily exercise, and
general movements of women in possession of a reasonable degree of
personal freedom and liberty of action.

Respecting the wise regulations instituted by Lycurgus for the
management of women, Plutarch says:

 In order to take away the excessive tenderness and delicacy of the
 sex, the consequence of a recluse life, he accustomed the virgins
 occasionally to be seen naked as well as the young men, and to dance
 and sing in their presence on certain festivals.[204]

[204] _Lycurgus._

Perhaps throughout the entire narrative of Plutarch concerning Lycurgus
and his laws, there is nothing so absolutely devoid of reason as this.
If, as he assures us, women were possessed of that excessive tenderness
and delicacy which are the result of a recluse life; and if, as he
supposes, they had hitherto been trained according to masculine ideas
of female modesty and decorum, it is greatly to be doubted if the laws
of Lycurgus, or even the lightnings of Zeus could have driven these
virgins into the presence of the opposite sex under the conditions
named.

Doubtless the Spartan people had not at this stage of their career
departed so far from the customs of a gynecocracy that women were
unable to exercise absolute control over their persons. Being free
from the domination of the opposite sex, all those exercises and
habits of body in use to increase their own vigour and that of the
entire race had doubtless been instigated by women, or at least had
been instituted at a time when female influence was in the ascendency.
Concerning the position occupied by the women of Sparta, Plutarch says
they had assumed to themselves great liberty and power “on account of
the frequent expeditions of their husbands, during which they were left
sole mistresses at home, and so gained an undue deference and improper
titles.”[205]

[205] _Lycurgus._

It is evident that this writer was unacquainted with the fact that
at a time not far distant in the past from the age of Lycurgus, the
influence of women in the family and in the gens had been supreme;
hence, like others who have attempted to deal with the subject of
primitive peoples, he was unable to conceive of a condition of society
in which women’s natural instincts played a conspicuous part in
regulating the social customs and in formulating the laws by which they
were governed.

The extreme modesty and sensitiveness which are observed as a
characteristic of both sexes in the marriage relation, and the reserve
of the youths at festivals in which young women are reported to have
appeared naked, may not be ascribed to the laws of Lycurgus, but on the
other hand appear as direct results of those checks upon the animal
instincts in the male which the former strength and independence of
women had imposed.[206]

[206] As to the exercises of the virgins, and their appearing naked,
C. O. Müller, in his _History and Antiquities of the Doric Race_
observes:

“The female sex underwent in this respect the same education as the
male, though (as has been above remarked) only the virgins. They had
their own gymnasia, and exercised themselves, either naked or lightly
clad, in running, wrestling, or throwing the quoit or spear. It is
highly improbable that youths or men were allowed to look on, since
in the gymnasia of Lacedæmon no idle bystanders were permitted; every
person was obliged either to join the rest, or withdraw.”—Book iv., ch.
v.-viii.

At a later age, for instance that of Plutarch, the spectacle of young
maidens appearing on occasions of public festivity in a single garment,
loose, and reaching a little below the knee, would have been associated
with ideas of disgrace and shame; but, under a condition of society in
which the animal instincts had not wholly gained the ascendency over
the higher faculties, or in which the characters peculiar to women had
not been overshadowed or subdued by the grosser elements developed
in human nature, such a proceeding might not, as we have seen, be
inconsistent with the purest motives and the highest aims.

Something of the extent to which the influence of women was exerted
to stimulate bravery and courage in the opposite sex is shown in the
description by Plutarch of the festivals in which the young people
appeared before each other in a semi-nude state to practise the popular
games of strength and skill. Concerning these festivals this writer
remarks that the young women engaged in little raillery upon those
who lacked skill, or who had not done their best, while “on such as
deserved them they sang encomiums, thus exciting in the young men a
useful emulation and love of glory.” Plutarch observes also that “those
who were praised for their bravery and celebrated among the virgins
went away perfectly happy, while their satirical glances were no less
cutting than serious admonitions.”[207]

[207] _Lycurgus._

These facts indicate something of the extent to which female influence
still survived in ancient Sparta, and reveal plainly the fact that
although in the time of Lycurgus the coarser instincts developed in
human nature had made considerable headway, they had not totally
eclipsed the finer characters peculiar to women, as was the case at a
later period of Grecian history—more particularly among the Athenians.
“As for the virgins appearing naked,” Plutarch himself assures us,

 there was nothing disgraceful in it, because everything was conducted
 with modesty, and without one indecent word or action. Nay, it caused
 a simplicity of manner and an emulation for the best habit of body;
 their ideas too were naturally enlarged while they were not excluded
 from their share of bravery and honour.

Regarding the commingling of the sexes among the Spartans, Mr. Grote
says:

 When we read the restrictions which Spartan custom imposed upon the
 intercourse even between married persons, we shall conclude without
 hesitation that the public intermixture of the sexes led to no such
 liberties between persons not married, as might be likely to arise
 from it under other circumstances.[208]

[208] _History of Greece_, vol. ii., p. 385.

It was a Dorian who first threw aside his heavy girdle during the
Olympian contests and ran naked to the goal. In an allusion to this
incident, and also to the custom of Spartan virgins appearing in
a semi-nude state in the presence of the opposite sex during the
performance of their gymnastic feats, C. O. Müller says that a display
of the naked form when all covering was unnecessary and inconvenient
was quite in keeping with the character and temper of the Dorians.[209]

[209] _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book iv., ch. ii.,
p. 1.

Concerning the style of dress adopted by the Doric virgins, it is said
to have consisted of a loose woollen garment called a _himation_. It
was without sleeves and was fastened over the shoulders with large
clasps. The _himation_ was completely joined only on one side, the
other side being left loose and fastened with a buckle or clasp.
Doubtless this adjustment of the gown was to enable the wearer to
open it and throw it back, thereby securing greater freedom to the
limbs while running and wrestling. This simple garment reached only to
the calf of the leg, and was worn sometimes with a girdle, sometimes
without.

The pure state of morals in Sparta furnishes an explanation of that
peculiar style of dress among women which has elicited so much comment
among later writers, and which has stamped the Spartan women as
creatures especially “devoid of modesty.” True modesty was evidently
one of the leading characteristics of this people among both sexes, but
the simulation of it, which, by the way, is usually practised just in
proportion as the lower propensities have gained the ascendency over
the higher faculties, was doubtless absent in Spartan society.[210]

[210] We have the authority of Tacitus respecting the customs,
character, and style of dress of the ancient Germans. Among this
people, as is well known, the influence of women was in the ascendency
over that of men, and the state of public morals was exactly that which
might be expected. Respecting the dress of women, this writer says they
“do not lengthen their upper garment into sleeves but leave exposed the
whole arm, and part of the breast” (_Germania_, chap. xvii.). It is
observed, however, that chastity was the characteristic virtue of this
people among both sexes. The marriage bond was strict and severe, and
we are informed that among the Saxons the women themselves inflicted
the penalty for adultery. From an epistle of St. Boniface, Archbishop
of Mentz, to Ethelbald, King of England, we have the following: “In
ancient Saxony (now Westphalia), if a virgin pollute her father’s
house, or a married woman prove false to her vows, sometimes she is
forced to put an end to her own life by the halter, and over the ashes
of her burned body her seducer is hanged.”

An illustration of the state of public morals in ancient Sparta may be
observed in the following dialogue. A stranger once asked a Spartan
what penalty their law attached to adultery. The reply was: “My
friend, there are no adulterers in our country.” Upon being further
interrogated, “But what if there should be one?” the Spartan replied:
“Why then, he must forfeit a bull so large that he might drink of the
Eurotus from the top of Mount Taygetus.” When the stranger asked: “How
can such a bull be found?” the man answered with a smile, “How can an
adulterer be found in Sparta?”[211]

[211] Plutarch’s _Lycurgus_.

Commenting on the relative position of Doric and Athenian women, C. O.
Müller says:

 The domestic relation of the wife to her husband among the Dorians was
 in general the same as that of the ancient western nation, described
 by Homer as universal among the Greeks, and which existed at Rome till
 a late period; the only difference being that the peculiarities of the
 custom were preserved by the Dorians more strictly than elsewhere.

 Amongst the Dorians of Sparta, the wife was honoured by her husband
 with the title of mistress (a gallantry belonging to the north of
 Greece, and also practised by the Thessalians), which was used neither
 ironically nor unmeaningly. Nay, so strange did the importance which
 the Lacedæmonian women enjoy, and the influence which they exercised
 as the managers of their household, and mothers of families, appear
 to the Greeks, at a time when the prevalence of Athenian manners
 prevented a due consideration for national customs, that Aristotle
 supposed Lycurgus to have attempted, but without success, to regulate
 the lives of women as he had regulated that of the men; and the
 Spartans were frequently censured for submitting to the yoke of their
 wives.

It has been truly said that nowhere else in Greece do we find traces of
that power exercised by women over their sons when arrived at manhood
observed among Spartan mothers. When a woman of another country said to
Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, “You of Lacedæmon are the only women in
the world that rule the men,” she replied, “We are the only women that
bring forth men.”[212]

[212] Plutarch’s _Lycurgus_.

With our present knowledge respecting the influence and independence
of the Spartan women, it is folly for certain writers to assert that
married women were confined within the house and that only virgins
appeared in public. There is some evidence going to prove that at
Crete, at Sparta, and at Olympia, women were not only spectators at
the Olympian games, but that they engaged personally in the chariot
contests. According to an inscription in Della Cella, it is shown that
women presided over the public gymnastic exercises in that town.

One very important fact going to show whence proceeded the reforms of
Lycurgus is that the mandates of the oracle were supreme. The oracles
controlled the rulers, but women always controlled or interpreted
the oracles. The celebrated Rhetra of Lycurgus, in which unlimited
authority is given to the people to reject or adopt the proposals of
the king, was given according to the direction of the Pythian Apollo,
whose mandates were interpreted by women.

In an earlier age the chiefs of the gentes were elected by all the
people, and they held their office by virtue of their relationship
to the leader of the gens, who was a woman. That the honour due to
women was still recognized in Sparta is shown in the following from
Plutarch in relation to the election of senators. The person who had
received the loudest acclamations was declared duly elected, whereupon
he was crowned with a garland, and a number of young men followed him
about to extol his virtues. The women sang his praises and blessed
his life and conduct. Two portions were set before him, one of which
he carried to the gates of the public hall, where the women were in
waiting to receive him. To the one for whom he had the greatest esteem
he presented the portion, saying: “That which I received as a mark of
honour I give to you.” The woman thus honoured “was conducted home with
great applause by the rest of the women.”[213]

[213] Plutarch’s _Lycurgus_.

Spartan men were forbidden to marry foreign women, hence, contrary to
the customs of surrounding nations at this early period, wives as well
as husbands were native-born. All were Spartans, which fact probably
accounts in a measure for the exalted position occupied by women.

Both in Sparta and in Crete the form of marriage was by capture;
thus, although in the time of Lycurgus the Spartan men and women both
belonged to the same stock, it is plain that originally they were of
different tribes. Of capture as practised in Sparta, Müller says that
it was clearly an ancient national custom, founded on the idea that
“the young woman could not surrender her freedom and virgin purity,
unless compelled by the violence of the stronger sex.”[214] According
to Plutarch, after the arrangements for the wedding had been completed,
the bridegroom rushed in, seized the bride from among her assembled
friends, and bore her away.

[214] _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book iv., chap. iv.

The Dorian stock alone seems to have preserved the ancient customs,
and among these peoples, wherever they are found, woman’s influence is
in the ascendency. According to Herodotus and Aristotle, the Spartans,
the Cretans, and the Lycians were related. The people of Crete still
preserved their ancient usages, hence may be observed the reason
why Lycurgus visited that country in quest of information before
enunciating the laws which were to restore order among the Spartans.
In Lycia, as in Crete, woman’s influence must still have been
considerable. Of the Lycians Herodotus says:

 Their customs are partly Cretan, partly Carian.... They take the
 mother’s and not the father’s name. Ask a Lycian who he is, and he
 answers by giving his own name, that of his mother, and so on in the
 female line. Moreover, if a free woman marry a man who is a slave,
 their children are full citizens; but if a free man marry a foreign
 woman, or live with a concubine, even though he be the first person in
 the state, the children forfeit all the rights of citizenship.[215]

[215] Book i.

On the manner of reckoning descent through women which prevailed in
Lycia, Curtius remarks that the usage extends far beyond the territory
commanded by the Lycian nationality. It is still extant in India; it
was practised in ancient Egypt, among the Etruscans, and among the
Cretans, who were closely related to the Lycians. This writer observes
that if

 Herodotus regards the usage in question as thoroughly peculiar to the
 Lycians, it must have maintained itself longest among them of all
 the nations related to the Greeks, as is also proved by the Lycian
 inscriptions.[216]

[216] _History of Greece_, book i., Ward’s translation.

As the Sabines who united with the Romans in founding Rome claimed
relationship with the Dorians, we may reasonably expect to find among
them somewhat of that womanly influence which characterized the
Spartans, and some hint among their customs of an earlier age of female
independence. Although the Sabine women did not “voluntarily” assume
the position of wives to the Romans but were captured by them, when the
two nations united, the Sabines were regarded rather in the light of
conferring honour upon Rome than as detracting from its dignity.

Of the early Romans, Ortolan says:

 The _connubium_, or right of marriage, did not exist between males and
 females of different cities unless by special agreement between those
 cities. Thus it was that the primitive Romans, according to tradition,
 were compelled to resort to ambuscade and force in order to carry off
 their first wives.[217]

[217] _History of Roman Law_, p. 79.

The Roman family, like the Roman state, began with slavery. Of the
Romans it has been said that they acquired their territory, their
property, and even their wives by the lance.

 With them the lance became the symbol of property, and even had a
 place in their judicial procedure. Their slaves were booty, their
 wives were booty, and their children, begotten of them, the fruit of
 their possessions.[218]

[218] Ortolan’s _History of Roman Law_, p. 42.

The right of fathers, under Romulus, to sell their sons, upon the
accession of Numa the Sabine ruler, to the office of lawgiver, was
withdrawn, and the reason given for it was consideration for women.
According to Plutarch, Numa “reckoned it a great hardship, that a woman
should marry a man as free, and then live with him as a slave.”[219]

[219] Numa and Lycurgus compared.

In the life of Numa by Plutarch we have a hint of a former age of
universal freedom. It was one of this ruler’s institutions, that once
a year the slaves should be entertained along with their masters at
a public feast, there to enjoy the fruits “which they had helped to
produce.” The same writer assures us that some are of the opinion that
this is a remnant of that equality which was in existence in the times
of Saturn, when there was neither master nor slave, but all were upon
the same footing. Plutarch quotes from Macrobius, who says that this
feast was celebrated in Italy long before the building of Rome.

From all the facts to be gathered relative to the relations of the
sexes in the age of Numa, it is plain that that freedom of action
exercised by women in a former age among the Dorians, was rapidly
declining, and that the early independence which has characterized
the Sabine women was beginning to bring upon them the condemnation
of their Roman lords. This is shown in the fact that it soon became
Numa’s arduous task to institute certain restrictions on their former
liberties. In a comparison between Lycurgus and Numa, Plutarch, in
referring to this subject, observes:

 Numa’s strictures as to virgins tended to form them to that modesty
 which is the ornament of their sex; but the great liberty which
 Lycurgus gave them, brought upon them the censure of the poets,
 particularly Ibycus.

The grossness which had been developed during the four or five hundred
years following the age of Lycurgus, and the jealousy with which the
movements of women had come to be regarded, are illustrated by the
following stanza from Euripides:

  These quit their homes, ambitious to display,
  Amidst the youths, their vigour in the race,
  Or feats of wrestling, whilst their airy robe
  Flies back and leaves their limbs uncovered.[220]

[220] Quoted by Plutarch.

It is evident that not only in private life, but in their desire for
public activity also, the independence of the Sabine women failed to
comport with the ideas already in vogue among their Roman husbands
regarding the “proper sphere” of women. Consequently their behaviour
was thought to be

 too bold and too masculine, in particular to their husbands; for
 they considered themselves as absolute mistresses in their houses;
 nay, they wanted a share in affairs of state, and delivered their
 sentiments with great freedom concerning the most weighty matters.[221]

[221] Numa and Lycurgus compared.

A woman even appeared in the Forum to plead her own cause, whereupon
the grave senators ordered that the oracles be consulted that the true
import of the singular phenomenon might be revealed.[222]

[222] _Ibid._

Plutarch, who lived in the first century of the Christian era, after
having recounted these misdemeanours, assures us that “what is recorded
of a few infamous women is a proof of the obedience and meekness of
Roman matrons in general.”[223]

[223] _Ibid._

Doubtless, in Plutarch’s time, Roman women had lost much of that
influence which characterized the female sex in an earlier age; it
is not, therefore remarkable that by this writer the Sabine women
should have been regarded as too forward and as altogether infamous.
That their conduct was not all that could be desired by the outlaws
and bandits who founded Rome, and who had stolen them for wives, is
evident; and the regulations of their rulers respecting them show
plainly that much judicious training and a vast amount of repression
were required before they were fitted for the peculiar duties devolving
upon them as sexual slaves.

We are told by Plutarch that the regulations established by Lycurgus,
instead of encouraging that licentiousness of the women which prevailed
at a later period, operated to render adultery unknown amongst them;
yet this writer forgets to mention the fact that in Sparta, in the time
of this ruler, there was no demand for prostitution by a class who
held all the wealth and power, and who were therefore in a position
to regulate this matter to suit their own tastes and inclinations.
On the contrary, the female sex was free, not only in the matter of
sexual relations, but in the exercise of all their natural tendencies,
and in the direction of all their movements. The idea of sex, which
among later and more thoroughly sensualized nations became first and
foremost, among the Dorians, so far as equal rights, obligations, and
duties were concerned, was ignored or left to nature to regulate.

Plutarch, like most writers who have dealt with the relations of the
sexes, fails to observe the fact that just to the extent in the past
history of mankind to which women have been free and independent,
licentiousness has disappeared, and that just in proportion as the
influence of women has declined, in just such proportion have shame,
profligacy, disease, and infamy prevailed. To produce a state of
society in which the animal instincts ruled supreme, and in which
passion was the recognized god, women had first to become physically
dependent and mentally enslaved.

For so long a time have women been judged by masculine standards, it
is not perhaps remarkable that male writers of these later times can
discern in the simplicity and chastity existing among the Dorians,
in the age of Lycurgus, no evidence of a former era of female
independence. Neither is it singular, as for so many ages women have
been subject to the pleasure and control of the opposite sex, that we
should be repeatedly told by writers who have dealt with the usages
of the Spartans, that their women were “permitted” to do this, and
“allowed” to do that, although the facts in the case prove that in all
their movements they were guided by their own wills, exercised either
directly, or through the oracles of the gods.

When the customs of the ancient Dorians are viewed without prejudice,
the fact will doubtless be observed that they originated not in a
depraved and licentious state of society, but, on the contrary,
that they were the direct result of that freedom of action which
characterizes purity of life and a high standard of thought and action.




CHAPTER IV

ATHENIAN WOMEN


According to Wilford, the Greeks were the descendants of the Yavanas
of India. This writer observes that the Pandits insist that the words
_Yavana_ and _Yoni_ are derived from the same root, _Yu_, and that when
the Ionians emigrated they adopted this name to distinguish themselves
as adorers of the female, in opposition to a strong sect of male
worshippers which had been driven from the mother country.[224] Under
the constantly increasing importance of the male, however, both in
human affairs and in the god-idea, they subsequently became ashamed of
their religious title and sought to abandon it. Of the aversion felt in
Greece for this name Herodotus says:

[224] See Hargrave Jennings, _Phallicism_.

 The Athenians and most of the Ionic states over the world went so far
 in their dislike of the name as actually to lay it aside; and even at
 the present day the greater number of them seems to me to be ashamed
 of it.[225]

[225] Book i.

Whenever in early historic times a country was subjugated, the
conquerors either murdered or enslaved the men, and utilized the women
for wives, or sexual slaves. The Ionians who, according to Herodotus,
sailed from Attica, without women, took for wives native Carians whose
fathers they had slain; hence these captives made a law, which they
bound themselves by an oath to observe, and which they handed down to
their daughters after them, that “none should ever sit at meat with
her husband, or call him by his name; because the invaders slew their
fathers, their husbands, and their sons, and then forced them to become
their wives.”[226] The terms of the oaths sworn by them at the time
of the capture seem, subsequently, to have been enforced by their
imperious masters.

[226] Book i.

As these women were foreigners they were entitled to little or no
respect from their captors. However, as they were to become the mothers
of Greek citizens, they must necessarily be “protected,” or, in other
words, they must be kept in seclusion. In the time of Solon, rape
committed on a free-born woman was punishable by fine.[227]

[227] Plutarch, _Solon_.

From that stage in the history of Greek tribes, at which through
capture and appropriation of the soil by individuals women began to
lose that influence which they had exercised under matriarchal usages,
to the time of Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, when they had finally
descended to the lowest level of misery and sexual degradation, may be
observed a corresponding tendency gradually developing itself among the
people towards selfishness, usurpation of power, and the slavery of the
masses. In the age of Solon the limit of human wretchedness seems to
have been reached, and as the human race is never at a standstill, it
must at this time have either become extinct, or have begun gradually
to lift itself from the condition of disgrace and ruin into which it
had fallen.

The character of Solon, as gathered from the facts at hand regarding
him, reflects in a measure the true condition of society at that
time. Although vain and morally weak, he was in a certain sense
humane; his humanity, however, extended only to those of his own sex.
A large proportion of the women of Athens were imported foreigners,
and were therefore so degraded that they had no rights which any one,
even a lawgiver, was bound to protect. After his appointment to the
archonship, Solon’s first act was to cancel the debts against the lands
and persons of the Athenians, and to establish a law that in future no
man should accept the body of his debtor for security.[228] Many who
had been previously banished or driven out of the country for debt,
and had remained so long from their native land as to forget their
Attic dialect, were recalled as freemen, while others, who at home had
suffered slavery, were released and given their freedom.

[228] Plutarch, _Solon_.

Perhaps, however, in no position in life will a vain, morally weak
man display to better advantage the defects in his character than in
his attempts to legislate for women; and under no circumstances will
his true inwardness of purpose stand more truly revealed than in his
efforts to “regulate” the relations of the sexes. A brief notice of
Solon’s laws concerning women proves him to have been no exception to
the generally observed rule. It is recorded of him that in his extreme
solicitude lest their movements should not comport with his ideas of
female propriety and decorum, he regulated their journeyings, and laid
down rules respecting their mournings, sacrifices, and the number of
gowns which they were to take with them when they went out of town.
The provision for their journey and even the size of the basket in
which it was to be conveyed were subjects not unworthy the attention of
the great Athenian lawgiver. Women’s mode of travel by night was also
prescribed as was also their conduct at funerals and various places of
amusement. In fact all their actions were subjected to that meddlesome
espionage and control which characterize a weak and sensuous age.
Indeed, we have something more than a hint of the degraded position
occupied by women, in the fact that a man might not be allowed to sell
a daughter or a sister “unless she were taken in an act of dishonour
before marriage,” in which case her accuser might sell her person for
individual gain; and this, too, notwithstanding the fact that he, as
well as nearly every other man in Athens, was steeped in infamy.

The measure adopted by Solon for the regulation of prostitution,
and his division of women into classes for the convenience of all
conditions of men, indicate clearly the disgrace and shamelessness
which characterized the Athenians at this stage of their career, and
depict with unerring fidelity the depth of horror into which womanhood
had been dragged.

The condition of public morals during the three hundred years following
the age of Solon is plainly indicated not only in the laws but in the
mythologies of Greece and Rome. Prostitution was enjoined by religion
and when Draco, suddenly shocked by the degeneracy of his time, affixed
the penalty of death to rape, seduction, and adultery, it has been said
that by the performance of the prescribed religious rites within the
temple, the “rigour of his edicts was considerably softened.”

The restraint imposed upon the Athenians by the Draconian regulations
was, however, of short duration; for when Solon, the successor of
Draco, assumed the position of archon, he at once legally established
a sufficient number of houses of prostitution at Athens to supply the
demand, filling them with female slaves who had been taken captives
in war, or who had been otherwise provided by the munificence of the
government.

  But you did well for every man, O Solon;
  For they do say you were the first to see
  The justice of a public-spirited measure,
  The Saviour of the State.[229]

[229] Philemon. Quoted by _Athenæus_, book xiii.

By this time, so degraded had womanhood become, that the traffic in
female captives for sexual purposes was regarded as a legitimate
business, and the revenue accruing from their services was considered
a lawful source of gain to the state, its use being devoted to the
rearing of temples and to the carrying out of the various projects
connected with religious worship.

That the Athenians of this period were wholly given over to luxury and
licentiousness is shown by the fact that at their bacchanalian feasts,
the troops of women who were in attendance and who had been provided
for the occasion by the generosity of the state, performed all their
duties under direct and explicit instruction of the government “to
disobey no order of a guest”; for which wise regulations Solon received
the praise and commendation of Athenian men.

In a former portion of this work the fact has been noted that until
well into the Latter Status of barbarism all women were protected;
that among the Kaffirs, the Fiji Islanders, and various other peoples
occupying a lower stage in the order of growth, women, although
divested of their former influence, are still jealously guarded by the
gens to which they belong; and that when maidens are bereft of home and
near relatives, they are adopted into some other gens within the tribe
where they are invested with the same rights as are its own members.
Therefore when contemplating the social condition of the Athenians five
or six hundred years B.C., we are naturally led to inquire: What were
the causes which during one ethnical period had produced so marked a
change in the position of the female sex? For an answer to our question
we must recall the facts set forth in this volume relative to the
capture of wives, together with the feeling of hatred entertained by
early society for alien women.

In the time of Pericles, an age when Athens was at the height of its
prosperity, the women of the city were divided into five classes as
regarded their duties and uses. The first of these consisted of wives,
who, for the most part, were kept in seclusion and allowed to exist
solely for the purpose of propagating Greek citizens. These women were
without influence, possessing no rights or privileges beyond the will
of their “lords”; while to such an extent were they considered merely
in the light of household furniture that they were not permitted to
appear in public, nor to sit at table with their masters.

The following dialogue between Socrates and Ischomachus, a man who had
managed his household in such a manner as to be “pointed out as a model
for all Athens,” perhaps serves as a correct picture of the relations
existing between husband and wife in the Periclean age. “I should like
to know this particular from you,” said Socrates, “whether you yourself
educated your wife so as to make her what she ought to be, or whether
you received her from her parents with a knowledge of her duties?”—“And
how could I have received her so educated, Socrates, when she came
to me not fifteen years old, and had lived up to that time under the
strictest surveillance that she might see as little as possible, and
hear as little as possible, and inquire as little as possible?”

Of the five classes to which reference has been made, wives only were
native-born, and as this particular class had specific duties to
perform, severe penalties were attached to the crimes of seduction and
rape when committed upon Athenian women. The remaining four classes
were arranged according to the dignity of their associates, the highest
in rank and repute being the hetairai, the members of which comprised
the only free women in Athens. Themselves philosophers and stateswomen,
their associates among males were of the same rank or station. They
constituted a highly intellectual class, and as such were able to
control not only their own movements, but to exercise a remarkable
influence upon literature, art, and the affairs of state. Because of
the important position occupied by these women, they will be referred
to later in this work.

The next in rank were the _auletrides_, or flute-players. Many of the
most fashionable of these were slaves who had been brought to Greece
by speculators. We are informed that female musicians were a usual
accompaniment to an Athenian banquet, and that flute-playing became an
essential feature in the worship of several of their deities; hence,
the services of this particular class were in demand, not only to
heighten the enjoyment of social intercourse, but to stimulate and
encourage religious enthusiasm. At public gatherings, after the dinner
was over, and while the wine was flowing freely, these women made their
appearance in a semi-nude condition, dancing and keeping time to the
music by the graceful motion of their beautifully moulded figures.
While the enthusiasm was at its height they were sold to the highest
bidder. Fist fights, or hand-to-hand encounters for the possession of
these female flute-players, were not uncommon occurrences in the best
society in Athens.[230]

[230] _Athenæus_, book xiii.,

These scenes were performed under the sanction of religion and law;
they therefore serve to reveal the true inwardness of the Greek
character at this stage of development. It is reported that the finest
houses in Alexandria were inscribed with the names of famous Greek
_auletrides_. Of all the flute-players of Greece, Lamia is said to
have been the most successful. For fifteen or twenty years she was
the delight of the entire city of Alexandria and of King Ptolemy.
Finally, when the city was taken by Demetrius of Macedon, Lamia was
taken also. When she demanded that an immense tax be levied on the city
of Athens for her benefit, it is recorded that although the people
murmured at the amount, they nevertheless found it to their interest to
deify her and erect a temple in her honour. According to the testimony
of Plutarch, Lamia raised money on her own authority to provide an
entertainment for the king.[231]

[231] Demetrius.

The fourth class consisted of concubines, or purchased slaves who were
in the service of Athenian gentlemen (?). This appendage to the Greek
family was a member of the household of her master where she was kept
with the full knowledge of the wife, the latter occupying a position
little if any superior to that of her rival. Indeed, as the purchased
slave could be disposed of whenever the fancy or caprice of her master
so dictated, and another installed in her place, it is reasonable to
suppose that so long as she did remain, she was the object of quite as
much attention as was the wife.

The lowest class, or those who were allowed the least freedom of
action, were those known as the _dicteriades_. They were compelled to
reside at a designated place, and were forbidden to be seen upon the
streets by day. Nothing of a personal nature was allowed to interfere
with the duties which were imposed upon them by their imperious
masters. Their only duty was to obey.

By this time we are prepared to appreciate, to a certain extent, the
moral aspect of Greek society during the years intervening between the
age of Solon and that of Pericles, a period of about a century and a
half. That all women, wives and concubines, native-born and foreign,
had been dragged to the lowest depths of disgrace and shame and that
they were classified and arranged to meet the demands of those who
through the unchecked tendencies inherent in the male nature had
reached the lowest level of infamy to which it is possible for living
creatures to descend, are facts which are only too plainly shown by
those whose duty it has been to record the events connected with the
history of the Greeks.

Although under Draco, the predecessor of Solon, the political
degradation of the citizens of Greece may be said to have reached its
height, and although the uprising of the masses against the usurpation
of power by the few marks an era in the history of the Greeks, it
was not until the dawn of the Periclean age that women had gained
sufficient freedom to enable them to exercise any direct influence on
thought, or on the principles underlying human conduct.

We must bear in mind the fact that for five or six centuries the
inferiority of women had been systematically and religiously taught.
Ever since the rule of Cecrops, at which time doubtless the manner
of reckoning descent began to be changed from the female to the
male line, woman’s influence in Athens had gradually declined. The
religio-physiological doctrine that in the office of reproduction the
mother plays only an insignificant part had not only been proclaimed
by Apollo but had been sanctioned also by Athene. It is recorded of
Cecrops that “he instituted marriage and established a new religion.”

Just here may be observed the key to the gradually declining position
of the female element in the deity, and to the finally accepted dogma
that the female is inferior to the male. Through the private ownership
of land and the consequent dependency of women upon men, the way had
been paved for this assumption—an assumption which had the effect to
create in Ionian men the supreme and lofty contempt for women which is
observed throughout their literature and laws. From the age of Solon
to that of Pericles, the overwhelming degree of superiority assumed by
Athenian men over women had uprooted in the former every vestige of
restraint, at the same time that it had deprived them of the last trace
of that respect for womanhood which under earlier and more natural
conditions had been entertained.

It has been frequently remarked that women took little or no part in
the intellectual development of Greece; that during the most rapid
progress of Greek men, there was no corresponding improvement in the
position occupied by Greek women.

From what is recorded relative to Athenian women from the time of
Cecrops to that of Solon, one would scarcely expect to find them
competing with men for the prizes of life. Later, however, that a
considerable number of them did assert their independence, and that,
defying the customs and traditions by which they were bound, did prove
themselves the equals of men, may not be doubted.

There probably has never been a time since the dominion of man
began when the more sensitive and better endowed among women have
not secretly rebelled against the tyranny exercised over them, and,
throughout the ages, whenever an opportunity has been offered,
large numbers of these women, have never failed to make known their
discontent. Greek women were no exception to this rule. Their first
step toward liberty was to free themselves from the galling chain
imposed upon them by marriage, a position in which, as has been shown,
wives were simply household slaves, tools of their imperious and
degenerate masters. Greek women, in the Periclean age, simply assumed
the control of their persons and by so doing provoked the maledictions
of future ages, ages in which sensualism still reigned supreme.

For reasons which have already been explained, the foremost women
in Greece, and in fact all women who during the Periclean age were
engaged in art, literature, philosophy, and statesmanship, belonged to
the class known as the hetairai, a term which, through the excessive
growth or sensuality and superstition, subsequently became a term
of reproach. Whatever may have been the importance of the services
rendered by these women to society, such services would have been
ignored, or, if not altogether ignored, would have been reflected upon,
or appropriated by, the opposite sex.

To say that the hetairai were free is equal to saying that they
have been misunderstood, hence the calumnies which for more than
two thousand years have been heaped upon them. That the hetairai of
Greece in the Periclean age included a class of women who were the
intellectual compeers of the ablest statesmen and philosophers is a
fact which may not by those who have paid close attention to this
subject be denied. That they taught rhetoric and elocution, that they
lectured publicly and established schools of philosophy at the same
time that they wielded a powerful influence on the state and on the
drift of current thought are facts which mediæval scholasticism has not
been able to conceal.

I think one may not investigate the various schools of philosophy
which arose during the fourth and fifth centuries B.C., without noting
the peculiarly altruistic principles involved in them, and this, too,
notwithstanding the fact that, hitherto, extreme selfishness or egoism
had constituted the prevailing character observed in Athenian society.

According to the principles of the Cyrenaics, the virtuous man is not
necessarily he who is in the possession of pleasure but he who is able
to proceed rightly in quest of pleasure. “Virtue is the only possible
and sane way to happiness.” The most eminent members of the Cyrenaics
were Arete the daughter of Aristippus and her son Aristippus the
younger, surnamed the mother-taught.[232] The fundamental doctrine of
the Cyrenes seems to have been that right-living or virtue constitutes
the only good. “The essence of virtue lies in self-control. Enjoyment
sought as an end is evil.”

[232] Ueberweg, _History of Philosophy_, vol. i., p. 95. We are
informed by Ueberweg that there exists an early monograph on Arete by
J. C. Eck (Leipzig, 1776).

“Virtue is capable of being taught, and when once acquired cannot be
lost. What is good is honourable, and what is bad is disgraceful.” On
examination it is found that one of the most eminent members of this
school is Hipparchia. That she is not a mere listener, imbibing the
ideas of others, is shown in the fact that she lectured publicly and
argued strongly before the philosophers of Athens. The founder of the
Cynic school of philosophy is said to have been Antisthenes, the son
of a Thracian mother. One of the sayings of this philosopher is, that
“virtue is the same in a man as in a woman.”[233]

[233] Diogenes Laërtius, _Life of Hipparchia_.

That the question of the position of women was a theme for discussion
in the age under consideration is shown in a “sophism” proposed by
Hipparchia to Theodorus. Once when she went to sup with Lysimachus, she
said to Theodorus: “What Theodorus could not be called wrong for doing,
that same thing Hipparchia ought not to be called wrong for doing.”[234]

[234] Diogenes Laërtius, _Life of Hipparchia_, iii.

When we take into consideration the fact that Hipparchia was intimately
associated with Crates, a man for whom she entertained the tenderest
affection, and when we remember that they were both engaged in teaching
a philosophy which “recognized virtue as the supreme end of life,”
the conversation at the house of Lysimachus between Hipparchia and
Theodorus, as set forth by Diogenes Laërtius will be seen to admit of a
different interpretation than that which commonly prevails.

Of the Epicureans it has been observed that they were a sort of
Pythagorean brotherhood, consisting of both men and women.

 The scandalous tongue of antiquity was never more virulent than it was
 in the case of Epicurus, but, as far as we can judge, the life of the
 Garden joined to urbanity and refinement a simplicity which would have
 done no discredit to a Stoic; indeed, the Stoic Seneca continually
 refers to Epicurus not less as a model for conduct, than as a master
 of sententious wisdom.

Among the most distinguished members of this school were Themistia,
to whom Cicero refers in his speech against Pisa as a “sort of female
Solon,” and Leontium, who ventured to attack Theophrastus in an essay
characterized, as we are assured, by much elegance of style.[235]

[235] Mayor, _Ancient Philosophy_, pp. 181, 182.

No school of philosophy arose in Athens with which there was not
closely connected the name of one or another of the illustrious women
of the time. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, was the pupil
of Crates, the companion of Hipparchia.

Aspasia was the “clever preceptress of Socrates,”[236] the sage who
sat for the portrait of the Stoic philosophy. According to the Stoic
philosophy, the supreme end of life is virtue, _i. e._, “a life
conformed to nature.” The degree of self-restraint taught by Socrates
is shown in the following lines:

[236] _Athenæus._

 Is it not the duty of every man to consider that temperance is the
 foundation of every virtue, and to establish the observance of it in
 his mind before all things? For who, without it, can either learn
 anything good, or sufficiently practice it? Who, that is a slave to
 pleasure, is not in an ill condition both as to his body and his
 mind? It appears to me, by Juno, that a free man ought to pray that
 he may never meet with a slave of such a character, and that he who
 is a slave to pleasure should pray to the gods that he may find
 well-disposed masters; for by such means only can a man of that sort
 be saved.[237]

[237] Xenophon, _Memorabilia of Socrates_.

When the ablest statesmen and the first philosophers of Greece
united in sounding the praises of Alcibiades, the genius of Aspasia
commanded equal recognition. Not only did Socrates and Pericles receive
instruction and inspiration from this gifted woman, but we are assured
that she lectured publicly and that her “acquaintances took their wives
with them to hear her discourse.”[238] Indeed “Pericles threw all
Greece into confusion on account of Aspasia, not the young one, but
that one who associated with the wise Socrates.”[239]

[238] Plutarch, _Pericles_.

[239] _Athenæus_, book xiii.

 It is not to be imagined that Aspasia excelled in light and amorous
 discourses. Her discourses, on the contrary, were not more brilliant
 than solid. It was believed by the most intelligent Athenians, and
 amongst them Socrates himself, that she composed the celebrated
 funeral oration pronounced by Pericles in honour of those that were
 slain in the Samian War.[240]

[240] Plutarch, _Pericles_.

It is recorded of her that many Athenians resorted to her lecture-room
on account of her skill in the art of speaking. Not only did she teach
rhetoric, philosophy, and the proper relations of the sexes, but so
renowned was she for statesmanship that Pericles is said to have
surrendered to her the government of Athens then at the height of its
glory and renown. On this subject Plutarch remarks: “Some, indeed, say
that Pericles made his court to Aspasia only on account of her wisdom
and political abilities.”

It has been said that the expedition against the Samians was merely to
gratify Aspasia. The Milesians and Samians who had been at war were
ordered to lay down their arms. When they refused to obey, Pericles, in
company with Aspasia, sailed with a fleet to Samos and abolished the
oligarchical form of government. Although he was offered large sums of
money, he “treated the Samians in the manner he had resolved on; and
having established a popular government in the island, he returned to
Athens.”[241]

[241] Plutarch, _Pericles_.

Plutarch, quoting from Æschines, says that Lysicles, who was “of a
mean, ungenerous disposition, by his intercourse with Aspasia after the
death of Pericles, became the most considerable man in Athens.”[242]
Notwithstanding the scandalous reports which have come down to us
of this woman’s character, in view of the facts which it has been
impossible for sex-prejudice to conceal, we are constrained to ask:
“What manner of woman was this who was able to control statesmen,
impart instruction to world-renowned philosophers, and leave a name
which even bigotry, envy, and malice may not efface from the history of
human events?”

[242] _Ibid._

In seeking for an explanation of the exalted character of Aspasia,
we have something more than a hint in the fact that she is reported
to have “trod in the steps of Thargelia,” a woman who by her
exceeding brilliancy had gained the sovereignty of Thessaly. Indeed,
we have found a key to the entire situation when we learn that
this Thargelia, in whose steps Aspasia trod, “was descended from
the ancient Ionians,”[243] a people who, originally worshipped the
female principle, and who still preserved the customs peculiar to the
matriarchal system, under which it will be remembered women, as aliens,
did not follow the fathers of their children to their homes. So soon
as these facts are understood, we are not in the least surprised to
learn that Aspasia discountenanced the institution of marriage as it
existed in Athens. Neither is it remarkable, when we remember that
the underlying principles involved in the philosophy which she taught
were justice and equity, that she should be found using her great
influence, as in the case of the Milesians and Samians, in substituting
democracies in the place of oligarchies; nor that, in an age when women
had come to be regarded simply as the tools and slaves of men, she
should be found teaching the dignity of womanhood to her own sex, and
the principles of equality to males.

[243] Plutarch, _Pericles_.

According to Xenophon, Aspasia’s efforts were to a great extent
directed to the duties of husbands and wives; indeed, her foremost
object seems to have been to educate Athenian women. During the
Periclean age the position of women was one of the leading topics
discussed in Athens. Socrates says to his companions that he has been
of the opinion “of a long time that the female sex are nothing inferior
to ours, excepting only in strength of body or perhaps steadiness
of judgment.”[244] The coarse picture painted by Aristophanes, of
women with beards going in male attire to the agora, “to seize the
administration of the state so as to do the state some good,”[245]
although a vulgar attempt to ridicule the female philosophers of
Athens, furnishes something more than a hint of the fact that the ideas
subsequently set forth in Plato’s _Republic_ had been openly discussed
by the philosophers of the Periclean age.

[244] Xenophon, _Banquet_.

[245] _Ecclesiazusæ._

That the word hetairai was originally employed in no mean or
compromising sense is plain, since Sappho uses it in the sense of
“female companion (ἑταίρα) of the same rank and the same interests.”
We are assured that these women were able to preserve a friendship
“free from trickery.” Of them even “Cynulcus does not venture to speak
ill.”[246] They “of all women are the only ones who have derived their
name from friendship or from that goddess who is named by the Athenians
Venus Hetæra.”[247]

[246] _Athenæus_, xiii.

[247] _Ibid._

“Accordingly, even to this day,” observes Athenæus, “free-born women
and maidens call their associates and friends their ἑταίρα; as Sappho
does where she says:

  And now with tuneful voice I’ll sing
  These pleasing songs to my companions.

And in another place she says:

  Niobe and Latona were of old
  Affectionate companions ἑταίρα to each other.”[248]

[248] _Athenæus_, xiii.

That mediæval scholasticism has not been able wholly to obscure the
greatness of the Greek hetairai is shown by the declaration of a
renowned writer of modern times who says: “Of all the poets who have
appeared on the earth Sappho was undoubtedly the greatest.”

Notwithstanding the aspersions which have been cast upon the name and
fame of the hetairai of Greece, it is doubtful if the intelligent
women of the present age who carefully examine the shreds and remnants
concerning them which have withstood the envy of mediocrity, and the
bigotry of scholasticism, will be brought to believe that the excesses
which are foreign to the female nature, and which belong to ruder
and less highly developed structures, were practised by these gifted
women. We must bear in mind that the hetairai were free, and therefore
that they were able to direct their movements according to the natural
characters developed within the female,—characters which it will be
remembered are correlated with the maternal instinct.

The licentiousness, not only of Greek and Roman women, but of those in
certain portions of Asia as well, has been the favourite theme of many
writers of past ages; more especially has the lewdness of Lydian and
Babylonian women been noted and commented upon. After referring to the
annual sale of women in Babylonia, Herodotus says that the people

 have lately hit upon a very different plan to save their maidens
 from violence, and prevent their being torn from them and carried to
 distant cities, which is to bring up their daughters to be courtesans.
 This is now done by all the poorer of the common people, who since
 the conquest have been maltreated by their lords, and have had ruin
 brought upon their families.[249]

[249] Book i.

It is recorded that the various classes of “kept women” in Greece were
foreigners, that they were either bought or captured from surrounding
countries. As in the case of the Lydians and Babylonians, they were
doubtless carried from their homes at a tender age after having been
reared to their profession. Many of the maidens thus taken to Greece
subsequently became philosophers, statesmen, and scholars, whereupon
they abandoned their former calling. Lysias mentions the fact that
Philyra gave up her former course when she was still quite young,
“and so did Scione, and Hippaphesis, and Theoclea, and Psamathe, and
Lagisca, and Anthea.”[250]

[250] _Athenæus_, book xiii.

As special mention is made of a woman who “did not cease to live a
prostitute when she began to learn philosophy,”[251] we may reasonably
infer that it was usual for these women to abandon the calling to which
they had been born and bred, so soon as from such teachers as Aspasia
and Hipparchia they began to imbibe principles of self-respect and
womanly independence.

[251] _Ibid._, book xiii.

From the position occupied by the hetairai it is evident that by the
philosophers of Greece, they were regarded with that respect which is
ever due to cultured womanhood; indeed, from the evidence at hand we
may believe that they were the most highly honoured citizens in Athens.

All women in Greece who prostituted themselves were forbidden to take
sacred names; yet of Nemeas, Athenæus says: “And we may wonder how it
was that the Athenians permitted a courtesan to have such a name, which
was that of a most honourable and solemn festival.”[252]

[252] _Ibid._, book xiii.

Of Glycera it is related that Harpalus issued an edict that no one
should present him with a crown, unless the donor at the same time
presented one to her. He erected a statue to her and permitted her
to dwell in the palace of Tarsus where he allowed her “to receive
adoration from the people”; he permitted her also to bear the title of
Queen, and “to be complimented with other presents which are only fit
for your own mother and your own wife.”[253]

[253] _Athenæus_, book xiii.

Timotheus, who was a general of very high repute in the Athenian army,
was the son of a courtesan; we are informed, however, that she was “a
courtesan of very excellent character.”[254] The great Themistocles is
said to have been the son of Abrotonum, a “courtesan.”

[254] _Ibid._, book xiii.

It is recorded that in response to an order issued by the people,
Praxiteles made a solid gold statue of one of the hetairai, which was
consecrated in the temple of Delphi. Certainly the deathless models of
Greek art formed by Praxiteles and Phidias are not representations of
coarse and sensualized womanhood.

That these women were a power in Athens during the Periclean age may
not, in view of the facts recorded in relation to them, be disputed. Of
them it has been said:

 None but they could gather round them of an evening the choicest
 spirits of the day, and elicit, in the freedom of unrestrained
 intercourse, wit and wisdom, flashing fancy and burning eloquence.
 What wonder that the hetairai should have filled so prominent a part
 in Greek society! And how small a compensation to virtuous women to
 know their rivals could not stand at the altar when sacrifice was
 offered, could not give birth to a citizen.

In this acknowledgment of the exalted position occupied by the Greek
hetairai the author, like most writers upon the subject of the sexual
relations, measures virtue not by its antithesis to vice, but by the
established masculine standards which have been set up for women to
conform to. A Greek wife’s life may have been one continuous scene of
subjection to the lowest appetites of a master for whom she may have
had not the least degree of respect or affection, and who regarded her
only in the light of an instrument for his convenience and pleasure;
still such an one would doubtless be accounted as a “virtuous” woman in
contradistinction to one of the hetairai whose position enabled her to
control her own person and who was able to exercise her own will-power
in protecting it against the excesses of Greek men. It is evident that
this class of women more than any other in Greece was able to direct
its movements and manage its activities, and, therefore, if we bear
in mind the characters correlated in the female constitution with the
maternal instinct, we may be assured that among the entire population
of Athens, the lives of these women were the most pure and the least
addicted to excesses.

Aspasia, the philosopher and statesman; Hipparchia, practical professor
of Cynic philosophy and one of the most voluminous and esteemed writers
of her time; Thargelia, the Milesian, whom Xerxes employed at the
court of Thessaly, and many others scarcely less renowned, prove that
through the exercise of that personal freedom enjoyed by the hetairai,
women had at length risen to that position in which they were able to
exert a powerful influence, not only on the affairs of state, but upon
the intellectual development of the Athenians and the entire world. To
say that these women have been written about in an age in which male
power and male influence have been in the ascendency, is to say that
they have been misunderstood and their movements misinterpreted.

Because of the efforts put forth by scholastics for two thousand years
to belittle or annul the importance of the services rendered by the
hetairai, they will doubtless for some time continue to be judged not
by their intellectual vigour nor by what they accomplished, but by
the social position into which, through the exigencies of masculine
domination, they had been jostled. The fact has been observed that less
than two centuries prior to the age of Aspasia and Socrates, Solon
had given to the calling of prostitution the sanction of religion and
law; that he had purchased a sufficient number of young slaves from
surrounding countries to satisfy the demands of the men of Greece;
and that he had made the calling of these girls a source of public
revenue for which services he had received the title of “Saviour of
the State.” We would scarcely expect, therefore, to find chastity
among the prominent virtues of the Periclean age. I wish to emphasize
the fact that by the conditions of society at that time, the class
designated as hetairai, although they were in a certain sense free,
were practically prevented, no matter what may have been their natural
inclinations or aspirations, from rising to a higher plane of moral
action, and furthermore that the existing conditions were wholly
the result of the supremacy gained by the lower propensities over
the higher forces developed in human nature. Had these gifted women
accepted the position of wife, ignorance and seclusion would have been
their portion, while their sexual degradation would have been none
the less complete or perfect; indeed it would have been all the more
intolerable, for the reason that the degradation of their persons,
which in the position of hetairai was sued for as a privilege, in the
position of wife would have been claimed as a right.

By most writers upon this subject the fact seems to have been
overlooked, or, if observed, has not been acknowledged, that
licentiousness among women during a certain period of Greek life, about
which so much has been written, was governed wholly by the demands
of their masters; in fact, throughout the history of mankind since
the ascendency of the male over the female has been gained, the class
which has controlled the means of support, and within which has resided
all the power to direct the activities of women, has ever regulated
the supply of victims to be offered upon the altar of lust; and in
all these regulations may be observed such an adjustment of women’s
“duties” to the “necessities” of the male nature, that no alternative
has been left them but submission.




CHAPTER V

ROMAN LAW, ROMAN WOMEN, AND CHRISTIANITY


The far-reaching results of the various schools of philosophy which
rose in Greece during the Periclean age will be noted in this chapter.
That the principles involved in this philosophy may not have been
formulated by the hetairai of Athens is doubtless true, yet that the
inception and development of these principles were largely due to
the freedom of these gifted women seems probable, especially when we
remember the conditions under which this philosophy arose.

A glance at the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy will show
its thoroughly altruistic character. The sum of its tenets was to “live
according to nature’s laws,” to subordinate one’s self to the welfare
of one’s family, one’s country, and the entire race, and to “rise
above the gross indulgences and pleasures of the vulgar” to higher
laws of thought and action; it taught that to be just, and to live
according to the dictates of reason rather than to be governed by the
promptings of blind passion and the desire of the appetites, should
be not only the duty but the highest pleasure of mankind. Possibly
some of the minor precepts of the Stoic philosophy were absurd; no
doubt in their desire for reform, its founders set up a canon of
conduct which was severe and impracticable; but its fundamental
principles, the subjection of the animal in man to the reasoning
faculties, as applied to future Roman law, Roman civilization, and
Roman character, served to produce specimens of manhood which the women
of all subsequent ages should delight to honour. So long as virtue is
applauded and moral greatness is exalted, the enactments of the Roman
jurisconsults in the interest of women, prior to, and during the time
of the Antonine Cæsars, will stand forth throughout the ages as the
one single movement, during thousands of years, toward the removal
of the legal disabilities of women. When we remember that the Stoic
philosophy took root and flourished during an age of unparalleled
profligacy which was stimulated and encouraged by the example of the
most opulent and luxurious personages among the Greeks, and at a time
when licentiousness had for centuries been sanctioned by religion and
upheld by laws made by the men of Greece, it is quite evident that some
potent influence, which had hitherto been unfelt, had been in operation
to produce it.

In order to understand the influence which the Stoic philosophy exerted
on civilization, and especially on the legal position of women, we
must first understand its effect upon Roman law. An inquiry into the
changes which had been wrought in Roman jurisprudence at the time of
the Antonine Cæsars, by engrafting upon it the underlying principles
contained in the Stoic philosophy, discloses the fact that the
emancipation of women had been practically accomplished in Rome.

Perhaps there is no subject which at the present time possesses greater
interest for inquiring women than that concerning the status of their
sex under the older Roman law; for, by an understanding of woman’s
legal status, as fixed under this institution at a time when man had
gained the summit of his power over her, is furnished a key whereby may
be unlocked many of the mysteries surrounding the still extant social
and legal disabilities of women.

The thoroughly egoistic character of the principles underlying the
older Roman law has been noticed in a former portion of this work. We
have seen that in Rome the father, who was the sole representative of
the family, had drawn to himself not only all the authority over the
child which under the earlier gentile organization of society had been
acknowledged as belonging exclusively to the mother, but, ignoring
individual liberty, and all the principles of personal freedom which
had been established under the matriarchal system, had proclaimed
himself absolute sovereign over all within the agnatic bond. The divine
oracle of Apollo, which had enunciated the doctrine that the soul of
the child is derived from the father, had at the same time declared
that the mother has to do only with furnishing the body. Thus the
father, as Creator, became the household god; his authority, as we have
seen, being supreme even to the exercise of the power of life and death
over its members.

Under ancient law, the father, as head of the household, really
constituted the family, the remaining members being merely ciphers
which, from the peculiar position in which they were placed, were
without significance except as vassals under the strictest tutelage of
their master. Under this august system of father-worship, males as well
as females had become enslaved. The bondage of men, however, differed
somewhat from the “perpetual tutelage of women,” in the fact that they
themselves in time might become heads of families, and in that imperial
position to assume the same authority and dominion over others as had
been exercised over them. Women, however, could never become heads of
families, and therefore could never hope to be free. So long as they
remained single they were under the tutelage of their blood-relations,
or were subject to the authority of some individual whom the father,
before his death, might choose to appoint over them as guardian. Thus
arose the law known as the Perpetual Tutelage of Women. Upon this
subject Sir Henry Maine says:

 Ancient law subordinates the woman to her blood-relations, while a
 prime phenomenon of modern jurisprudence has been her subordination
 to her husband. The history of the change is remarkable. It begins far
 back in the annals of Rome. Anciently, there were three modes in which
 marriage might be contracted according to Roman usage, one involving a
 religious solemnity, the other two the observance of certain secular
 formalities. By the religious marriage of _Confarreation_; by the
 higher form of civil marriage, which was called _Coemption_; and by
 the lower form, which was termed _Usus_, the husband acquired a number
 of rights over the person and property of his wife, which were on
 the whole in excess of such as are conferred on him in any system of
 modern jurisprudence. But in what capacity did he acquire them? Not
 as _Husband_, but as _Father_. By the _Confarreation_, _Coemption_,
 and _Usus_, the woman passed in _manum viri_—that is, in law she
 became the _Daughter_ of her husband. She was included in his _Patria
 Potestas_. She incurred all the liabilities springing out of it while
 it subsisted, and surviving it when it had expired. All her property
 became absolutely his and she was retained in tutelage after his death
 to the guardian whom he had appointed by will.[255]

[255] _Ancient Law_, p. 149.

On this subject of male supremacy in the family Mr. Maine remarks:

 The foundation of Agnation is not the marriage of Father and Mother,
 but the authority of the Father. All persons are Agnatically bound
 together who are under the same Paternal Power, or who have been under
 it, or who might have been under it if their lineal ancestor had
 lived long enough to exercise his empire.[256]

[256] _Ancient Law_, p. 144.

Under this bond would be united all the children belonging to the
head of the household and all the descendants of the sons, but not of
the daughters; the daughters’ children under this manner of reckoning
descent belonged to the families of their respective fathers. Although
under this system a man might adopt a stranger into his family, and
invest him with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto,
no descendant of a daughter could claim any of the rights of agnation.
Under Hindu law, which is saturated with the primitive notions of
family dependency, in the genealogies, the names of women are omitted
altogether. We are assured by Mr. Maine that the exclusion of women
from governmental functions certainly had its origin in agnation. Thus
it is seen that paternity had come to involve the idea of a supreme
ruler or potentate, and that the overshadowing predominance of the
male over the female had paved the way to the future worship of one
all-powerful male deity.

We have seen that the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy
were justice, equality, and the subjection of the appetites to the
dictates of reason and conscience. So soon as Greece was subjugated
by Rome, the ablest of the Romans espoused the principles embodied in
this philosophy, and notably among those who became interested in its
tenets were the Roman lawyers, who began immediately to reconstruct the
civil law upon the principles underlying this system.

That it is only through a return to the archaic and natural principles
of justice and right living, the acknowledgment of which at once
establishes the proper relations of the sexes, that women may ever hope
to be free, is plain to all those who have given attention to this
subject. This fact was evidently observed by the Roman lawyers who,
through the persistency with which only those labour who are engaged
in establishing a principle, had so far succeeded in overcoming the
prejudice against sex as to have established a legal code wherein was
practically recognized the equality of women with men.

Doubtless the Romans were as tenacious of their ancient customs,
prejudices, and long-established privileges as have been the people
of any other country; hence we may perhaps form a faint idea of the
obstacles which presented themselves, and of the devices which must
have been resorted to by Roman jurists in an endeavour to remove the
existing legal restrictions upon the liberties of women.

Mr. Maine informs us that Gaius, a celebrated jurist who lived in the
age of the Antonine Cæsars, devoted an entire volume to descriptions of
the ingenious expedients devised by Roman lawyers to evade the letter
of the ancient law, and that it was through this source that the fact
finally became known that in the age of the Antonine Cæsars the legal
disabilities of women had been practically annulled.

From the facts at hand it is observed that the object of the Roman
lawyers was to frame an edictal jurisprudence which should supersede
the older law, or which in effect should annul its power. We are
informed that the prætor was not only the chief equity judge, but that
he was also the common-law magistrate. So soon, therefore, as the edict
had passed through the necessary formalities enabling it to become a
law, the prætor’s court began to apply it in place, or by the side of
the civil law, “which was directly or indirectly repealed without any
express enactment of legislation.” In reference to the legal status of
women in the age of the Antonine Cæsars, Henry Maine observes: “Led by
their theory of natural law, the jurisconsults had at this time assumed
the equality of the sexes as a principle of their code of equity.”[257]

[257] _Ancient Law_, p. 149.

Although the seed, sown in Greece during the Periclean age when
conveyed to Rome, produced a golden harvest, the fact will doubtless
be remembered that the Roman lawyers had but just completed their work
of establishing the legal equality of the sexes when the agencies
which for years had been at work to destroy the Empire culminated; and
finally, when Christianity, in the person of Constantine ascended the
throne, the results of four centuries of civilization were destroyed,
or for more than sixteen hundred years were practically annulled.

Regarding the changes which had been wrought in the legal status of
women in the age of the Antonine Cæsars, we are informed that whereas
under the older Roman law a woman at marriage came under the Patria
Potestas of her husband, under the later law, as influenced by the
principles involved in the Stoic philosophy, she remained as a member
of her own family, or was placed under the protection of a guardian
appointed by her parents, whose jurisdiction over her, although
superior to that of her husband, was not such as to interfere with
her personal liberty; thus, the same as under matriarchal usages, the
situation of the Roman woman, whether married or single, was one of
great influence. Of this freedom exercised by women in the time of the
Antonine Cæsars, Mr. Maine remarks:

 But Christianity tended somewhat from the very first to narrow this
 remarkable liberty.... The latest Roman Law, so far as it is touched
 by the Constitutions of the Christian Emperors, bears some marks
 of a reaction against the liberal doctrines of the great Antonine
 jurisconsults. And the prevalent state of religious sentiment may
 explain why it is that modern jurisprudence, forged in the furnace of
 barbarian conquest, and formed by the fusion of Roman jurisprudence
 with patriarchal usage, has absorbed, among its rudiments, much more
 than usual of those rules concerning the position of women which
 belong peculiarly to an imperfect civilization.[258]

[258] _Ancient Law_, p. 150.

Concerning the influence of ecclesiasticism on that portion of Roman
jurisprudence relating particularly to women, Mr. Lecky observes:

 Wherever the canon law has been the basis of legislation, we find laws
 of succession sacrificing the interests of daughters and of wives, and
 a state of public opinion which has been formulated and regulated by
 these laws.

By means of a formulated ecclesiastical jurisprudence the complete
inferiority of the sex was maintained,

 and that generous public opinion, which in Rome had frequently
 rebelled against the injustice done to girls in depriving them of
 the greater portion of the inheritance of their fathers, totally
 disappeared.

In comparing the Roman law with the canon or ecclesiastical code, the
same writer says that the pagan laws during the Empire were constantly
repealing the old disabilities of women; but that it was the aim of
the canon law to substitute enactments which should entail on the
female sex the greatest personal restrictions and the most stringent
subordination.[259]

[259] _European Morals_, vol. ii., p. 358.

Those who have paid attention to the history of the English Common
Law, which forms the basis of our present system of jurisprudence, and
who have noted the part played by ecclesiasticism in fixing the status
of women therein, will not be surprised at the attitude which the
so-called Christian Church has assumed toward women. Referring to the
Common Law, an able writer has said:

 This imperishable specimen of human sagacity is, strange to say, so
 grossly unjust toward women that a great writer upon that code has
 well observed that in it women are regarded not as persons but as
 things; so completely were they stripped of all their rights, and held
 in subjection to their proud and imperious masters.[260]

[260] Buckle’s _Essays_.

It has been remarked that in no one particular does the canon law
depart so widely from the spirit of secular jurisprudence as in the
view it takes of the relations created by marriage. Although the leaven
of civilization preserved from Roman institutions was the codified
jurisprudence of Justinian, as the chapter of law relating to women
was read by the light of canon law, the altruistic principles which
had characterized the later Roman code soon became extinct. Upon this
subject Mr. Maine remarks:

 This was in part inevitable 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.

And this is doubtless true for the reason that the entire Christian
superstructure rests on the dogma of female weakness and female
depravity. The doctrine of Original Sin, which depends entirely on the
story of the fruit-tree of Genesis being taken in a literal sense, had
by canonists been accepted. On her first appearance upon the scene of
action, woman is labouring under a curse pronounced upon her by an
all-powerful male God for the mischief she had wrought on innocent man;
it is only reasonable, therefore, that human law should unite with
the divine decree in establishing her complete and final degradation;
hence, the return to the ancient Hindu law and the older Roman code for
models of legislation concerning her.

On this subject Mr. Maine remarks:

 I do not know how the operation and nature of the ancient Patria
 Potestas can be brought so vividly before the mind as by reflecting on
 the prerogatives attached to the husband by the pure English Common
 Law, and by recalling the rigorous consistency with which the view of
 a complete legal subjection on the part of the wife is carried by it,
 where it is untouched by equity or statutes, through every department
 of rights, duties, and remedies.[261]

 [261] _Ancient Law_, p. 154.


 NOTE.—As the position of women among the early German hordes was one
 of great dignity and respect, it may scarcely be argued that the
 sentiments embodied in the English Common Law relative to wives were
 in any degree the result of innate Teutonic prejudice against the
 female sex. #/

Notwithstanding the efforts which for several centuries were put forth
in Rome to secure to women that independence which under the earlier
Roman law had been denied them, in the code of Justinian, which was
compiled in the early part of the sixth century, no word respecting
the remarkable degree of liberty which under the later Roman law was
accorded to women appears; and but for the discovery of the manuscript
of Gaius, to which reference has already been made, we would never
have become acquainted with the changes which had been wrought in
this particular branch of Roman jurisprudence. In the Justinian code,
instead of the humane edicts of the later, or middle Roman law,
appeared the Canon or ecclesiastical law, by means of which women were
condemned to a state of servitude even more degrading than that which
had been imposed on them by the older law.

Had mediæval scholasticism succeeded in concealing from the world the
information contained in the manuscript of Gaius, still there would
have remained sufficient evidence left to prove that in the second
century of the present era woman’s freedom had been practically won.
That women themselves were claiming absolute legal equality with men
may not be doubted. Honoria, a Roman matron, first enunciated the
principle: Taxation without representation is tyranny.[262] Cato’s
celebrated oration in which he passionately exclaims: If you allow
your women to be your equals how long will it be before they become
your superiors?[263] shows that a certain type of men were becoming
alarmed over the growing independence of women.

[262] Roman History. Appian, London, 1913.

[263] The History of Rome. Titus Livius, p. 172.

The freeing of women from the bondage entailed on them by the older
Roman law, an achievement which had required more than three centuries
to accomplish, was a triumph for civilization unparalleled during the
historic period. That this triumph over tyranny was of short duration
is shown in the sequel to this movement.

That the coming of Jesus at a time when the principles of justice and
equality were becoming the recognized rule of life among the better
class of Romans is not surprising. No one may study Greek philosophy
without noting the similarity between it and the teachings of Christ.
Justice, self-restraint, and regard for the rights and feelings of
others, principles which when applied to Roman law had liberated women
from the tyranny of the past, were also the principles taught by Jesus.
It seems to have been the mission of the latter to convey these lofty
doctrines to the multitude. Do unto others as you would have others do
unto you was not however understood by the masses who knew no other
rule of life than that of selfishness and ungoverned lust. Hence in
process of time the new movement came to have no other effect than to
add to the already established evils another quite as contemptible,
namely—hypocrisy.

Among the earliest Christians theological disputes were unknown.
Original sin and the doctrine of a vicarious atonement whereby a man
is “saved” not from sin but from the penalty for sin were unheard of.
To spread the simple principles enunciated by Jesus and by so doing to
kindle into life the divine spark in man, seem to have constituted the
object and aim of the earliest Christians. The activities necessary for
the propagation of these principles were shared alike by both sexes.
Women exhorted, prophesied, and prayed in the churches. They baptized
their own sex. One of them wrote a gospel which, so long as woman’s
influence continued, was in use among the Christians.

Such were the conditions when Paul, a Jew who had espoused the new
religion, first appeared on the scene. An extant legend describes this
man as small in stature and of ignoble bearing. According to this
legend Paul was bald-headed and bow-legged. As to his intellectual
ability we have the following Corinthians x., 10: “For his letters
they were weighty and strong but his speech is of no account.” It is
elsewhere recorded of him that “his speech was contemptible.” From
what is known of this man Paul it is evident that he was domineering,
self-sufficient, and aggressive. He quarrelled with Peter and was
intolerant of the ideas of his associates. His forceful character, his
untiring energy, his zeal for the cause which he had espoused and above
all his capacity for organization soon gained for him the leadership of
the new movement.

Nowhere is it recorded that during the earlier years of Paul’s
Christian career he attempted to discourage, or curtail, the activities
of women. On the contrary he refers to them as co-workers, acknowledges
them as prophets, and praises their ministrations. In his writings, the
name of Priscilla occurs many times. Phœbe, Claudia, Julia and others
are regarded as worthy of mention by him. As his influence and power
increased, however, his egoism began to assert itself. It is evident
that Paul’s strong masculine nature could no longer tolerate a religion
which might with some degree of consistency be regarded as a feminine
movement. The old doctrine enunciated by Apollo during the reign of
Cecrops namely that man is a divine emanation while woman is only human
must be revived.

The following from Paul’s writings shows that his aim was to crush the
influence and power exercised by women, and the means employed was to
subject them to the dominion of their husbands.

 The head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the
 man and the head of Christ is God.

 For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man. Neither was
 the man created for the woman but the woman for the man.

 Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted
 unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience.

 And if they would learn anything let them ask their husbands at home.

That women were no longer to be the equals and companions of their
husbands but that they were to become sexual slaves is indicated by the
command, “Wives subject yourselves unto your husbands.”

It must be remembered that these commands of Paul were not, as has
been frequently asserted, delivered to and about weak, ignorant women
devoid of influence, but were directed against those whose position of
equality in the new religion had not before been questioned, and whose
legal disabilities had at that time been well-nigh removed.

Before the close of the second century, the simple, ethical teachings
of Jesus were forgotten. Christianity had disappeared and Paulism had
taken its place. A century later, after the Empire had come under the
control of so-called Christian rule, woman’s influence, as we have
already seen, entirely disappeared. All that had been gained by means
of the middle Roman law had been annulled by the decrees of the Canon
law.

Pauline Christianity in the fourth century A.D. was an attempt to
re-establish that form of Paganism which had prevailed prior to the
rise of Greek philosophy. This older religion, which had its origin
in Sun worship, or in the worship of the two fecundating principles
throughout nature, had as early as the Periclean age ceased to claim
the attention of the educated classes among the Greeks. Æschylus
barely escaped being stoned to death for heresy, and as is well known,
Socrates the founder of the Stoic philosophy was forced to drink of
the fatal cup because of his unbelief in the prevailing superstitions.
Not to destroy Paganism itself but to exterminate the last vestige of
Greek philosophy was the task which the Pauline Christians had set
themselves to perform. Jesus now became the new Solar Deity and all
the forms observed under the older Paganism were now attached to his
worship. He was born at the winter solstice, or at the time when the
sun had reached its zenith and was about to return. He died and was
buried, but at the vernal equinox, Easter, the time at which all nature
is revived—he arose from the dead and became the Saviour of mankind.
The entire Christian calendar is copied from the ancient Pagan worship.
A medal was struck on which appeared the figure of a man on a cross,
on the obverse side of which was the representation of a blazing sun.
Christ was the new Sun of Righteousness, the giver and preserver of
life.

Every page in the history of the Pauline religion reveals its masculine
origin. The Deities worshipped are a Father and a Son. All the angels
and archangels are men. All extant Gospels and Epistles have been
written and expounded by men. It is true that in response to a popular
demand in the fifth century for a recognition of the female principle,
the Virgin Mary, an ancient Deity, reappeared. The lateness of her
coming, however, shows that she was an afterthought. Moreover, it must
be borne in mind that, true to the ancient doctrine which was revived
by Paul relative to the divinity of man and the material nature of
woman, the Mother of Jesus was human while the Father and the Son were
divine. She was matter. They were spirit.

Among the discussions of the early Pauline “Fathers” none was more
important than these. Ought women to be allowed to learn the alphabet?
And has woman a soul? It is recorded that a few of these pious leaders
entertained the opinion that because of the great power and goodness
of the Almighty “women may possibly be permitted to rise as men at the
resurrection.”

As we have seen, to destroy Greek philosophy was the slogan of the new
movement. The destruction of the Alexandrian library by a fanatical
mob led by Archbishop Theophilus is an example of the fury with which
all institutions not directly connected with the new religion were
attacked. As is well known, this library contained the accumulated
knowledge of a highly civilized people, extending over a period of
several thousands of years. Among the priceless treasures stored
in this library were the records of astronomical observations
scientifically registered during a period of not less than three
thousand years.

The lectures delivered by Hypatia in Alexandria during the latter part
of the fourth century were the last attempt made to stem the tide of
fanaticism which was destined to sweep over a large portion of the
habitable globe. The fate of Hypatia who was foully murdered by a mob
led by St. Cyril was a forecast of the fate which awaited any and all
who should henceforth dare to think or act independently of the new
religion.

When Greek philosophy was no longer taught, the principles of equality
and liberty which had been incorporated into the middle Roman law were
annulled or practically forgotten; and when the doctrine of woman’s
inferiority and total depravity became crystallized not only in
religion but in law and in all the customs of the time, women sank to a
degree of degradation never before witnessed in the history of mankind.




CHAPTER VI

THE RENAISSANCE


If the theory that the higher faculties and the moral sense originated
in the female and that these qualities are by her transmitted to
offspring, then the conditions existing in the first half of the
sixteenth century are easily explained; or if, as is clearly proved by
the facts brought out by scientists, woman represents the constructive
and combining element in human society without which organized society
would have been impossible, the degeneracy observed after thirteen
hundred years during which time women were wholly without influence
and power is exactly what might be expected. Indeed it is not singular
that with the disintegrating or destructive forces in command over the
conserving or constructive elements that war and religion should have
become the business of the world and that a state of society should
have prevailed which was in strict accord with these conditions.

However, that the constructive element was not dead is shown by the
mental and moral unrest which began to manifest itself in the latter
half of the sixteenth century. Women began to learn the alphabet and
in a weak way to demand concessions hitherto denied them. Many men of
genius who like the jurisconsults of Rome had not been submerged by
the degeneracy of their time defied their persecutors and secretly
promulgated the scientific theories which were to revolutionize human
thought.

The demand for freedom of conscience and for the release of the
intellect and reason from the domination of bigotry and superstition
constituted one of the first steps toward reform. Galileo, Bruno,
Copernicus, and Harvey are notable examples of the revolt against the
intellectual tyranny which prevailed.

It is not a little singular that at this time the throne of England
was occupied by a woman and that her reign should have been the most
brilliant that that country has ever enjoyed. It has frequently been
said that the success of Elizabeth’s reign was due not to her greatness
but to that of the statesmen whom she called about her. But even were
this true, which it is not, it would not detract from her greatness.
The innate qualities developed within Queen Elizabeth, namely genius
and intuition, can alone explain the brilliancy of her reign.

It is to be doubted if the progressive principle has ever been wholly
dead. That even during the darkest period of the Middle Ages the
constructive element was still alive in Europe is shown in the fact
that as early as the year 1215 the idea of individual human liberty had
already been formulated. In the Magna Charta wrested from King John at
Runnymede appears the following:

 No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed or outlawed or
 banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him or upon him
 send except by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the
 land. To no one will we sell; to no one will we deny or delay right or
 justice.

Although a few attempts were made during the sixteenth century
to better the conditions of the masses of the people, as all the
institutions for the perpetuation of the slavery of the masses were
firmly established, little was accomplished in this direction. That
reforms move slowly is shown in the fact that as late as the beginning
of the nineteenth century of the Christian era, the greater portion
of the human race was in a state of bondage. Slavery existed in every
quarter of the globe. In Russia, in 1855, there were forty-eight
millions of serfs, and in Austria and Prussia the peasantry were nearly
all slaves. In Hungary nine millions of human beings belonged to a
subject class.

Although no slaves were owned in England, slavery still existed in her
colonies. In the West Indies the whip was freely used, and prior to the
year 1820 no voice had been raised against the flogging of women on
the plantations. In Scotland, down to the last year of the eighteenth
century, colliers and salters were slaves and bound to their service
for life, being bought and sold with the works at which they laboured.
Although America had put down the slave-trade, she still owned slaves,
and continued to traffic in them until the year 1863.

The history of legislation during the historic period shows that
it has ever been in the interest of the rich against the poor, the
strong against the weak. In France, at the beginning of the nineteenth
century, liberty was extinct. “The rich man could purchase for money
the power to destroy those whom he hated.”[264]

[264] Robert Mackenzie, _The Nineteenth Century_, p. 9.

The lawmakers of the age which we are considering were gentlemen
landowners, and as such were able to exercise their cupidity in a
degree which precluded all idea of justice to the poorer classes. The
abuses of government, the corn-laws, the enormous tax on salt and on
the various necessities of life, show somewhat of the extent to which
the poor were systematically robbed by the rich.

The law passed in 1350, at Bannockburn, regulating the movements of the
British workingmen, and which prohibited combinations among them, was
in force until 1824. The evident object of this law was to repress the
labourer and deprive him of his just earnings. Although this enactment
was known to be oppressive, the working-classes were not possessed of
sufficient influence to cause its repeal.

In England, women with their children worked in coal pits, and in the
darkness, on hands and feet, dragged about wagons fastened to their
waists by chains. Of this Mr. Mackenzie says:

 Children of six were habitually employed. Their hours of labour were
 fourteen to sixteen daily. The horrors among which they lived induced
 disease and early death. Law did not seem to reach to the depths
 of a coal-pit, and the hapless children were often mutilated and
 occasionally killed with perfect impunity by the brutalized miners
 among whom they laboured. There was no machinery to drag the coals to
 the surface, and women climbed long wooden stairs with baskets of coal
 upon their backs.

In the factories, also, as late as 1832 children of six years of age
worked from thirteen to fifteen hours daily. If they fell asleep they
were flogged. Sometimes through exhaustion they fell upon the machinery
and were injured—possibly crushed,—an occurrence which caused little
concern to any except the mothers, who had learned to bear their pangs
in silence. These children, who were stunted in size and disposed to
various acute diseases, were also scrofulous and consumptive. In 1832
the recruiting surgeon could find no men to suit his purpose in the
manufacturing districts.

Throughout Europe, the prevailing idea concerning the management of
criminals seems to have been vengeance. One would scarcely believe,
except on trustworthy authority, that at the beginning of the
nineteenth century the English criminal law recognized 223 capital
offences. Indeed, so strong was the feeling in favour of severity that
Edmund Burke said he could obtain the assent of the House of Commons
to any law imposing the penalty of death. If one shot a rabbit he was
hanged; if he injured Westminster Bridge he was hanged; if he appeared
disguised on a public road he was hanged, and so on. The hanging of
small groups was a common occurrence—children of ten years being
sometimes among the condemned.[265]

[265] Robert Mackenzie, _The Nineteenth Century_, p. 77.

A visit to the Five-Sided Tower in Nuremberg, in which are still
preserved various instruments of human torture, will give an idea of
the extreme cruelty practised upon political offenders and heretics a
century ago.

The “Holy Alliance” of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, which was formed
ostensibly to insure peace and establish justice, but which in reality
was entered into to suppress free speech, check the growing liberties
of the people, and strengthen the belief in the “divine right of
kings,” shows the obstacles which had to be overcome before any
principle of justice and humanity could take root.

The history of industrial and economic conditions since the beginning
of the eighteenth century is largely the history of the common people.
The change from the Feudal system to that of the wage-earning régime
may not, as far as the working class is concerned, be regarded as
an unmixed blessing. Under Feudalism the “lord of the soil” was
responsible for the maintenance and well-being of his vassals, while
under the wage system the “captains of industry” assume no such
responsibility. If the labourer chooses to accept the terms offered
well and good, if he refuses he may starve; it is a matter of no
concern to the employer, for, are there not plenty of labourers who
stand ready to take his place?

That the labourer was no less a slave under the wage-earning system
than he had been under Feudalism is shown in the fact that under the
first named as well as under the latter he had not the right of free
contract. He must take what was offered him or starve.

As is well known the repression of the mental activities and the
low physical condition which for more than thirteen centuries had
prevailed, prevented the seed sown in the sixteenth century from
taking root among the masses of the people. Their instincts were
those of the slave and two centuries were required to waken them from
their lethargy. Finally, however, even among the class mentioned the
constructive forces began to assert themselves. Free thought and to
a certain extent free speech were established. With the further
development of liberal ideas a belief in the Divine Right of Kings and
in the principles underlying monarchial institutions became somewhat
weakened. A few attempts were even made to establish republics. Because
of the glimmering light of scientific truth put forth in the sixteenth
century, ecclesiastical authority was no longer supreme.

Although many important steps had been taken to free men from the
thraldom of the past, so firmly had the idea of woman’s inferiority
been established that no thought of including her in the new régime was
ever entertained.

Justice, equality, and liberty are subjects upon which man descants
loudly and long. He talks glibly of his free institutions and even
designates a number of his one-sided governments as republics, and this
too notwithstanding the fact that women are still denied representation
in the governments to which they owe allegiance, and that a large
proportion of men are still within the grasp of economic slavery; all
of which shows the extent to which the moral sense and the judgment
have been dwarfed by prejudice and selfishness. Democracy is still a
meaningless term—an ideal yet to be realized.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century such were the conditions
surrounding women that an attempt on their part to extricate themselves
from their legal and social bondage would have proved utterly futile.
At that time women had practically no legal rights; even the right
to control their own bodies was denied them. As woman was dependent
upon man for support her sex-functions were controlled by him and the
children which she bore belonged exclusively to him. He constituted the
family—wife and children did not count. To a considerable extent these
conditions still prevail.

Masculine law, masculine religion, and masculine ideas concerning the
duties and uses of the female sex had made of woman a nondescript—a
creature neither male nor female. Her mental constitution had become
atrophied, the diluted reflections of men’s opinions having been
substituted for the natural feminine instincts and ideas. Among the
great mass of women the original feminine type had disappeared.

In process of time, however, women began slowly to awaken from the
hideous nightmare which threatened to destroy the last remaining
vestige of the instincts and ideas peculiar to the female constitution.
In the beginning of the nineteenth century some of the educational
advantages enjoyed by men began to be appropriated by women. Thus began
the unrest which now extends over the entire earth.

About seventy years ago a movement was started by women to secure for
themselves the right to self-government. Immediately all the prejudice
which characterizes a sex-aristocracy was aroused. Ridicule, calumny,
and even personal abuse were directed against all those who were
intelligent enough or fearless enough to stem the tide of popular
indignation.

For forty years, little or no progress was made toward securing the
right of self-government for women. As late as 1870 a woman who
openly avowed herself a suffragist was regarded not only as “bold and
unwomanly” but as a dangerous person. The most strenuous opposition
to the movement came from the clergy and the flocks over which they
presided. Whenever church women were asked to consider the question of
the equality of the sexes their unvarying reply was: “My bible forbids
it.” Now that the history of Pauline Christianity is better understood
its attitude toward the freedom of women needs no further explanation.

When the then existing mental conditions are recalled and especially
when the religious prejudices of the time are considered the attitude
manifested toward the proposed enfranchisement of women is not perhaps
remarkable.

Although forty years ago biological science was in its infancy enough
facts had at that time been discovered clearly to indicate the position
which Nature intended woman to occupy. By the scientists of that time,
however, the logical and unavoidable inferences to be drawn from
these facts were wholly ignored. During the ages of man’s undisputed
supremacy so deeply rooted had the idea of woman’s inferiority become
that these newly discovered facts concerning her development could not
be accepted—the old prejudices could not at once be uprooted.

We have already observed that whenever and wherever Mr. Darwin and
other scientists of his time felt called upon to compare the relative
importance of men and women such comparison has invariably been to the
disadvantage of the latter and this too notwithstanding the fact that
the evidence which they themselves have elaborated warrants no such
conclusions.

Forty years ago the doctrine that woman has no independent existence,
but that she is simply an appendage to man, was everywhere accepted and
taught not only by ecclesiastics but by scientists as well. Woman was
only a “rib” taken from the side of man.

None of the doctrines elaborated for the guidance of women was so
explicit as those relating to the duties of wives. The cause for this
is obvious. Earlier in this work the fact has been noted that our
present form of marriage originated in force—that no other principle
was involved in it than coercion on the one side and unwilling
submission on the other.

So long as the original idea underlying marriage is retained, or so
long as woman is recognized as the property of her husband and subject
to his control, no matter what may be achieved by individual women, the
belief in the inferiority of women as a class will continue. In other
words so long as women remain economic slaves dependent upon their
husband for support so long will their status remain unchanged.

“She is my goods, my chattels, my household stuff.”

There are in this country at the present time more than nine millions
of women engaged in earning their own livelihood. Many of these women
have families dependent upon them for support. The disadvantages under
which they labour are realized when we remember that their competitors
are their political and economic superiors and are therefore able to a
considerable extent to dictate the conditions under which these women
work; yet notwithstanding these unfavourable conditions this change in
woman’s environment represents an important step in the evolutionary
processes. By it women are learning that only through independence is
self-respect possible.

We have already seen that whenever during the historic period, women
have had an opportunity to rise they have never failed to rebel
against the conditions imposed upon them. The women of Athens during
the Periclean age, the Spartan women under Lycurgus, and the women of
Rome during the time of the Antonine Cæsars are notable examples of
this fact. Even the Chinese women are claiming the right to govern
themselves. In these later years they are unbinding their feet and in
other ways are defying the forces which in the past have prevented
them from asserting their independence. The various examples of revolt
among women have hitherto been carried on by single nations or by
countries widely separated from one another. At the present time,
however, the women of the entire world have risen to demand the freedom
of their sex. However much those who favour the subjection of women may
deplore this movement even the most stupid among them will surely not
fail to recognize its importance.

The history of human society during the last four hundred years has
for the most part been a struggle between the constructive elements
developed in human society and the destructive or disintegrating forces
which are the result of the unchecked egoism or selfishness developed
in man during the ages in which woman has been subject to his will.




CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION


Scientific investigation has proved the great age of the earth and the
enormous length of time which has elapsed since the first appearance of
human beings upon its surface. Concerning the career of man during the
countless millions of years which followed his advent upon the earth,
little is known down to a comparatively recent time—a time commonly
designated as the historic period.

When considering the past one is inclined to ask the question: “Does
the history of mankind represent an unbroken line of progress, or,
on the contrary, does it reflect a series of alternating periods of
development and decay?”

We have observed that in recent times through the study of tribes
and races in the various stages of development much has been learned
concerning the origin of organized society and the development of human
institutions. We have also seen that through the legends, traditions,
and myths of the earliest historic peoples much reliable information
has been gained regarding the conditions which prevailed at a still
earlier period of human existence.

Notwithstanding the proofs which in recent times have been obtained
relative to the law of periodicity which has thus far regulated human
progress the idea prevails that in our own time mental activity has
reached a stage never before witnessed. It is assumed that throughout
the entire history of mankind material and intellectual development has
never attained to such colossal proportions. It is evident that our
egoism has obscured our normal vision. We lack perspective.

There is no evidence to prove that the present brain capacity of human
beings exceeds that of the earliest ages of human history, neither is
there any proof that the moral sense has been in the least reinforced.
The lofty moral and spiritual precepts which abound in the Upanishads
have never been surpassed—possibly never equalled. We are heirs of all
the ages. The accumulated knowledge of the past is responsible for
present achievements.

Those who have made a study of tribes and races in the various stages
of development find much evidence going to prove that extant savage
tribes do not represent man as he first emerged from the animal type,
but, on the contrary, that they are the degenerate descendants of an
extinct civilized race differing little from our own. If this be true,
if human development which thus far seems to have been wholly material
contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction, would it not
be wise for the present generation to examine existing conditions in
order to ascertain if we too have not already entered upon the path of
degeneracy or decay?

Possibly this will be regarded as a pessimistic suggestion, but as has
already been observed, a comparison between the conditions existing in
prehistoric times and those which prevail under the present so-called
civilized régime fully justifies this suggestion.

Those persons who have acquainted themselves with the available facts
underlying the growth of organized society and the development of
existing institutions, and who have co-ordinated these facts with
the present situation are able to trace not only the growth of the
destructive principle in human affairs but are able to forecast with
a considerable degree of accuracy the results which must inevitably
follow. Without a knowledge of the past it is impossible to understand
or interpret the present.

We are living in a remarkable age. It is to be doubted if throughout
the entire historic period there has been a time when passing events
moved so swiftly or when they assumed the magnitude of those now taking
place. Causes which were set up during prehistoric times have reached a
climax. The inevitable results from those causes are upon us.

In order to compare the past and the present it becomes necessary
briefly to recall some of the already recorded facts relative to
existing conditions under early organized society.

When human beings lived closer to nature and before the natural checks
to the lower or disintegrating forces had been withdrawn, the basic
principles underlying human action were equality and liberty. No member
of a communal group could claim any right or privilege not enjoyed
by all. There was no poverty and no crime. Disease as we know it was
unknown. As the lands were held in common, women were absolutely free
and independent. They chose their mates and were responsible for the
well-being of their offspring. As women controlled the sexual relation
and themselves regulated prenatal conditions, the children inherited
strong bodies and healthy minds. Dissensions over property did not
occur, and jealousy and a desire for personal aggrandizement had not
been developed.

The religious worship of primitive people consisted for the most
part in invocations to the Great Mother, the fructifying principle
throughout nature, from whom were derived all earthly benefits. Later
the Great Mother came to be worshipped under various appellations,
namely, Cybele, or Astarte, in Asia Minor, Athene in Greece, Minerva
in Rome, and Isis or Neith in Egypt. Finally, as is well known,
these goddesses were dethroned by an all-powerful male God, an
anthropomorphic deity whose chief attribute was virile might. This
change in the god-idea was coincident with, and dependent upon, a
corresponding change in the relations of the sexes which took place at
a certain period in human history. The god-idea is now and ever has
been in strict accord with the existing conceptions concerning the
relative importance of the sex-functions in human beings.

During thousands of years of life on “earth” the mother was the
only recognized parent. As the giver of life and the protector of
offspring she was regarded as the Creator and Preserver of the race.
She represented the constructive element in human society. Later,
however, when man began to contest the supremacy of woman, her hitherto
unquestioned prerogatives began to be claimed by him. It was at this
juncture in human affairs that the contention arose over the relative
importance of the sexes in the processes of reproduction. Not only
in the traditions and legends of early historic peoples but in their
histories as well there is much evidence given to prove that this
contention was as fierce as that which at the present time is going
on between the sexes. As a result of this contention both female and
male gods were worshipped. Those who recognized the mother as the giver
of life continued to worship the female principle, while those who
accepted the new doctrine enunciated by Apollo, namely, that the soul
of the child is derived from the father and the mother is only a nurse
to his heaven-born offspring, accepted the new religion. When the
dominion of man over woman was complete the female principle throughout
nature and in the god-idea was practically unrecognized or wholly
ignored. Throughout the historic period male power has been supreme not
only on the earth but also in heaven. Classical history is not wanting
in references to this change in the relations of the sexes and in the
god-idea which took place at a certain stage of human development.

We are informed that in Greece, probably about 1100 years B.C., Cecrops
“instituted marriage and established a new religion.” The new religion
instituted by Cecrops was the doctrine that the father is the only
parent, that the soul of the child is derived from him, and that the
mother performs simply the office of nurse to his offspring. Woman
was no longer the creator or giver of life. She was matter while man,
who was henceforth to be her lord and master, was spirit. Marriage as
instituted by Cecrops was the natural and inevitable outcome of the
new religion. It was the first attempt of the Greek tribes to legalize
and control the sex-functions of women. The deeper one delves into the
mysteries of the past the more apparent does it become that the sexual
degradation of women is deeply rooted in religion.

For untold ages early organized society proceeded along the line of
uninterrupted evolutionary progress. Although humanity was traversing
an unknown path the arts of life steadily increased. The production of
farinaceous food by means of which an exclusive meat diet was avoided
was an achievement of the utmost importance to the race. The idea of
government which at first included only the members of related groups
was extended to the tribe and even to the nation.

Equality, freedom, and justice constituted the fundamental principles
of early organized society. Finally, however, through causes which have
already been set forth in these pages, this system gradually gave place
to a regime founded on selfishness, or egoism. At this time in human
affairs related groups could no longer defend themselves against the
aggressions of powerful hostile foes; jealousies arose and alien tribes
began to make war upon one another, the stronger appropriating the
lands of the weaker and making slaves of the people. The women of the
subjugated groups became the sexual slaves of the conquerors. As native
women were free, foreign women who could be controlled were greatly in
demand. Therefore frequent attacks were made on foreign groups for the
sole purpose of “carrying off” the women.

The lands which had been held in common by all the members of the tribe
were now parcelled out among individual chieftains. The prestige given
to these “lords of the soil,” and the advantage gained by them through
the control of the natural resources and the means of subsistence,
soon gave rise to a privileged class—a class which in process of time
became masters of the masses of the people. When wars for conquest
and spoliation became general and when the communal system under
which the principles of liberty and equality had been established
gave place to a system founded on force the entire habitable globe
became a battle-ground upon which each and every individual struggled
fiercely with every other individual not only for place and power,
but for the means of subsistence as well. When the principles of
democracy established under gentile institutions gave place to a system
of governmental control under which only the rights of the few were
recognized, and when the unchecked disruptive forces had gained the
ascendency over the constructive elements developed in human nature,
the degeneracy of the race began. It is not difficult to trace the
steps by which this degeneracy has been accomplished.

Although we of the present boast of our material achievements,
and although we arrogate to ourselves a most remarkable degree of
intelligence, enlightenment, and even culture, it is evident that we
have not risen above a plane of the grossest materialism, and that
in the truly human qualities, those which distinguish man from the
animal, we are sadly deficient. That in these later days the moral
sense has become atrophied is shown in the fact that our present tooth
and claw system, under which each individual must array himself against
every other individual in his struggle for existence, is regarded as
a practical exemplification of the principle of the “Survival of
the Fittest.” According to this interpretation, not those who are
best endowed, physically, mentally, and morally are the fittest to
survive, but on the contrary those who are best able to appropriate to
themselves the opportunities and advantages which belong to others. In
other words it is claimed that by the Survival of the Fittest is meant
the survival of those who because of their material advantages are able
to exploit their fellowmen. A few of the processes involved in the
control of the many by the few have already been mentioned. To maintain
the authority of the privileged class and to strengthen their hold on
the liberties of the people, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Ecclesiasticism
were established and the Divine Right of Kings proclaimed. Intrenched
behind these mighty bulwarks the position of the usurpers has been
impregnable. Through enforced ignorance and superstition the “common
people” came to regard their situation not only as natural and
unavoidable but as representing the will of the Almighty. If they were
faithful to their masters in this world, in the world to come they
would be furnished with free transport to Fields Elysian. Strange to
relate this belief still prevails.

At the present time the principle of human freedom is still struggling
for recognition, but the great mass of human beings, although boasting
of their civilization and enlightenment, continue to uphold the
principle that the few should rule the many. They regard their rulers
as superior beings whose authority may not be questioned. At the
present time we have before us the dismal spectacle of half a dozen
hereditary monarchs who with their satellites claim the right to
rule over nearly the whole of Europe and a large portion of Asia.
Twenty-five millions of men are now engaged in a deadly conflict to
further the commercial and territorial interests of their masters.

When we compare present conditions with those which existed under early
organized society at a time when every individual member of a group was
equal in responsibility and power with every other member of the same
group we are enabled to perceive the path which mankind has taken on
its onward course.

When one reflects on the peculiar trend of human development one may
feel no surprise over the fact that at this juncture in human affairs
there should arise a ruler in whom the desire for world-dominion is
clearly apparent. That such a potentate has already appeared is shown
in the following from Emperor William II. of Germany.

“On me as Germany’s Emperor the spirit of God has descended. I am His
weapon, His sword, his vicegerent. Woe unto the disobedient. Death to
the unbeliever.” Here it is observed that this ruler aspires not only
to earthly dominion but also to divine recognition.

To strangle the growing principles of liberty and to establish a system
founded on force under which the individual was to become only an
instrument to do the bidding of his lord and master was doubtless the
original object of those who instigated the present war.

During the ages since the establishment of the authority of the few
over the many, the latter until a comparatively recent time have
offered little resistance to the tyranny exercised over them. Mentally
dwarfed the proletariat have not yet reached the degree of intelligence
necessary for a combination of interests. They have therefore remained
like dumb driven cattle subject only to the will of their masters.

About sixty years ago through the efforts of a few leaders who had
begun to realize the situation, a certain degree of unrest began to
manifest itself among them, and forty years later the proletariat
succeeded in establishing an international organization ostensibly for
their own benefit as opposed to the interests of the ruling class.
They, however, lacked solidarity. The natural tendency of their sex
toward separateness or disintegration was not easily overcome. This
is shown in the case of the present European conflict. When the war
broke out instead of standing together they at once hastened to obey
the mandates of their respective rulers, and with no higher idea than
patriotism or nationality they at once began their brutal assault
upon one another. It was evident from the beginning that the German
socialists, they who had been the most conspicuous in the international
movement, were first, last, and all the time Germans and that after all
they were actuated only by one desire, namely, national aggrandizement.
So lacking are men in the principle of solidarity, and so deeply rooted
within them is the idea of separateness, that it is to be doubted if,
without the aid of woman, they will ever be able to free themselves
from the tyranny of the past.

In very recent times a foe has arisen which threatens to be a greater
menace to the liberties of the masses of the people than were the foes
by which they were originally enslaved. I refer to the money power, or
plutocracy.

During the last few years, through the application of scientific
methods to industry, and through mechanical inventions by means of
which the power and efficiency of labour have been greatly increased,
the accumulation of wealth has reached a point never before witnessed
in the history of the world, yet strange to relate, along with this
enormous increase in wealth there has been a corresponding increase in
poverty and crime. This immense wealth has not been shared by those who
produced it but has gone into the pockets of those who exploit labour
for profits. Along with this enormous increase in wealth is observed a
general lowering of standards both in private and public life. There
are in this country alone ten millions of people who are deprived
of the necessary food, clothing, and shelter to insure a healthful
existence. In the public schools of New York City it is reported that
six hundred thousand children are victims of malnutrition. In winter
thousands of hungry men and women go up and down the streets of our
large cities begging for an opportunity to earn a living. Our jails and
prisons are filled to overflowing. Our almshouses and insane asylums
are insufficient to meet the demands. Imbecility and other forms of
mental degeneracy are increasing at an alarming rate. Epilepsy and
other congenital diseases prevail among all classes and conditions of
the people. Five-sixths of the children born are diseased at birth.

The basic principle underlying our present economic system is profits.
To secure large profits labour must be cheap and plentiful, and that
labour may be cheap and plentiful an enormous population must be
produced. In order to produce this enormous population women must
be enslaved. Although existing conditions are such as to make life
a curse instead of a blessing, the cry for “babies, more babies” is
heard on every hand, and this notwithstanding the fact that a large
proportion of the children born die before the age of five because this
environment is unfavourable to life.

The clamour for an ever increasing birth-rate never ceases. It is
believed that Providence alone is responsible for human ills. Poverty
and disease are accepted as natural and unavoidable evils.

The fears expressed lest the human race fail to perpetuate itself
would be pathetic were the reason for these fears less obvious. When
we reflect that the labour market must be constantly supplied with
cheap labour, and that millions of soldiers must be produced to protect
the commercial and territorial interests of the ruling class the true
inwardness of this insatiate cry for constantly increasing numbers is
revealed.

Ecclesiasticism, the faithful ally of Plutocracy, mindful of the fact
that its strength lies in an excess of numbers, has ever jealously
guarded the injunction to increase and multiply. No doctrine of
the so-called Christian church has been so fondly cherished and so
faithfully preserved as has that of the subjection of women. Woman’s
glorification under the Christian system has been exactly commensurate
with her obedience to man. No offering from her to the Almighty is so
acceptable as unrestrained reproductive energy.

The report of a declining birth-rate in any country of the globe is a
signal for instant alarm, but although publicists and politicians have
attempted to control the birth-rate not only by threats and promises
but by legal enactments regulating marriage, still it is observed that
in all countries of Europe, with the exception of Ireland, Bulgaria,
and Roumania, the birth-rate during the last twenty-five years has
steadily declined. Although numberless causes have been suggested
to account for this phenomenon, and although various remedies have
been proposed to lessen this “evil,” the actual cause underlying the
declining birth-rate of our time remains unrecognized. Politicians,
publicists, and ecclesiastics all refuse to acknowledge the obvious
fact that the increasing economic independence of women is alone
responsible for this phenomenon.

Notwithstanding the fact that during the last twenty-five years marked
progress is observed in the social and economic conditions of women,
still the sexual position of the great mass of women has steadily
declined. The fact that so far as her sex relations are concerned
civilized woman occupies a lower position than that occupied by the
female animal has already been noted in these pages. The traffic in
women is carried on in every country on the earth.

The existing sexual conditions are the direct result of the
overstimulation of the disruptive characters inherited by man from his
male progenitors among the lower orders of life, characters which among
animals have been checked by the constructive forces developed in the
female. Our sexual conditions and our present economic and industrial
situation loudly proclaim the degeneracy of our time.

When the principles of equality and liberty, which were established by
early organized society, gave place to a system founded on force and
the control of the many by the few, and when through the subjection of
women the natural checks to the disruptive tendencies developed in the
male were withdrawn, the conditions now existing in so-called civilized
society were foreshadowed.

A crisis has been reached in human affairs. The old regime has run its
course and is about to disappear. A new era is about to dawn on the
human race. The war which is now devastating Europe, and which will
doubtless spread over the entire earth, is the beginning of the end.
The effects of the causes which were set up in prehistoric times have
reached their full measure of development and can no more be postponed
or averted than can the thunderbolt which follows an electrical
explosion. A thoroughly material civilization founded on selfishness
and sensuality must be destroyed root and branch before the higher
planes of activity for which humanity is destined may be reached. The
present conflict therefore should not be regarded simply as a horrible
calamity but as a necessary preliminary to these higher conditions. If
the birth of the new regime can come only through blood and tears, if
only through the throes of war is deliverance possible, then it is not
only unwise but useless to bewail the present crisis.

Through the cleansing process involved in the present revolution,
humanity will doubtless return to the legitimate path of evolutionary
development. Either liberty and justice, the cardinal principles
underlying early organized society will be re-established or the
processes of disruption will complete the work of degeneration now
so well under way. In the transformation which is to take place it
is not likely that a vestige of the institutions which have produced
the present regime will remain. The conflict now going on between the
higher and lower forces developed in human life represents the struggle
of Omnipotent Life for higher expression in matter.

It has been shown in this work that during the development of life on
the earth two forces have been steadily at work, the one a conserving,
cohesive element, the other a disruptive, disintegrating energy.
The one tends toward combination or solidarity, the other toward
separateness or individual sufficiency. The one is constructive, the
other destructive. Had the constructive processes in human society been
allowed their legitimate expression the scenes now being enacted in
Europe would have been impossible.

The principal force which has been employed in the development of our
present civilization has been male energy. In the past this enormous
force has been necessary to subdue the earth and make of it a suitable
habitation for civilized humanity. In later times, however, the
discovery of hitherto unknown forces in nature, the application of
scientific methods to industry, and the invention of mechanical devices
for the lessening of human toil have done away with the necessity for
an excess of human brawn. In other words the excessive male energy
which has in the past been required for the development of our present
civilization has become not only useless but an actual hindrance to
further progress. As this enormous power is no longer needed for
useful purposes it has been turned into channels of wantonness and
destruction. It has become disruptive and dangerous to a degree which
may be appreciated when we reflect on the present conditions not only
in Europe, but over the entire earth. Among the cleansing processes
involved in the present crisis is the elimination of a considerable
number of the useless elements described above—elements which being no
longer necessary for the maintenance of the common good have become a
menace to society.

According to our narrow human conceptions by which passing events are
regarded only in relation to their present effects, the eliminating
processes now going on are cruel and inhuman. Nature, however, pays
little heed to human suffering, but although she ignores human misery
she will nevertheless demand an exact accounting for the deeds of
selfishness and ignorance which are responsible for the present
disorder. She will inaugurate no scheme of salvation; no “Vicarious
Atonement” will be provided to save mankind from the consequences of
their own folly.

The struggle now going on in nearly every quarter of the globe marks
the beginning of the eliminating process. The useless elements in human
society are wearing themselves out, destroying themselves by their own
rashness and folly. Impelled by a desire which they do not understand
and which they are unable to resist, these victims of a decaying
civilization rush madly on to destruction. Those men who voluntarily
seek war represent a dissatisfied or discontented class. True to the
primitive instincts of the race they crave the peculiar excitement
which war brings. It is not unlikely that many of them understand
instinctively that something is wrong with the present regime, but they
seem not to be able to analyse the situation.

Doubtless very many of those engaged in the present European struggle
are actuated by patriotism. They want to maintain the existing
territorial boundaries presided over by their respective rulers. They
desire also to retain the institutions, social, political, economic,
and religious which have grown up under a system where the few control
the many. Evidently the idea of human liberty has not yet dawned upon
them. If universal freedom awaits the birth of the new regime, which
is being heralded by the present upheaval, then it is plain that the
men in the trenches are quite unmindful of the significance of the
conflict in which they are engaged. The belligerent countries of Europe
may consent to a truce and there may be a lull in the universal unrest,
but there will be no genuine peace until the principle of human
liberty has been established on a firm and lasting basis.

That the removal of these superfluous men from their usual vocations
will not materially interfere with the useful industries of Europe is
shown in the fact that although 25,000,000 of them have been called
to the war their withdrawal from the industrial field has not greatly
disturbed the industrial situation, and this too notwithstanding the
fact that many new occupations have been created by the war. The work
formerly done by these men has been largely taken up by women.

It should be borne in mind that under the new conditions which are
approaching, the constructive element developed in human society is
again to assume command over the destructive forces which have been in
control since the beginning of the historic period. As this element has
been confided to women and as it is by them transmitted to offspring,
it is not difficult to forecast the position which the women of the
future will occupy.

The institution of marriage as it now exists will disappear. Only the
most robust among women will propagate the race. These women, as did
the women under early organized society, will choose their mates. They
will exercise absolute control over the sex-functions. Thus will be
avoided the terrible consequences which have resulted from the present
form of marriage.

The numerical preponderance of women over men under the new regime
is probable. Nor will the devastating processes of war be wholly
responsible for this condition. Science informs us that not only among
the lower orders of life but among human beings as well, certain
conditions of nutrition produce more females than males. The more
nutritious and wholesome the food the greater the excess of females
over males. Under higher conditions, when the laws of health and
life are better understood and especially when the subject of proper
nutrition has received the attention which its importance deserves, it
is not unreasonable to suppose that the excess of female births over
those of males will be considerable.

Although there have doubtless been long lapses of time during which the
human race has seemed to go backward, it is believed that the trend of
humanity is now and ever has been upward. If, as is believed, human
events move in cycles, if the civilizations which have risen in the
past represent a spiral, each of these civilizations reaching a higher
stage of development than its predecessor, then it may be inferred that
the era which is now dawning will surpass in grandeur anything which
the world has ever witnessed. If, as many persons believe, a stage of
development has been reached in which human beings are to be endowed
with a sixth sense, if the intuitive faculties which are closely
allied to the constructive element and which mark a still greater
distinction between man and the animal are to come into play it may
be assumed that the mental and spiritual faculties will reach a stage
of development scarcely dreamed of in our own time. Humanity will have
come into its own, the animal in man will have been left behind.

The co-ordination of science and history not only illumines the past
and explains the present, but the inevitable results of the natural
sequence of events point unerringly to the conditions which must
prevail in the future.

The philosophy of history proves to the earnest seeker after truth that
the door of the future is not wholly closed.




INDEX


  A

  Abipones, their customs, 148;
    independence of women among, 186

  Abrotonum, 342

  Adoption, among early races, 144, 145, 324;
    symbol of, 146, 147

  Affection in primitive groups, 126

  Agamemnon, 256

  Agnation, 351

  Ainos, 49

  Altruism, its development in the female, 17, 67, 86;
    its development in society, 124, 140

  Amazonianism, 208

  Andromache, 283

  Arabia, organization of society in, 129, 177;
    marriage in, 179, 181, 182

  Arawaks, their customs, 147, 174

  Archonship, 259;
    its close, 264

  Areta, 332

  Aristocracy, its growth among the Greeks, 251, 265-267

  Aristophanes, his picture of female philosophers, 338

  Aspasia, preceptress of Socrates, 334;
    her genius, her teachings, 337-338

  Assembly of the people, 156;
    development of the, 251;
    its duties, 259;
    its disappearance in Greece, 264;
    its powers among the Spartans, 293

  Atavism, 52

  Athene, her decision concerning paternity, 272

  Athenian men, their policy, 285;
    ashamed of their name, 318;
    their wives Carians, 319;
    their moral degradation, 323-326

  Athenian women, imported foreigners, 319;
    their degradation, 323;
    their division into classes 324;
    decline of influence among, 329;
    their reputed licentiousness, 339

  Auletrides, 325

  Australians, 230


  B

  Babylonian women, 234, 340

  _Basileus_, germ of present king, 156;
    does not correspond to modern monarch, 156, 255, 257;
    elected by a constituency, 253;
    abolition of the office of, 259

  Birds, their courtships, 20-21;
    aversion of females for certain males among, 20;
    the female among, chooses her mate, 20, 23, 25, 108;
    efforts of the male to please the female among, 21;
    eagerness of the male among, 21, 26, 30;
    powers of the female among, 27;
    inheritance of the female among, 29;
    inheritance of the male among, 29;
    constancy of the female among, 108

  Burgesses, 272


  C

  Captives, not enslaved in early groups, 145;
    as sexual slaves, 163, 276

  Cecrops, 262, 272, 329, 362

  Chastity of early races, 110, 113, 114, 306

  Clisthenes, 249, 261

  Codrus, 249, 259, 264

  Colour-blindness, 55

  Common law, the, woman’s position under, 357

  Communal marriage, 225

  Concubines, 327

  _Couvade, la_, its extent, 148

  Crates, 334

  Cuckoos, character of, 69

  Cynic philosophy, the, its principles, 332


  D

  Danaūs, daughters of, 274

  Deme, establishment of, 249, 260

  Democracy, of early races, 127;
    of the early Greeks, 250-251;
    decay of, 264-265, 267;
    in ancient Italy, 313

  Descent, traced through men, 128, 135, 281;
    in Arabia, 131;
    in Greece, 133

  Descent, traced through women, 141, 142, 157, 222;
    its universality, 228, 311;
    among the Iroquois Indians, 249;
    law of, 253;
    in Lycia, 310

  Desires, primary, of the male, 20

  _Dicteriades_, 327

  Differentiation, 8, 10, 16, 65

  Diseases of women, 61;
    not constitutional, 54

  Dorians, their conservatism, 285

  Draco, 266;
    his laws, 322


  E

  Early Christianity, 361

  Ecclesia, 251

  Ecclesiasticism, its effect on the position of women, 356-357

  Egoism, its development in males, 17, 86;
    not pronounced among earliest races, 125, 140;
    its development in later ages, 155

  England in the nineteenth century, 370

  Epicureans, 333

  Eupatrids, their cupidity, 264

  Evolution, individual and historic, 15


  F

  Family, the, not the basis of the gens, 246

  Female, conditions which produce the, 39

  Fijians, their customs, 116-117;
    parental affection among, 118

  Foreign women, as wives, 188, 192, 219;
    as concubines, 283, 327, 348

  France, marriage customs in, 172;
    in the nineteenth century, 370


  G

  Gaius, 353

  Genealogies traced through fathers, 271

  Gentile organization, the, universality of, 124;
    principles established by, 124;
    democratic character of, 127, 138, 139, 152;
    unity of, 128;
    government under, 137, 152, 156, 247;
    property belonging to, 140;
    altruistic character of, 140, 157;
    in Greece, 245;
    its decay, 260;
    its final overthrow, 261;
    in Athens, 262

  Glycera, 341

  Government, development of, 248

  Greek society, its construction, 243, 245


  H

  Hairy covering for the body, 49-51

  Hand, the female, 59

  Hercules, tradition of, 273

  Hetairai, a term of reproach, 329;
    their renown, 330;
    origin of the word, 338;
    honoured citizens, 341;
    judged by masculine standards, 344

  Hindu law, 352


  I

  Infanticide, McLennan’s theory of, 217;
    not practised by early races, 220;
    Sir J. Lubbock’s theory of, 226-227

  Insects, nutrition determines sex, 40;
    males appear first, 42

  Iroquois Indians, 137


  J

  Justinian Code, 357, 359


  L

  Lamia, 326

  Lance, symbol of property, 181, 312

  Leontium, 334

  Life, origin of, 4;
    earliest forms hermaphrodite, 11, 15

  Lydian women, 340

  Lysicles, 336


  M

  Magna Charta, 369

  Man, shorter-lived than woman, 45, 53;
    imperfections in the organization of, 55-59;
    superior to woman, Darwin’s theory, 75;
    assumes the duties of maternity, 147;
    superior to woman according to edict of Apollo, 199

  Marriage, origin of, 161;
    in India, 163;
    _Racshasa_, 163;
    in Arabia, 164, 179, 181, 182;
    by _Confarreatio_ and _Usus_, 164, 351;
    among the Israelites, 165;
    in Afghanistan, 165;
    in Greenland, 170;
    in Nubia, 171;
    in Sparta, 173;
    _sadica_, 179;
    _beena_, 180;
    _motă_, 181;
    _ba’al_, 181, 188, 193;
    laws of Mohammed, 183, 188;
    in Japan, 185;
    in Rome, 189;
    of the future, 399;
    rise of the present system of, 197;
    ceremonies among the Spartans, 310

  Matter, conservation of, 6

  Mother-in-law, the, her aversion to sons-in-law, 174, 236


  N

  Names, adoption of, 144

  Nemeas, 341


  O

  Ontogeny, 7

  Oracles of the Greeks controlled by women, 309

  Organization of society, 123


  P

  Pangenesis, 29

  Parthenogenesis, 38, 40

  Paternal affection, absence of, among lower orders, 69, 71;
    not a primary character, 71;
    absence of, among lower races, 149;
    absence of, among the Romans, 189, 191

  Pericles, 335

  Perpetual tutelage of women, 350

  Political society, establishment of, 249, 260-261

  Polyandry, not practised among lower orders, 107

  Polygamy, rise of, 106, 189

  Poverty of the masses in Greece, 266

  Primitive races, promiscuity among, 107, 115, 211;
    chastity of, 108, 110, 112, 116, 306, 307;
    morality of, 112, 115, 118;
    humanity of, 145

  Property, control of, 140, 221;
    inheritance of, 141;
    in early Greece, 250

  Protection of women in early groups, 112, 117, 146, 178, 186


  Q

  Quadrupeds, constancy of the female among, 24-25, 106-107;
    unions of, not left to chance, 25


  R

  Religion of Mohammed, 183

  Religious idea, 150, 211

  Reversion, 48, 52

  Rights of Roman fathers, 191, 313

  Roman family, the, 312, 349, 352

  Roman lawyers, 352-353

  Roman society, its constitution, 243

  Roman women, 178, 189, 314

  Rotifera, 38


  S

  Sabine women, capture of, 312

  St. Paul, 361

  Selection, natural, 7

  Selection, sexual, Darwin’s theory of, 18;
    compared with artificial selection, 36;
    processes of, reversed, 82;
    lower characters eliminated through, 90

  Sexes, origin of, 11, 14-15;
    numerical proportion of, 39, 43, 52

  Slavery, 145;
    its extent in the nineteenth century, 369

  Socialism, 390

  Socrates, 334-335

  Solon, his legislation, 320-321;
    his character, 320, 322

  Spartan women, their power, 298, 308;
    they controlled the land, 298;
    they resisted the laws of Lycurgus, 299;
    they originated the exercises of the youth, 300, 302;
    their dress, 303, 305;
    their influence, 303, 304, 310, 361

  Spartans, their government, 156;
    democratic character of their institutions, 252-253;
    their senate, 286;
    their morality, 302, 304;
    adultery unknown among them, 307, 316;
    election of senators among the, 309, 310

  Stoic philosophy, the, its principles, 334, 347-348;
    its effect on Roman law, 348

  Struggles for mates, 22-23, 64

  Survival of the fittest, 388

  Symbols in marriage ceremonies, among the Circassians, 171;
    in Abyssinia, 172;
    in Arabia, 172;
    in Scandinavia, Wales, and Ireland, 173;
    in Central Africa, 175;
    in Italy, 176;
    as explained by McLennan, 216

  Sympathy, development of, 67


  T

  Thargelia, 337

  Themistia, 334

  Themistocles, 342

  Theseus, 260, 271;
    united the Attic tribes, 262

  Timotheus, 342

  Tribe, the, its formation, 126, 153;
    growth of the governmental idea within, 247

  Tribes named after women, 273

  Tyrannies established among the Greeks, 263


  U

  Union of tribes in Athens, 262

  Unisexual forms, development of, 15


  V

  Variability denotes low organization, 36

  Variations in the human body, 47-48

  Vital force, expenditure of, 32


  W

  Wife-capture, among the Israelites, 164;
    among the Arabians, 177;
    its extent, 177;
    McLennan’s theory to account for, 215;
    Lubbock’s theory of, 224-227;
    among the Spartans, 310

  Women, in excess of men, 52;
    of Greenland, 54;
    their intuitions, 78;
    their apparel, 80;
    of Australia, 111;
    among the Kaffirs, 111, 146, 187;
    of early German tribes, 112;
    of Nubia, 111;
    of Sumatra, 112;
    of Tahiti, 116;
    among the Fijians, 117, 186;
    among the North American Indians, 139;
    head of the family, 139, 144, 154;
    of Arabia, 178-179, 188;
    of Rome, 178, 190;
    in Japan, 185;
    among the Abipones, 186;
    among the Greeks, 272, 276, 277, 279, 283;
    under the ancient Roman law, 350;
    under the middle Roman law, 352-354


  Y

  Yavanas, 318


  Z

  Zeno, 334

  Zulus, marriage customs among, 173