Produced by Steven Gibbs, Irma Spehar and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net







THE POSITION OF WOMAN IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY


BY THE SAME AUTHOR

THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN

_BOOKS ON ART_

  A RECORD OF SPANISH PAINTING
  THE PRADO (Spanish Series)
  EL GRECO         "
  VELAZQUEZ        "
  PICTURES IN THE TATE GALLERY

_BOOKS ON SPAIN_

  MOORISH CITIES IN SPAIN
  THINGS SEEN IN SPAIN
  SPAIN REVISITED: A SUMMER HOLIDAY IN GALICIA
  SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA (Mediæval Towns’ Series)
  CATHEDRALS OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SPAIN




                                  THE
                           POSITION OF WOMAN
                         IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY

                                   A
                        STUDY OF THE MATRIARCHY


                                  BY
                         C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY
                      (MRS. WALTER M. GALLICHAN)
                  AUTHOR OF “THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN.”


                                LONDON
                             EVELEIGH NASH
                                 1914




DEDICATION

TO ALL WOMEN


    “Be not ashamed, women, your privilege includes the rest....
    You are the gates of the body, you are the gates of the soul....
    And I say it is as great to be a woman as to be a man.
    And I say there is nothing greater than the mother of men.”

                                                 WALT WHITMAN.

  _7 Carlton Terrace,
           Child’s Hill._
              1914.




CONTENTS


PART I

THE PRIMITIVE FAMILY

CHAP.                                                              PAGE

I    INTRODUCTORY                                                   11

II   AN EXPOSITION OF BACHOFEN’S THEORY OF THE MATRIARCHATE         26

III  DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS: AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE
     MOTHER-RIGHT WITH THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY                       45

IV   DEVELOPMENT IN THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY AND THE RISE
     OF MOTHER-POWER                                                67


PART II

THE MOTHER AGE CIVILISATION

V    THE MATRIARCHAL FAMILY AMONG THE AMERICAN INDIANS              95

VI   THE MATERNAL FAMILY AMONG THE KHASIS                          132

VII  FURTHER EXAMPLES OF THE MATERNAL FAMILY                       147

VIII MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS AND THE TRANSITION TO FATHER-RIGHT       166

IX   WOMEN AND PRIMITIVE INDUSTRY                                  192

X    TRACES OF MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN
     CIVILISATION                                                  209

XI   THE SURVIVALS OF MOTHER-RIGHT IN FOLK-LORE, IN HEROIC
     LEGENDS, AND IN FAIRY STORIES                                 235

XII  CONCLUDING REMARKS                                            253




PART I

THE PRIMITIVE FAMILY




CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY


The twentieth century is the age of Woman; some day, it may be that it
will be looked back upon as the golden age, the dawn, some say, of
feminine civilisation. We cannot estimate as yet; and no man can tell
what forces these new conditions may not release in the soul of woman.
The modern change is that the will of woman is asserting itself. Women
are looking for a satisfactory life, which is to be determined from
within themselves, not from without by others. The result is a
discontent that may well prove to be the seed or spring of further
changes in a society which has yet to find its normal organisation.
Yes, women are finding themselves, and men are discovering what women
mean.

In the present time we are passing through a difficult period of
transition. There are conditions of change that have to be met, the
outcome of which it is very difficult to appreciate. A transformation
in the thought and conduct of women, for which the term “revolution”
is not too strong, is taking place around us; doubtless many
experimental phases will be tried before we reach a new position of
equilibrium.

This must be. There can be no life without movement.

The expression, “a transition period,” is, of course, only relative.
We often say: This or that is a sign of the present era; and, nine
times out of ten, the thing we believe to be new is in reality as old
as the world itself. In one sense the whole of history is a vast
transition. No period stands alone; the present is in every age merely
the shifting point at which the past and the future meet. All things
move onwards. But the movement sometimes takes the form of a cataract,
at others of an even and almost imperceptible current. This is really
another way of saying that the usually slow and gradual course of
change is, at certain stages, interrupted by a more or less prolonged
period of revolution. The process of growth, from being gradual and
imperceptible, becomes violent and conscious.

There can be little doubt that what is called the “Woman’s Movement,”
with its disintegrating influences on social opinion and practice, is
bringing vast and momentous changes in women’s attitude towards the
universe and towards themselves. A great motive and an enlarging
ideal, a quickening of the woman’s spirit, a stirring dream of a new
order--these are what we have gained. We are carried on, though as yet
we know not whither, and there is, of necessity, a little stumbling of
our feet as we seek for a way. Hence the fear, always tending to arise
in periods of social reconstruction, which is felt by many to-day as
women pass out far beyond the established boundaries prescribed for
their sex.

Whoever reflects soberly on the past history of women will not be
surprised at their present movement towards emancipation. Women are
reclaiming a position that is theirs by natural right--a position
which once they held. It may be all very well for those who accept the
authority and headship of the man as the foundation of the family and
of society, to be filled with bewildered fear at what seems to them to
be a quite new assertion of rights on the part of the mothers of the
race. But has the family at all stages of growth been founded on the
authority of the father? Our decision on this question will affect our
outlook on the whole question of Woman’s Rights and the relationships
of the two sexes. There are civilisations, older and, as I believe,
wiser than ours that have accepted the predominant position of the
mother as the great central fact on which the family has been
established.

The view that the family, much as it existed among the Hebrew
patriarchs, and as it exists to-day, was primeval and universal is
very deeply rooted. This is not surprising. To reverse the gaze of men
from themselves is no easy task. The predominance of the male over the
female, of the man over the woman and of the father over the mother,
has been accepted, almost without question, in a civilisation built up
on the recognition of male values and male standards of opinion. Thus
the institutions, habits, prejudices, and superstitions of the
patriarchal authority rest like an incubus upon us. The women of
to-day carry the dead load upon their backs, and literally stagger
beneath the accumulating burden of the ages.

The “Woman’s Movement” is pressing us forward towards a recasting of
the patriarchal view of the relative position and duties of the two
sexes. It must be regarded as an extremely great and comprehensive
movement affecting the whole of life. From this wider standpoint, the
fight for the parliamentary suffrage is but as the vestibule to
progress; the possession of the vote being no more than a necessary
condition for attaining far larger and more fundamental ends.

It is, however, very necessary to remark that the recognition of this
imposes a great responsibility upon women. For one thing the practical
difficulties of the present must be faced. It is far from easy to
readjust existing conditions to meet the new demands. Present social
and economic conditions are to a great extent chaotic. We cannot
safely cast aside, in any haste for reform, those laws, customs and
opinions which it has been the slow task of our civilisation to
establish, not for men only, but for women. We women have to work out
many questions far more thoroughly than hitherto we have done. We owe
this to our movement and to the world of men. It will serve nothing to
pull down, unless we are ready also to build up. Freedom can be
granted only to the self-disciplined.

     “Thou that does know the Self and the not-Self, expert in
     every work: endowed with self-restraint and perfect
     same-sightedness towards every creature free from the sense
     of I and my--thy power and energy are equal to my own, and
     thou hast practised the most severe discipline.”[1]

       *       *       *       *       *

    [1] The _Mahābhārata_. The Great God thus addresses Shakti,
    when he asks her to describe the duties of women. I quote
    from a pamphlet by Dr. Ananda Coomaraswamy: _Sati: A
    Vindication of the Hindu Woman_.

This little book is an attempt to establish the position of the mother
in the family. It sets out to investigate those early states of
society, when, through the widespread prevalence of descent through
the mother, the survival of the family clan and, in some cases, the
property rights were dependent on women and not on men. I start from
the belief that the mother was at one period the dominant partner in
the sexual relationships. This does not, however, at all necessarily
involve “rule by women.” We must be very clear here. What I claim is
this. The system by which the family was built up and grouped around
the mother conferred special rights on women. The form of marriage
favourable to this influence was that by which the husband entered the
wife’s family and clan, and lived there as a “consort-guest.” The wife
and mother was director in the home, the owner of the meagre property,
the distributor of food, and the controller of the children.[2] Hence
arises what is known as mother-right.

    [2] McGee: “The Beginning of Marriage,” _American
    Anthropologist_, Vol. IV, p. 378.

I am prompted to this inquiry by two reasons: in the first place, the
origin of the maternal-system and the subsequent association of the
mother and the father appear to me to afford evidence of the working
of a natural law of the two sexes, which, both for social and other
reasons, is of great interest in the present stage of women’s history.
The establishing of the mother’s position is of great importance. If
we can prove that women have exercised unquestioned and direct
authority in the past history of human societies, we shall be in a
position to answer those who to-day wish to set limits to women’s
activities. Then, in the second place, I am compelled to doubt certain
conclusions, both of those who accept mother-right, and also of the
greater number who now deny its occurrence. If I am right, and the
importance of the maternal family has been unduly neglected and the
true explanation of its origin overlooked, I feel that, whatever
errors I may fall into, I am justified in undertaking this task. My
mistakes will be corrected by others with more knowledge than I can
claim; and if my theory of mother-right has any merit, it will be
established in more competent hands. The vast majority of
investigators on these questions are men. I am driven to believe that
sometimes they are mistaken in their interpretation of habits and
customs which arose among primitive societies in which the influence
of women was marked. In dealing with the family and its origin it has
been usual to consider the male side and to pass over the female
members. This has led, I am sure, to much error.

The custom of tracing descent through the mother, either practised
consciously and completely, or only as a survival, occurs among many
primitive peoples in all parts of the world. Whether, however, it
existed universally and from all time, or whether only in certain
races, among whose institutions it remains or may still be traced, is
a much debated question. Not all barbarous tribes are in the stage of
mother-right; on the contrary many reckon descent through the father.
But even where the latter is the case, vestiges of the former system
are frequently to be found. There seems to be a common tendency to
discredit a system of relationship, which suggests even as a bare
possibility the mother, and not the father, being the head of the
family. Yet, I believe I can assign some, at least plausible, reasons
for believing that descent through women has been a stage, though not,
I think, the first stage, in social growth for all branches of the
human family.

There can be little doubt of the importance of kinship and inheritance
being reckoned through the mother. If the children belong to her, and
if by marriage the husband enters her home, the greater influence,
based on the present possession of property, and the future hope of
the family rests on the female side. Such conditions must have
exercised strong influence on the position of the women members of the
primitive clan and the honour in which they were held. It cannot be
ignored.

Of course, this does not prevent the hardships of savage life weighing
more heavily in many ways upon women than on the stronger men. In
primitive societies women have a position quite as full of anomalies
as they hold among civilised races. Among some tribes their position
is extremely good; among others it is undoubtedly bad, but, speaking
generally, it is much better than usually it is held to be.[3]
Obviously the causes must be sought in the environment and in social
organisation. The differences in the status and power of women, often
occurring in tribes at the same level of progress, would seem to be
dependent largely on economic conditions. The subject is full of
difficulties. Not only is the position of women thus variable, but our
knowledge of the matter is very defective. It is seldom, indeed, that
the question has been considered of sufficient importance to receive
accurate attention.[4] Not infrequently conflicting accounts are given
by different authorities, and even by the same writer.

    [3] Westermarck, “The Position of Women in Early
    Civilisations,” _Sociological Papers_, 1904.

    [4] For instance, Maine (_Early Law and Custom_), in speaking
    of tribes who still trace their descent from a single
    ancestress, says, “The outlines” (_i. e._ of the maternal
    family) “may still be marked out, _if it be worth any one’s
    while to trace it_.”

I wish it to be understood that mother-right does not necessarily
imply mother-rule. This system may even be combined with the
patriarchal authority of the male. The unfortunate use of the term
_Matriarchate_ has led to much confusion. My own knowledge and study
of primitive customs and ancient civilisations have made it plain to
me that there has been a constant rise and fall of male and female
dominance, but, I believe, that, on the whole, the superiority of
women has been more frequent and more successful than that of men.

It is this that I shall attempt to prove.

The theory of mother-right has been subjected to so much criticism
that a re-examination of the position is very necessary. To show its
prevalence, to establish some leading points in its history, to make
out its connection with the patriarchal family, and to trace the
transition by which one system passed into the other, appear to me to
be matters primarily important. The limited compass of this little
book will prevent my substantiating my own views as I should wish,
with a full and systematic survey of all authentic accounts of the
peoples among whom mother-descent may be studied. I have considered,
however, that I could summarise the position in a comprehensive
picture, that will, I hope, suggest a point of view that seems to me
to have been very generally neglected.

It is necessary to enter into such an inquiry with caution; the
difficulties before me are very great. Nothing would be easier than
from the mass of material available to pile up facts in furnishing a
picture of the high status of women among many tribes under the
favourable influence of mother-descent, that would unnerve any
upholders of the patriarchal view of the subordination of women. It is
just possible, on the other hand, to interpret these facts from a
fixed point of thought of the father’s authority as the one support of
the family, and then to argue that, in spite of the mother’s control
over her children and over property, she still remained the inferior
partner. I wish to do neither. It is my purpose to examine the
evidence, and so to discover to what extent the system of tracing
descent through the female side conferred any special claim for
consideration upon women. I shall try to avoid mistakes. I put forward
my own opinions with great diffidence. It is so easy, as I realise
full well, to interpret facts by the bias of one’s own wishes. I know
that the habits and customs of primitive peoples that I have studied
closely are probably few in comparison with those I have missed; yet
to me they appear of such importance in the light they throw on the
whole question of the relationships of the two sexes, that it seems
well to bring them forward.

Since my attention, now many years ago, was first directed to this
question, I have felt that a clear and concise account of the
mother-age was indispensable for women. Such an account, with a
criticism of the patriarchal theory, is here offered. Throughout I
have attempted to clear up and bring into uniformity the two opposing
theories of the origin of the human family. I have tried to gather the
facts, very numerous and falling into several classes, by which the
theory of the mother-age could be supported. And first it was
necessary to clear out of the way a body of opinion, the prevalence of
which has opposed an obstacle to the acceptance of the rights of
mothers in the family relationship. The whole question turns upon
which you start with; the man--the woman, or the woman--the man.

Here it should be explained that this little book is an expansion of
the historical section which treats of “the Mother-age civilisation”
in my former book, _The Truth About Woman_. I wish to take this
opportunity of expressing my gratitude for the generous interest and
sympathy with which my work has been received. Such kindness is very
imperfectly repaid by an author’s thanks; it is certainly the best
incentive to further work.

This little volume was suggested to me by a review in one of the
Suffrage papers. The writer, after speaking of the interest to women
of the mother-age and the difficulty there was in gaining information
on the subject, said that “a small and cheaper book on the
matriarchate would be useful to women in all countries.” I was
grateful for this suggestion. I at once felt that I wanted to write
such a book. For one thing, this particular section on the mother-age
in _The Truth About Woman_, and my belief in the favourable influence
of mother-descent on the status of women, has been much questioned. I
have been told that I “had quite deliberately gone back to our
uncivilised ancestors to ‘fish up’ the precedent of the matriarchate;”
that I “had allowed my prejudices to dictate my choice of material,
and had thus brought forward examples explanatory of my own opinions;”
that I “had fastened eagerly on these, without inquiring too carefully
about other facts having a contrary tendency.” I was reminded of what
I well knew, that the matriarchate and promiscuity with which it is
usually connected were not universally accepted by anthropologists;
the tendency to-day being to discredit both as being among the early
phases of society. It was suggested that I “had unprofitably spent my
time on the historical section of my book, and had built up my theory
on a curiously uncertain foundation;” that I “had relied too much on
the certain working of mother-right, and had been by no means clear in
showing how, from such a position of power, women had sunk into
subservience to patriarchal rule.” In fact, it has seemed to be the
opinion of my critics that I had allowed what I “would have liked to
have happened to affect my account of what did happen in the infancy
of man’s social life.”

Now, I want to say quite frankly, that I feel much of this criticism
is just. The inquiry on the mother-age civilisation was only one small
section of my book on Woman. I realise that very much was hurried
over. There is on this subject of the origin of the family a
literature so extensive, and such a variety of opinions, that the
work of the student is far from easy. The whole question is too
extensive to allow anything like adequate treatment within the space
of a brief, and necessarily insufficient, summary. My earlier
investigation may well be objected to as not being in certain points
supported by sufficient proofs. I know this. It is not easy to
condense the marriage customs and social habits of many different
peoples into a few dozen pages. Of course, I selected my examples. But
this I may say; I chose those which had brought me to accept
mother-right. I was driven to this belief by my own study and reading
long before the time of writing my book. What I really tried to do was
to present to others the facts that had convinced me. But my stacks of
unused notes, collected for my own pleasure during many years of work,
are witness to how much I had to leave out.

I know that many objections that have been raised to the theory of
mother-right were left unanswered. I dismissed much too lightly the
patriarchal theory of the origin of the family, which during late
years has gained such advocacy. I failed to carry my inquiry far
enough back. I accepted with too little caution an early period of
promiscuous sexual relationships. I did not make clear the stages in
the advance of the family to the clan and the tribe; nor examine with
sufficient care the later transition period in which mother-right gave
place to father-right.

I have been sent back to examine again my own position. And to do
this, it was necessary first to take up the question from the
position of those whose views are in opposition to my own. I have made
a much more extensive study of those authorities who, rejecting
mother-right, accept a modification of the patriarchal theory as the
origin of the family. This has led to some considerable recasting of
my views. Not at all, however, to a change in my belief in
mother-right, which, indeed, has now been strengthened, and, as I
trust, built up on surer foundations.

By a fortunate chance, I was advised to read Mr. Andrew Lang’s _Social
Origins_,[5] which work includes Mr. Atkinson’s _Primal Law_. I am
greatly indebted to the assistance I have gained from these writers.
It is, perhaps, curious that a very careful study of the patriarchal
family as it is presented by Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Lang, has brought me
to a conclusion fundamentally at variance from what might have been
expected. I have gained invaluable support for my own belief in
mother-right, and have found fresh proofs from the method of
difference. I have cleared up many points that previously puzzled me.
I am able now to accept the patriarchal theory, without at all shaking
my faith in a subsequent period of mother-descent and mother-power.

    [5] This book was mentioned to me in a letter from Mr. H. G.
    Wells.

The discussion on this question is now half a century old. Yet in
spite of the opposition of many investigators, and the support of
others, the main problems are still unsettled. What form did the
family take in its earliest stage? Did it start as a small group or
with the clan or horde? What were the earliest conditions of the
sexual relationships? Was promiscuity at one period the rule? Was the
foundation of the family based on the authority of the father, or of
the mother? If on that of the father, how is mother-kin and
mother-right to be explained? These are among the questions that must
be answered. Not till this is done, can we establish any theory of
mother-descent, or estimate its effect on the status of women.

The whole subject is a very wide and complicated one. If I differ on
several important points from learned authorities, whose knowledge and
research far exceed my own, I do so only after great hesitation, and
because I must. The facts they have collected from their personal
knowledge of primitive peoples (facts which I have gratefully used)
often suggest quite opposite conclusions to my thoughts than to
theirs--the view-point is different, that is all. They were seeking
for one thing; I for another: they were men; I am a woman. It would be
foolishness for me to attempt any special pleadings for my own
opinions. How far I shall succeed, or fail, to make clear to others a
period of mother-right that is certain to me, I do not know. I offer
my little book with all humility, and yet without any apology. We may
read and learn and gather knowledge from many sources; but the
opinions of others we cannot take on credit; we must re-think them out
for ourselves, and make them our own.




CHAPTER II

AN EXPOSITION OF BACHOFEN’S THEORY OF THE MATRIARCHATE


Fifty-three years ago in his great work, _Das Mutterrecht_,[6] the
Swiss writer, Bachofen, drew the attention of the world to the fact
that a system of kinship through mothers only prevailed among many
primitive peoples, while survivals of the custom could be widely, if
but faintly, traced among civilised races. Drawing his evidence from
the actual statements of old writers, but more from legends and the
mythologies of antiquity, he came to the conclusion that a system of
descent through women had, in all cases, preceded the rise of kinship
through males. Almost at the same time Dr. J. F. McLennan,[7] ignorant
of the work of Bachofen, came to the same opinion. This led to a
reconsideration of the patriarchal theory; and for a time it was
widely held that in the early stages of society a matriarchate
prevailed, in which women held the supreme power. Further support
came from Morgan, with his knowledge of the maternal family among
American aborigines, and he was followed by Professor Tylor, McGee,
and many other investigators.

    [6] _Das Mutterrecht_ was published in Stuttgart in 1861.

    [7] _Primitive Marriage_, published 1865. _Studies in Ancient
    History_, which includes a reprint of _Primitive Marriage_;
    1st ed. 1876, 2nd ed. 1886. _The Patriarchal Theory_, a
    criticism of this theory is based on the papers of Mr.
    McLennan and edited by his brother.

Obviously this gynæcocratic view, which placed woman in a new relation
to man, was unlikely to be permanently accepted. Thus a reaction to
the earlier theory of the patriarchal family has set in, especially in
recent years. Many writers, while acknowledging the existence of
mother descent, deny that such a system carries with it, except in a
few exceptional cases, mother-rights of special advantage to women;
even when these seem to be present they believe such rights to be more
apparent than real.

In bringing forward any theory of mother-right, it thus becomes
necessary to show the causes that have led to this reversal in
opinion. To do this, the first step will be to examine, with
considerable detail, the evidence for the matriarchal theory as it is
given by its two great supporters. Now, an interesting point arises,
if we compare the view of Bachofen with that held by McLennan. No two
ways could well be further apart than those by which these two men
arrived at the same conclusion. Both accept an early period of
promiscuous sexual relationships. But Bachofen found the explanation
of mother-descent in the supremacy of women, and believed a
matriarchate to have been established by them in a moral revolt
against such _hetaïrism_. Mr. McLennan, on the other hand, regarded
the custom as due to uncertainty of paternity--the children were
called after the mother because the father was unknown.

Let us concentrate our attention on the _Das Mutterrecht_ of Bachofen,
whose work as the great champion of matriarchy claims our most careful
consideration. And it is necessary to say at once that there can be no
doubt his view of women’s supremacy is greatly exaggerated. Such a
rule of women, at the very early stage of society when mother-kin is
supposed to have arisen, is not proved, and does not seem probable.
Even if it existed, _it could not have originated in the way and for
the reasons_ that are credited by the Swiss writer. I wish to
emphasise this point. Much of the discredit that has fallen on the
matriarchate has arisen, I am certain, through the impossibility of
accepting Bachofen’s mythical account of its origin. This great
supporter of women was a dreamer, rather than a calm and impartial
investigator. Founding his main theory on assumptions, he asks us to
accept these as historical facts. Much of his work and his belief in
women must be regarded as the rhapsodies of a poet. And yet, it is the
poet who finds the truth. The poetic spirit is, in one sense, the most
practical of all. Bachofen saw the fact of mother-power, though not
_why_ it was the fact, and he enfolded his arguments in a garment of
pure fiction.

To disengage from his learned book, _Das Mutterrecht_,[8] his theory
of the origin of the Matriarchate is no easy task. There is, for one
thing, such bewildering contradiction and confusion in the material
used. Then the interpretation of the mythical tales, so freely
intermingled everywhere, is often strained--prompted by a poetic
imagination which snatches at every kind of allegory. Often the views
expressed are inconsistent with each other, the arguments and proofs
are disconnected, while many of the details are hopelessly obscure and
confused. Yet it seems to me possible to recognise the idea which
brings into unity the mass of his work--the spirit, as it were, that
breathes into it its life. It may be found in the clear appreciation
of the superstitious and mystical element in primitive man, and their
close interweaving with the sexual life. As I understand Herr
Bachofen, the sex-act was the means which first opened up ways to
great heights, but also to great depths.

    [8] Prof. Giraud-Teulon’s _La Mère chez certains Peuples de
    l’Antiquité_ is founded on the introduction to _Das
    Mutterrecht_. This little book of fascinating reading is the
    best and easiest way of studying Bachofen’s theory.

Bachofen strongly insists on the religious element in all early human
thought. He believes that the development of the primitive community
only advanced by means of religious ideas.

     “Religion,” he says, “is the only efficient lever of all
     civilisation. Each elevation and depression of human life
     has its origin in a movement which begins in this supreme
     department.”[9]

    [9] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. xiii.

The authority for this belief is sought in religious myths.

     “Mythical tradition appears to be the faithful
     interpretation of the progress of the law of life, at a time
     when the foundations of the historical development of the
     ancient world were laid; it reveals the original mode of
     thought, and we may accept this direct revelation as true
     from our complete confidence in this source of history.”[10]

    [10] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. vii.

This mystical religious element, which is the essential part of _Das
Mutterrecht_, is closely connected by Bachofen with the power of
women. As it is his belief that, even at this early period, the
religious impulse was more developed among women than men, he bases on
this unproved hypothesis his theory of women’s supremacy. “Wherever
gynæcocracy meets us,” he says, “the mystery of religion is bound up
with it, and lends to motherhood an incorporation in some
divinity.”[11]

    [11] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xv.

Doubtless this theory of a higher feminine spirituality is a pleasing
one for women--but is it true? The insuperable difficulty to its
acceptance arises, in the first place, from the fact that we can know
nothing at all of the spiritual condition of the human beings among
whom mother-kin was held first to have been practised. But we must go
further than this in our doubt. Can we accept for any period a
spiritual superiority in the character of woman over man? To me, at
least, it is clear that a knowledge of the two sexes among all races
both primitive and civilised--yes, and among ourselves, is sufficient
to discredit such a supposition.

Bachofen would have us believe that[12] the mother-right of the
ancient world, was due to a revolt of women against the degraded
condition of promiscuity, which previously had been universal among
mankind, a condition in which men had a community of wives, and
_openly lived together like gregarious animals_.

    [12] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. xxiv. and p. 10.

     “Women, by their nature nobler and more spiritual than men,
     became disgusted with this lawless _hetaïrism_, and, under
     the influence of a powerful religious impulse, combined in a
     revolt (the first Amazonian movement) to put an end to
     promiscuity and established marriage.”

Over and over again Bachofen affirms this spiritual quality in women.

     “The woman’s religious attitude, in particular, the tendency
     of her mind towards the supernatural and the divine,
     influenced the man and robbed him of the position which
     nature disposed him to take in virtue of his physical
     superiority. In this way women’s position was transformed by
     religious considerations, until they became in civil life
     what religion had caused them to be.”[13] And again: “We
     cannot fail to see that of the two forms of gynæcocracy in
     question--religious and civil--the former was the basis of
     the latter. Ideas connected with worship came first, and the
     civil forms of life were then the result and
     expression.”[14]

    [13] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xiv.

    [14] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xv.

We may note in passing, the greater affectability of woman’s nature,
which would seem always to have had a tendency to expression in
religio-erotic manifestations. But to build up a theory of matriarchy
on this foundation is strangely wide of the facts. Bachofen adduces
the spirituality of women as the cause of their power. But on what
grounds can such a claim be supported?

It is on the evidence of licentious customs of all kinds and on
polyandry, that he bases his belief in a period of promiscuity. He
regards this early condition of _hetaïrism_ as a law of nature, and
believes that after its infraction by the introduction of individual
marriage, expiation was required to be made to the Earth Goddess,
Demeter, in temporary prostitution. Hence he explains the widespread
custom of religious prostitution. This fanciful idea may be taken to
represent Bachofen’s method of interpretation. There is an
intermediate stage between _hetaïrism_ and marriage, such as the
group-marriage, held by him to have been practised among barbarous
peoples. “Each man has a wife, but they are all permitted to have
intercourse with the wives of others.”[15]

    [15] _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 18.

Great stress is laid on the acquisition by women of the benefits of a
marriage law. In the families founded upon individual marriage, which
grew up after the Amazonian revolt, the women, and not the men, held
the first place. Bachofen does not tell us whether they assigned this
place to themselves, or had it conceded to them. Women were the heads
of the families, the children were named after the mother, and not
the father, and all the relations to which rights of succession
attached were traced through women only. All property was held by
women. Moreover, from this headship, women assigned to themselves, or
had conceded to them, the social and political power as well as the
domestic supremacy.[16]

    [16] I have taken much of this passage from Mr. McLennan’s
    criticism of Bachofen’s theory, _Studies in Ancient History_,
    pp. 319-325.

The authority for this remarkable theory is sought, with great
ingenuity and patience, in the fragmentary accounts of barbarous
people, and in an exhaustive study of heroic stories and religious
myths. Bachofen argues powerfully for the acceptance of these myths.

     “Every age unconsciously obeys, even in its poetry, the laws
     of its individual life. A patriarchal age could not,
     therefore, have invented the matriarchate, and the myths
     which describe the latter may be regarded as trustworthy
     witnesses of its historical existence. It may be taken for
     granted that the myths did not refer to special persons and
     occurrences, but only tell us of the social customs and
     ideas which prevailed, or were endeavouring to prevail, in
     several communities.”[17]

    [17] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., pp. vii.-viii.

This is true. It is the interpretation given to many of these myths
that one is compelled to question. Bachofen’s way of applying mythical
tales has no scientific method; for one thing, abstract ideas are
added to primitive legends which could only arise from the thought of
civilised peoples. For instance, he accepts, without any doubt, the
existence of the Amazons; and believes that the myths which refer to
them record “a revolt for the elevation of the feminine sex, and
through them of mankind.” It is on such insecure foundations he builds
up his matriarchal theory.

There is, however, an aspect of truth in Bachofen’s position, which
becomes plain on a closer examination. To prove this, I must quote a
passage from _Das Mutterrecht_, as representing, or at least
suggesting, the opinions of those who have argued most strongly
against his theory. When recapitulating the facts and arguments in
favour of accepting the supremacy of women, he makes this suggestive
statement--

     “The first state in all cases was that of _hetaïrism_. The
     rule is based upon the right of procreation: since there is
     no individual fatherhood, _all have only one father--the
     tyrant whose sons and daughters they all are, and to whom
     all the property belongs. From this condition in which the
     man rules by means of his rude sexual needs, we rise to that
     of gynæcocracy_, in which there is the dawn of marriage, of
     which the strict observance is at first observed by the
     woman, not by the man. Weary of always ministering to the
     lusts of man, _the woman raises herself by the recognition
     of her motherhood_. Just as a child is first disciplined by
     its mother, so are people by their women. It is only the
     wife who can control the man’s essentially unbridled
     desires, and lead him into the paths of well-doing....
     _While man went abroad on distant forays, the woman stayed
     at home, and was undisputed mistress of the household._ She
     took arms against her foe, and was gradually transformed
     into an Amazon.”[18]

    [18] _Das Mutterrecht_, pp. 18-19.

The italics in the passage are mine, for they bear directly on what I
shall afterwards have to prove: (1) that mother-right was not the
first stage in the history of the human family; (2) that its existence
is not inconsistent with the patriarchal theory. Bachofen here
suggests a pre-matriarchal period in which the elementary family-group
was founded on and held together by a common subjection to the oldest
and strongest male. This is the primordial patriarchal family.

Then come the questions: Can we accept mother-right? Are there any
reasonable causes to explain the rise of female dominance?
Westermarck, in criticising the matriarchal theory, has said: “The
inference that ‘kinship through females only’ has everywhere preceded
the rise of ‘kinship through males,’ would be warranted only on
condition that the cause, or the causes, to which the maternal system
is owing, could be proved to have operated universally in the past
life of mankind.”[19] Now, this is what I believe I am able to do.
Hence it has been necessary first to clear the way of the old errors.
Bachofen’s interpretation is too fanciful to find acceptance. Will any
one hold it as true that the change came because _women willed it_?
Surely it is a pure dream of the imagination to credit women, at this
supposed early stage of society, with rising up to establish marriage,
in a revolt of purity against sexual licence, and moreover effecting
the change by force of arms! Bachofen would seem to have been touched
with the Puritan spirit. I am convinced also that he understood very
little of the nature of woman. Conventional morality has always acted
on the side of the man, not the woman. The clue is, indeed, given in
the woman’s closer connection with the home, and in the idea that “she
raises herself by the recognition of her motherhood.” But the facts
are capable of an entirely different interpretation. It will be my aim
to give a quite simple, and even commonplace, explanation of the rise
of mother-descent and mother-right in place of the spiritual
hypothesis of Bachofen.

    [19] _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 105.

It will be well, however, to examine further Bachofen’s own theory. It
is his opinion that the first Amazonian revolt and period of women’s
rule was followed by a second movement--

“Woman took arms against her foe [_i. e._ man], and was gradually
transformed into an Amazon. _As a rival to the man the Amazon became
hostile to him, and began to withdraw from marriage and from
motherhood. This set limits to the rule of women, and provoked the
punishment of heaven and men._”[20]

    [20] _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 85.

There is a splendid imaginative appeal in this remarkable passage.
Again the italics are mine. It is, of course, impossible to accept
this statement, as Bachofen does, as an historical account of what
happened through the agency of women at the time of which he is
treating. Yet, we can find a suggestion of truth that is eternal. Is
there not here a kind of prophetic foretelling of every struggle
towards readjustment in the relationships of the two sexes, through
all the periods of civilisation, from the beginning until now? You
will see what I mean. The essential fact for woman--and also for
man--is the sense of community with the race. Neither sex can keep a
position apart from parenthood. Just in so far as the mother and the
father attain to consciousness and responsibility in their relations
to the race do they reach development and power. Bachofen, as a poet,
understood this; to me, at least, it is the something real that
underlies all the delusion of his work. But I diverge a little in
making these comments.

Again the origin of the change from the first period of matriarchy is
sought by Bachofen in religion.

     “Each stage of development was marked by its peculiar
     religious ideas, produced by the dissatisfaction with which
     the dominating idea of the previous stage was regarded; a
     dissatisfaction which led to a disappearance of this
     condition.” “What was gained by religion, fostering the
     cause of women, by assigning a mystical and almost divine
     character to motherhood was now lost through the same cause.
     The loss came in the Greek era. Dionysus started the idea of
     the divinity of fatherhood; holding the father to be the
     child’s true parent, and the mother merely the nurse.” In
     this way, we are asked to believe, the rights of men arose,
     the father came to be the chief parent, the head of the
     mother and the owner of the children, and, therefore, the
     parent through whom kinship was traced. We learn that, at
     first, “women opposed this new gospel of fatherhood, and
     fresh Amazonian risings were the common feature of their
     opposition.” But the resistance was fruitless. “Jason put an
     end to the rule of the Amazons in Lemnos. Dionysus and
     Bellerophon strove together passionately, yet without
     gaining a decisive victory, until Apollo, with calm
     superiority, finally became the conqueror, and the father
     gained the power that before had belonged to the
     mother.”[21]

    [21] _Das Mutterrecht_, pp. 73, 85. Compare also McLennan,
    _Studies_, p. 322, and Starcke, _The Primitive Family in its
    Origin and Development_.

But before this took place, Bachofen relates yet another movement,
which for a time restored the early matriarchate. The women, at first
opposing, presently became converts to the Dionysusian gospel, and
were afterwards its warmest supporters. Motherhood became degraded.
Bacchanalian excesses followed, which led to a return to the ancient
_hetaïrism_. Bachofen believes that this formed a fresh basis for a
second gynæcocracy. He compares the Amazonian period of these later
days with that in which marriage was first introduced, and finds that
“the deep religious impulse being absent, it was destined to fail, and
give place to the spiritual Apollonic conception of fatherhood.”[22]

    [22] _Ibid._, p. 85.

In Bachofen’s opinion this triumph of fatherhood was the final
salvation. This is what he says--

     “It was the assertion of fatherhood which delivered the mind
     from natural appearances, and when this was successfully
     achieved, human existence was raised above the laws of
     natural life. The principal of motherhood is common to all
     the spheres of animal life, but man goes beyond this tie in
     gaining pre-eminence in the process of procreation, and thus
     becomes conscious of his higher vocation. In the paternal
     and spiritual principle he breaks through the bonds of
     tellurism, and looks upwards to the higher regions of the
     cosmos. Victorious fatherhood thus becomes as distinctly
     connected with the heavenly light as prolific motherhood is
     with the teeming earth.”[23]

    [23] _Das Mutterrecht_, Intro., p. xxvii.

Here, Bachofen, as is his custom, turns to point an analogy with the
process of nature.

     “All the stages of sexual life from Aphrodistic _hetaïrism_
     to the Apollonistic purity of fatherhood, have their
     corresponding type in the stages of natural life, from the
     wild vegetation of the morass, the prototype of conjugal
     motherhood, to the harmonic law of the Uranian world, to the
     heavenly light which, as the _flamma non urens_, corresponds
     to the eternal youth of fatherhood. The connection is so
     completely in accordance with law, that the form taken by
     the sexual relation in any period may be inferred from the
     predominance of one or other of these universal ideas in the
     worship of a people.”[24]

    [24] _Ibid._, Intro., p. xxix.

Such, in outline, is Bachofen’s famous matriarchal theory. The
passages I have quoted, with the comments I have ventured to give,
make plain the poetic exaggeration of his view, and sufficiently prove
why his theory no longer gains any considerable support. To build up a
dream-picture of mother-rule on such foundations was, of necessity, to
let it perish in the dust of scepticism. But is the downthrow
complete? I believe not. A new structure has to be built up on a new
and surer foundation, and it may yet appear that the prophetic vision
of the dreamer enabled Bachofen to see much that has escaped the sight
of those who have criticised and rejected his assumption that power
was once in the hands of women.

One great source of confusion has arisen through the acceptance by the
supporters of the matriarchate of the view that men and women lived
originally in a state of promiscuity. This is the opinion of Bachofen,
of McLennan, of Morgan, and also of many other authorities, who have
believed maternal descent to be dependent on the uncertainty of
fatherhood. It will be remembered that Mr. McLennan brought forward
his theory almost simultaneously with that of Bachofen. The basis of
his view is a belief in an ancient communism in women. He holds that
the earliest form of human societies was the group or horde, and not
the family. He affirms that these groups can have had no idea of
kinship, and that the men would hold their women, like their other
goods, in common, which is, of course, equal to a general promiscuity.
There he agrees with Bachofen’s belief in unbridled _hetaïrism_, but
a very different explanation is given of the change which led to
regulation, and the establishment of the maternal family.

According to Mr. McLennan, the primitive group or horde, though
originally without explicit consciousness of relationships, were yet
held together by a _feeling_ of kin. Such feeling would become
conscious first between the mother and her children, and, in this way,
mother-kin must have been realised at a very early period. Mr.
McLennan then shows the stages by which the savage would gradually, by
reflection, reach a knowledge of the other relationships through the
mother, sister and brother relationships, mother’s brother and
mother’s sister, and all the degrees of mother-kin, at a time before
the father’s relation to his children had been established. The
children, though belonging at first to the group, would remain
attached to the mothers, and the blood-tie established between them
would, as promiscuity gave place to more regulated sexual
relationships, become developed into a system. All inheritance would
pass through women only, and, in this way, mother-right would tend to
be more or less strongly developed. The mother would live alone with
her children, the only permanent male members of the family being the
sons, who would be subordinate to her. The husband would visit the
wife, as is the custom under polyandry, which form of the sexual
relationship Mr. McLennan believes was developed from promiscuity--a
first step towards individual marriage. Even after the next step was
taken, and the husband came to live with his wife, his position was
that of a visitor in her home, where she would have the protection of
her own kindred. She would still be the owner of her children, who
would bear her name, and not the father’s; and the inheritance of all
property would still be in the female line.[25]

    [25] _Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 83, _et seq._

We have here what appears to be a much more reasonable explanation of
mother-kin and mother-right than that of Bachofen. Yet many have
argued powerfully against it. Westermarck especially, has shown that
belief in an early stage of promiscuous relationship is altogether
untenable.[26] It is needless here to enter into proof of this.[27]
What matters now is that with the giving up of promiscuity the whole
structure of McLennan’s theory falls to pieces. He takes it for
granted that at one period paternity was unrecognised; but this is
very far from being true. The idea of the father’s relationship to the
child is certainly known among the peoples who trace descent through
the mother; the system is found frequently where strict monogamy is
practised. Again, Mr. McLennan connects polyandry with mother-descent,
regarding the custom of plurality of husbands as a development from
promiscuity. Here, too, he has been proved to be in error. Whatever
the causes of the origin of polyandry, it has no direct connection
with mother-kin, although it is sometimes practised by peoples who
observe that system.

    [26] _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 51-133. It is on this
    question that my own opinion has been changed, compare _The
    Truth about Woman_, p. 120.

    [27] See next chapter on the Patriarchal Theory.

For myself, I incline to the opinion that the system by which
inheritance passes through the mother needs no explanation. It was
necessarily (and, as I believe, is still) the _natural_ method of
tracing descent. Moreover, it was adopted as a matter of course by
primitive peoples among whom property considerations had not arisen.
Afterwards what had started as a habit was retained as a system. The
reasons for naming children after the mother did not rest on
relationship, the earliest question was not one of kinship, but of
association. Those were counted as related to one another who dwelt
together.[28] The children lived with the mother, and therefore, as a
matter of course, were called after her, and not the father, who did
not live in the same home.

    [28] Starcke, _The Primitive Family in its Origin and
    Development_, pp. 36, 37.

All these questions will be understood better as we proceed with our
inquiry. The important thing to fix in our minds is that mother-kin
and mother-right (contrary to the opinion of McLennan and others) may
very well have arisen quite independently of dubious fatherhood. It
thus becomes evident that the maternal system offers no evidence for
the hypothesis of promiscuity; we shall find, in point of fact, that
it arose out of the regulation of the sexual relations, and had no
connection with licence. It is necessary to understand this clearly.

Bachofen is much nearer to what is likely to have happened in the
first stage of the family than Mr. McLennan, though he also mistakenly
connects the maternal system with unregulated _hetaïrism_. Still he
suggests (though it would seem quite unconsciously) the patriarchal
hypothesis, which founds the family first on the brute-force of the
male. Mother-right has been discredited chiefly, as far as I have been
able to find, because it is impossible to accept, at this early
period, sexual conditions of the friendly ownership of women, entirely
opposed to what was the probable nature of brute man. At this stage
the eldest male in the family would be the ruler, and he would claim
sexual rights over all the women in the group. Bachofen postulates a
revolt of women to establish marriage. We have seen that such a
supposition, in the form in which he puts it, is without any credible
foundation. Yet, it is part of my theory that there was a revolt of
women, or rather a combination of the mothers of the group, which led
to a change in the direction of sexual regulation and order. But the
causes of such revolt, and the way in which it was accomplished, were,
in my opinion, entirely different from those which Bachofen supposes.
The arguments in support of my view will be given in the next two
chapters.




CHAPTER III

DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS: AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE MOTHER-RIGHT WITH
THE PATRIARCHAL THEORY.


The foundation of the Patriarchal theory is the jealous sexual nature
of the male. This is important; indeed profoundly significant. The
strongest argument against promiscuity is to be gained from what we
know of this factor of jealousy in the sexual relationships.

“The season of love is the season of battle,” says Darwin. Such was
the law passed on to man from millions of his ancestral lovers. The
action of this law[29] may be observed at its fiercest intensity among
man’s pre-human ancestors. Courtship without combat is rare among all
male quadrupeds, and special offensive and defensive weapons for use
in these love-fights are found; for this is the sex-tragedy of the
natural world, the love-tale red-written in blood.

    [29] The reader is referred to _The Truth about Woman_, pp.
    87-114. In the courtships and perfect love marriages of many
    birds we find jealous combats replaced by the peaceful
    charming of the female by the male.

This factor of sexual jealousy--the conflict of the male for
possession of the female--has not been held in sufficient account by
those who regard promiscuity as being the earliest stage in the sexual
relationships. That jealousy is still a powerful agent even in the
most civilised races is a fact on which it is unnecessary to dwell.
This being so, and since the action of jealousy is so strong in the
animal kingdom, it cannot be supposed to have been dormant among
primitive men. Rather, in the infancy of his history this passion must
have acted with very great intensity. Thus it becomes impossible to
accept any theory of the community of women in the earliest stage of
the family. For inevitably such peaceful association would be broken
up by jealous battles among the males, in which the strongest member
would kill or drive away his rivals.

Great stress is laid, by the supporters of promiscuity, on the danger
that such conflicts must have been to the growing community. It is,
therefore, held that in order to prevent this check on their
development, it was necessary for the male members not to give way to
jealousy, but to be content with promiscuous ownership of women. But
this is surely to credit savage man with a control of the driving
jealous instinct that he could not then have had? What we do not find
in the sexual conduct of men, as they now are, cannot be credited as
existing in the infancy of social life. We fall into many mistakes in
judging these questions of sex; we under-estimate the strength of
love-passion--the uncounted ancestral forces dating back to the
remote beginnings of life. Doubtless conflicts over the possession of
women were frequent from the beginning of man’s history. But these
disputes would not lead to promiscuous intercourse, only to a change
in the tyrant male, who ruled over the women in the group.

Another fact against a belief in promiscuity is that the lowest
savages known to us are not promiscuous, in so far as there is no
proved case of the sexual relations being absolutely unregulated. They
all recognise sets of women with whom certain sets of men can have no
marital relations. Again these savages are very far removed from the
state of man’s first emergence from the brute, as is proved by their
combination into large and friendly tribes. Such peaceful aggregation
could only have arisen at a much later period, and after the males had
learnt by some means to control their brute appetites and jealousy of
rivals in that movement towards companionship, which, first resting in
the sexual needs, broadens out into the social instincts.

For these reasons, then, we conclude that the theory of a friendly
union having existed among males in the primitive group is the very
reverse of the truth. This question has now been sufficiently proved.
I am thus brought into agreement with Dr. Westermarck, Mr. Crawley,
and Mr. Lang, in his examination of Mr. Atkinson’s _Primal Law_, as
well as with other writers, all of whom have shown that promiscuity
cannot be accepted as a stage in the early life of the human family.

I have now to show how far this rejection of promiscuity affects our
position with regard to mother-descent and mother-right. It is clearly
of vital importance to any theory that its foundations are secure. One
foundation--that of promiscuity, on which Bachofen and McLennan, the
two upholders of matriarchy, base their hypothesis--has been
overthrown. It thus becomes necessary to approach the question from an
altogether different position. Mother-right must be explained without
any reference to unregulated sexual conduct. I am thus turned back to
examine the opposing theory to matriarchy, which founds the family on
the patriarchal authority of the father. Nor is this all. What we must
expect a true theory to do is to show conditions that are applicable
not only to special cases, but in their main features to mankind in
general. I have to prove that such conditions arose in the primitive
patriarchal family as it advanced towards social aggregation, that
would not only make possible, but, as I believe, would necessitate the
power of the mothers asserting its force in the group-family. Only
when this is done can I hope that a new belief in mother-right may
find acceptance.

The patriarchal theory stated in its simplest form is this: Primeval
man lived in small family groups, composed of an adult male, and of
his wife, or, if he were powerful, several wives, whom he jealously
guarded from the sexual advances of all other males. In such a group
the father is the chief or patriarch as long as he lives, and the
family is held together by their common subjection to him. As for the
children, the daughters as soon as they grow up are added to his
wives, while the sons are driven out from the home at the time they
reach an age to be dangerous as sexual rivals to their father. The
important thing to note is that _in each group there would be only one
adult polygamous male, with many women of different ages and young
children_. I shall return to this later. Such is the marked difference
in the position of the two sexes--the solitary jealously unsocial
father and the united mothers. I can but wonder how its significance
has escaped the attention of the many inquirers, who have sought the
truth in this matter. Probably the explanation is to be found in this:
they have been interested mainly in one side of the family--the male
side; I am interested in the other side--in the women members of the
group. The position of women has seemed of primary importance to very
few. Bachofen is almost alone in placing this question first, and his
mystical far-fetched hypothesis has failed to find acceptance.

Let me now, in order to make the position clearer, continue a rough
grouping of the supposed conditions in this primordial family, with
all its members in subjection to the common father. It may be argued
that we can know nothing at all about the family and the position of
the two sexes at this brute period. This is true. The conditions are,
of course, conjectural, and any suggested conclusions to be drawn from
them must be still more so. Yet some hypothesis must be risked as a
starting-point for any theory that attempts to go so far back in the
stream of time.

We may suppose, then, that mankind aboriginally lived in small
families in much the same way as the great monkeys: we see the same
conditions, for instance, among the families of gorillas, where the
group never becomes large. The male leader will not endure the rivalry
of the young males, and as soon as they grow up a contest takes place,
and the strongest and eldest male, by killing or driving out the
others, maintains his position as the tyrant head of the family.[30]

    [30] Darwin, _Descent of Man_. Wallace, _The Malay
    Archipelago_, and Brehm, _Thierleben_.

This may be taken as a picture of the human brute-family. It is clear
that the relation of the father to the other group members was not one
of kinship, but of power. “Every female in my crowd is my property,”
says--or feels--Mr. Atkinson’s patriarchal anthropoid, “and the
patriarch gives expression to his sentiment with teeth and claws, if
he has not yet learned to double up his fist with a stone in it. These
were early days.”[31]

    [31] _Social Origins and Primal Law_, pp. 4, 21. Westermarck,
    pp. 13, 42. _Primal Law_, pp. 209-212.

We may conclude that there would be many of these groups, each with a
male head, his wives and adult daughters, and children of both sexes.
It is probable that they lived a nomadic life, finding a temporary
home in a cave, rock, or tree-shelter, in some place where the supply
of food was plentiful. The area of their wanderings would be fixed by
the existence of other groups; for such groups would almost certainly
be mutually hostile to each other, watchfully resenting any intrusion
on their own feeding ground. A further, and more powerful, cause of
hostility would arise from the sexual antagonism of the males. Around
each group would be the band of exiled sons, haunting their former
hearth-homes, and forming a constant element of danger to the solitary
paternal tyrant. This I take to be important as we shall presently
see. For, the most urgent necessity of these young men, after the need
for food, must have been to obtain wives. This could be done only by
capturing women from one or other of the groups. The difficulties
attending such captures must have been great. It is, therefore,
probable the young men at first kept together, sharing their wives in
polyandrous union. But this condition would not continue, the group
thus formed would inevitably break up at the adult stage under the
influence of jealousy; the captured wives would be fought for and
carried off by the strongest males to form fresh groups.

In this matter I have given the opinion of Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Lang.
They hold that no permanent peaceful union could have been maintained
among the groups of young men and their captive wives. Mr. Atkinson
gives the reason--

     “Their unity could only endure as long as the youthfulness
     of the members necessitated union for protection, and their
     immaturity prevented the full play of sexual passion.” And
     again: “The necessary Primal Law which alone could determine
     peace within a family circle by recognising a _distinction
     between female and male_ (the indispensable antecedent to a
     definition of marital rights) could never have arisen in
     such a body. It follows if such a law was ever evoked, it
     must have been from _within the only other assembly in
     existence_, viz. that headed by the solitary polygamous
     patriarch.”[32]

    [32] _Social Origins and Primal Law_, p. 230. Mr. Atkinson
    writes this to show that there can be no connection between
    these groups of young males and the polyandrous marriages of
    Mr. McLennan’s theory. The first italics in the passage are
    his own; the second are mine. Why I wish to emphasise this
    point will soon be seen. I have already mentioned how I was
    recommended to read _Social Origins_ to convince me of my
    mistake in accepting the mother-age. It has done just the
    opposite, and has given me the clue to many difficulties that
    I was before unable to clear up. This is why I am following
    this book rather than other authorities in my examination of
    the patriarchal theory. I take this opportunity of recording
    my debt to the authors, and of expressing my thanks to Mr.
    Wells, who recommended me to read the book.

Whether Mr. Atkinson is right I shall not attempt to say; the point is
one on which I hesitate a decided opinion; but as this view affords
support to my own theory I shall accept it.

Now, to consider the bearing of this on our present inquiry. So far I
have followed very closely the family group gathered around the
patriarchal tyrant, under the conditions given by Mr. Atkinson and Mr.
Lang, in _Social Origins and Primal Law_. It will not, I think, have
escaped the notice of the reader that very little has been said about
the women and their children. There is no hint at all that the women
must have lived a life of their own, different in its conditions from
that of the men. The female members, it would seem, have been taken
for granted and not considered, except in so far as their presence is
necessary to excite the jealous sexual combats of the males. This
seems to be very instructive. The idea of the subjection of all
females to the solitary male has been accepted without question. But
the group consisted of _many women and only one adult man_. Yet in
spite of this, the man is held to be the essential member; all the
family obey him. His wife (or wives) and his daughters, though
necessary to his pleasure as also to continue the group, are regarded
as otherwise unimportant, in fact, mere property possessions to him.
Now, I am very sure the rights these group-women must have held have
been greatly underrated, and the neglect to recognise this has led, I
think, to many mistakes. I am willing to accept the authority of the
polygamous patriarch--within limits. But it seems probable, as I shall
shortly indicate, that a predominant influence in the domestic life is
to be ascribed to the women, and, therefore, “the movement towards
peace within the group circle” must be looked for as a result from the
feminine side of the family, rather than from the male side. There is
still another point: I maintain that precisely through the
concentration of the male ruler on the sexual subjection of his
females, conditions must have arisen, affecting the conduct and
character of the women: conditions, moreover, that would bring them
inevitably more and more into a position of power.

It remains for me to suggest what I believe these conditions to have
been. Meanwhile let us keep one fact steadily before our minds. The
fierce sexual jealousy of the males had by some means to be
controlled. It is evident that the way towards social progress could
be found only by the peaceful aggregation of these solitary hostile
groups; and this could not be done without breaking down the rule that
strength and seniority in the male conferred upon him marital right
over all the females. In other words, the tyrant patriarch had in some
way to learn to tolerate the presence of other adult males on friendly
terms within his own group. We have to find how this first, but
momentous, step in social progress was taken.

Let us concentrate now our attention on the domestic life of the
women. And first we must examine more carefully the exact conditions
that we may suppose to have existed in these hostile groups. The
father is the tyrant of the band--an egoist. Any protection he affords
the family is in his own interests, he is chief much more than father.
His sons he drives away as soon as they are old enough to give him any
trouble; his daughters he adds to his harem. We may conceive that the
domination of his sexual jealousy must have chiefly occupied his time
and his attention. It is probable that he was fed by his women; at
least it seems certain that he cannot have provided food for them and
for all the children of the group. Sex must have been uninterruptedly
interesting to him. In the first place he had to capture his wife, or
wives, then he had to fight for the right of sole possession.
Afterwards he had to guard his women, especially his daughters, from
being carried off, in their turn, by younger males, his deadly rivals,
who, exiled by sexual jealousy from his own and the other similar
hearth-homes, would come, with each returning year, more and more to
be feared. An ever-recurring and growing terror would dog each step of
the solitary paternal despot, and necessitate an unceasing
watchfulness against danger, and even an anticipation of death. For
when old age, or sickness decreased his power of holding his own, then
the tables would be turned, and the younger men, so hardly oppressed,
would raise their hands against him in parricidal strife.

You will see what all this strife suggests--the unstable and
adventitious relation of the man to the social hearth-group. Such
conditions of antagonism of each male against every other male must
favour the assumption that no advance in peace--on which alone all
future progress depended--could have come from the patriarchs.
Jealousy forced them into unsocial conduct.

But advance by peace to progress was by some means to be made. I
believe that the way was opened up by women.

I hasten to add, however, in case I am mistaken here, that I am very
far from wishing to set up any claim of superiority for savage woman
over savage man. The momentous change was not, indeed, the result of
any higher spiritual quality in the female, nor was it a religious
movement, as is the beautiful dream of Bachofen. I do not think we can
credit “a movement” as having taken place at all, rather the change
arose gradually, inevitably, and quite simply. To postulate a
conscious movement towards progress organised by women is surely
absurd. Human nature does not start on any new line of conduct
voluntarily, rather it is forced into it in connection with the
conditions of life. Just as savage man was driven into unsocial
conduct, so, as I shall try to show, savage woman was led by the same
conditions acting in an opposite direction, into social conduct.

My own thought was drawn first to this conclusion by noting the
behaviour of a band of female turkeys with their young. It was a year
ago. I was staying in a Sussex village, and near by my home was the
meadow of a farm in which families of young turkeys were being reared.
Here I often sat; and one day it chanced that I was reading _Social
Origins and Primal Law_. I had reached the chapter on “Man in the
Brutal Stage,” in which Mr. Atkinson gives the supposed facts of brute
man, and the action of his jealousy in the family group. I was very
much impressed; my reason told me that what the author stated so well
was probably right. Such sexually jealous conduct on the part of
savage man was likely to be true; it was much easier to accept this
than the state of promiscuous intercourse, with its friendly
communism in women, in which I had hitherto believed. I really was
very much disturbed. For I was still unshaken in my belief in
mother-right. How were the two theories to be reconciled?

Often it is a small thing that points to the way for which one is
seeking. All at once my little boy, who had been playing in the field,
called out, “Oh, look at the Gobble-gobble,”--the name by which he
called the male-turkey. The cock, his great tail spread, his throat
swelling, was swaggering across the field, making an immense amount of
noisy disturbance. A group of females and young birds, many of them
almost full grown, were near to where we were sitting; they had been
rooting about in the ground getting their food. Their fear at the
approach of the strutting male was manifest. All the band gathered
together, with the young in the centre, led and flanked by the
mothers. As the male continued to advance upon them they retreated
further and further, and finally took harbour in a barn. Here the
swaggerer tried to follow them, but the rear females turned and faced
him and drove him off.

I had found the clue that I was seeking. All I had been reading now
had a clear meaning for me. In my delight, I laughed aloud. I saw the
egoism of the solitary male; I knew the meaning of the females’
retreat; they were guarding the young from the feared attacks of the
father. I realised how the male’s unsocial conduct towards his
offspring had forced the females to unite with one another. The cock’s
strength, the gorgeous display of sex-charms, were powerless before
this peaceful combination. He was alone, a tyrant--the destroyer of
the family. But I saw, too, that his polygamous jealousy served as a
means to the end of advance in progress. It was the male’s non-social
conduct that had forced social conduct upon the females. And I
understood that the patriarchal tyrant was just the one thing I had
been looking for. My belief in mother-power had gained a new and, as I
felt then in the first delight of that discovery, and as I still feel,
a much surer, because a simpler and more natural foundation.

Having now defined my position, and having related how such conviction
came to me, let me proceed to examine the causes that would lead to
the assertion of women’s power, in the aboriginal family group. From
what has been said, the following conditions acting on the women, may,
it is submitted, be fairly deduced.

     1. In the group, which comprised the mothers, the adult
     daughters, and the young of both sexes, the women would live
     on terms of association as friendly hearth-mates.

     2. The strongest factor in this association would arise from
     the dependence of the children upon their mothers; a
     dependence that was of much longer duration than among the
     animals, on account of the pre-eminent helplessness of the
     human child, which entailed a more prolonged infancy.

     3. The women and their children would form the group, to
     which the father was attached by his sexual needs, but
     remained always a member apart--a kind of jealous fighting
     specialisation.

     4. The temporary hearth-home would be the shelter of the
     women; and it was under this shelter that children were born
     and the group accumulated its members. Whether cave, or
     hollow tree, or some frail shelter, the home must have
     belonged to the women.

     5. And this state would necessarily attach the mothers to
     the home, much more closely than the father, whose desire
     lay in the opposite direction of disrupting the home.
     Moreover this attachment always would be present and acting
     on the female children, who, unless captured, would remain
     with the mothers, while it could never arise in the case of
     the sons, whose fate was to be driven from the home. Such
     conditions must, as time went on, have profoundly modified
     the women’s outlook, bending their desires to a steady,
     settled life, conditions under which alone the germ of
     social organisation could develop.

     6. Again, the daily search for the daily food must have been
     undertaken chiefly by the women. For it is impossible that
     one man, however skilful a hunter, could have fed all the
     female members and children of the group. We may conceive
     that his attention and his time must have been occupied
     largely in fighting his rivals; while much of his strength,
     as sole progenitor, must have been expended in sex. It is
     therefore probable that frequently the patriarch was
     dependent on the food activities of his women.

     7. The mothers, their inventive faculties quickened by the
     stress of child-bearing and child-rearing, would learn to
     convert to their own uses the most available portion of
     their environment. It would be under the attention of the
     women that plants were first utilised for food. Seeds would
     be beaten out, roots and tubers dug for, and nuts and fruits
     gathered in their season and stored for use. Birds would
     have to be snared, shell-fish and fish would be caught;
     while, at a later period, animals would be tamed for
     service. Primitive domestic vessels to hold and to carry
     water, baskets to store the food supplies would have to be
     made. Clothes for protection against the cold would come to
     be fashioned. All the faculties of the women, in exercises
     that would lead to the development of every part of their
     bodies, would be called into play by the work of satisfying
     the physical needs of the group.

     8. This interest and providence for the family would
     certainly have its effect on the development of the women.
     The formation of character is largely a matter of attention,
     and the attention of the mothers being fixed on the supply
     of the necessary food, doubtless often difficult to obtain,
     their energies would be driven into productive activities,
     much more than in the case of the father, whose attention
     was fixed upon himself.

     9. In all these numerous activities the women of each group
     would work together. And through this co-operation must have
     resulted the assertion of the women’s power, as the
     directors and organisers of industrial occupations. As the
     group slowly advanced in progress, such power increasing
     would raise the women’s position; the mothers would
     establish themselves permanently as of essential value in
     the family, not only as the givers of life, but as the chief
     providers of the food essential to the preservation of the
     life of its members.

     10. And a further result would follow in the treatment by
     the male of this new order. The women by obtaining and
     preparing food would gain an economic value. Wives would
     become to the patriarch a source of riches, indispensable to
     him, not only on account of his sex needs, but on account of
     the more persistent need of food. Thus the more women he
     possessed the greater would be his own comfort, and the
     physical prosperity of the group. The women would become of
     ever greater importance, and the economic power that they
     thus acquired would more and more favourably influence their
     position.

     11. There is one other matter in this connection. The
     greater number of women in the group the stronger would
     become their power of combination. I attach great importance
     to this. Working together for the welfare of all, the social
     motive would grow stronger in women, so that necessarily
     they would come to consider the collective interests of the
     group. Can it be credited that such conditions could have
     acted upon the patriarch, whose conduct would still be
     inspired by individual appetite and selfish inclinations? I
     maintain such a view to be impossible.

     12. Another advantage, I think, would arise for women out of
     the male’s jealous tyranny in the sexual relationship. Such
     an idea may appear strange, if we think only of the
     subjection of the females to the brute-appetite of the
     patriarch. Yet there is another side. The women must have
     gained freedom by being less occupied with sex passions, and
     also from being less jealously interested in the man than he
     was in them. It may be urged that the women would be jealous
     of each other. I do not think this could have been. Jealousy
     has its roots in the consciousness of possession, and is
     only aroused through fear of loss. This could not have acted
     with any great power among the women in the patriarchal
     group. Their interest of possession in sex must have been
     less acute in consciousness than the interest of the male.
     Doubtless the woman would be attracted by the male’s
     courageous action in fighting his rivals for possession of
     her, but when the rival was the woman’s son such attraction
     would come into strong conflict with the deeper maternal
     instinct.

     13. From the standpoint of physical strength, the patriarch
     was the master, the tyrant ruler of the group, who,
     doubtless, often was brutal enough. But the women, leading
     an independent life to some extent, and with their mental
     ingenuity developed by the conditions of their life, would
     learn, I believe, to outwit their master by passive united
     resistance. They would come to utilise their sex charms as
     an accessory of success. Thus the unceasing sexual
     preoccupation of the male, with the emotional dependence it
     entailed on the females, must, I would suggest, have given
     women an immense advantage. If I am right here, the
     patriarch would be in the power of his women, much more
     surely than they would be in his power.

     14. Again, an antagonism must have arisen between the despot
     father and his women, in particular with his daughters,
     forced to submit to his brute-passions. I confess I find
     grave difficulty in reconciling the view that the
     group-daughters would willingly become the wives of their
     father. I cannot conceive them without some power to
     exercise that choice in love, which is the right of the
     female throughout nature. There is great insistence by Mr.
     Atkinson, and all who have written on the subject, on the
     sexual passions of the males, while the desires of the women
     are not considered at all. Apparently they are held to have
     had none! This affords yet another instance of the strange
     concentration on the male side of the family. It is taken
     for granted, for instance, that in every case the young men,
     when driven from their home, had to capture their wives from
     other groups. I would suggest that often the capture was
     aided by the woman herself; she may even have escaped from
     the hearth-home in her desire to find a partner, preferring
     the rule of a young tyrant to an old one, who moreover was
     her father. I believe, too, that the wives and mothers must
     frequently have asserted their will in rebellion. I picture,
     indeed, these savage women ever striving for more
     privileges, and step by step advancing through peaceful
     combination to power.

     15. I desire also to maintain that all I have here suggested
     finds support from what is known of the position of women
     among primitive peoples; and I may add also, from the
     character of women to-day.

Now I have summarised briefly what seem to me the probable conditions
of the women’s daily life in these earliest groups. I have attempted
to show how the sexual jealousy, which acted for the destruction of
the mutually hostile male members, would necessitate for the women
conditions in many ways favourable; conditions of union in which lay
the beginnings of peace and order. What we have to fix in our thoughts
is the significant fact of the sociability of the women’s lives in
contrast with the solitude of the jealous sire, watchfully resenting
the intrusion of all other males. Such conditions cannot have failed
to domesticate the women, and urged them forward to the work that was
still to be done in domesticating man. During the development of the
family, we may expect that the patriarch will seek to hold his rights,
and that the women will exert their influence more and more in
breaking these down; and this is precisely what we do find, as I
presently shall show.

One point further. It may, of course, be urged that all I am affirming
for women in this far back beginning is but a process of ingenious
guessing. Such criticism is just. But I am speaking of conditions at a
time when conjecture is necessary. I venture to say that my
suggestions are in accord with what is likely to have happened.
Moreover, many difficulties will be made clearer if these guesses are
accepted. I believe that here in the earliest patriarchal stage we
have already the germs of the maternal family. All the chances for
success in power rested with the united mothers, rather than with the
solitary father. Assuredly the jealous patriarchs paid a heavy price
for their sexual domination.




CHAPTER IV

DEVELOPMENT IN THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY AND THE RISE OF MOTHER-POWER


The essential question, now, is how these small hostile groups were
brought by association to expand into larger groups. In what way was
the sexual monopoly of the male ruler first curbed, and afterwards
broken down, for only by this being done could peace be gained?
However advantageous the habits of the patriarch may have been for
himself, they were directly opposed to progress. Jealousy depends on
the failure to recognise the rights of others. This sexual egoism, by
which one man through his strength and seniority held marital rights
over all the females of his group, had to be struck at its roots. In
other words, the solitary despot had to learn to tolerate the
association of other adult males.

How was this happy change to be brought about? Social qualities are
surely developed in the character by union with one’s fellow beings.
From what has been stated, it seems certain that it was in the
interests of the women to consolidate the family, and by means of
association to establish their own power. Jealousy is an absolutely
non-social quality. Regarding its influence, it is certainly absurd
to believe any voluntary association to have been possible among the
males of the hostile patriarchal groups; to credit this is to give the
lie to the entire theory. We are driven, therefore, to seek for the
beginnings of social conduct among the women. I have suggested the
conditions forcing them into combination with one another against the
tyranny of the patriarch. I have now to show how these causes,
continually acting, brought the women step by step into a position of
authority and power. There is, however, no suggestion of a spiritual
revolt on the part of women. I do not wish to set up any claim for,
because I do not believe in, the superiority of one sex over the other
sex. Character is determined by the conditions of living. If, as I
conceive, progress came through savage women, rather than through
savage men, it was because the conditions were really more favourable
to them, and drove them on in the right path. However strange it may
appear, their sexual subjection to the fierce jealousy of the
patriarch acted as a means to an end in advancing peace.

The strongest force of union between the women would grow out of the
consciousness of an ever-threatening and common danger. Not only had
the young to be fed and cared for during infancy and childhood, but,
as they grew in years, they had to be guarded from the father, whose
relation to his offspring was that of an enemy. It has been seen how
the sons were banished at puberty from the family group to maintain
the patriarch’s marital rights. Doubtless the strength of maternal
love gained in intensity through the many failures in conflicts, that
must have taken place with the tyrant fathers. Would not this
community of suffering tend to force the women to unite with one
another, at each renewed banishment of their sons? May they not, after
the banishment, have assisted their sons in the capture of their
wives? I think it must be allowed that this is possible. And there is
another point to notice. The exiled sons and their captured wives
would each have a mother in the groups they had left. May it not be
conceived that, as time brought progress in intelligence, some
friendly communication might have been established between group and
group, in defiance of the jealous guardianship of the patriarchs?
Thus, through the danger, ever to be feared in every family, there
might open up a way by sympathy to a possible future union.

It is part of my supposition that every movement towards friendship
must have arisen among the women. This is no fanciful idea of my own.
Mr. Atkinson, one of the strongest supporters of the patriarchal
theory, agrees with this view, though he does not seem to see its
origin, and does not follow up its deep suggestion. By him the
movement in advance is narrowed to a single issue of peace between the
father and his sons, but this great step is credited to the influence
of the mothers. I must quote the passages that refer to this--[33]

    [33] _Primal Law_, pp. 231-232.

     “At the renewed banishment of each of her male progeny by
     the jealous patriarch, the mother’s feelings and instincts
     would be increasingly lacerated and outraged. Her agonised
     efforts to retain at least her last and youngest would be
     even stronger than with her first born. It is exceedingly
     important to observe that her chances of success in this
     case would be much greater. When this last and dearest son
     approached adolescence, it is not difficult to perceive that
     the patriarch must have reached an age when the fire of
     desire may have become somewhat dull, whilst, again, his
     harem, from the presence of numerous adult daughters, would
     be increased to an extent that might have overtaxed his once
     more active powers. Given some such rather exceptional
     situation, where a happy opportunity in superlative mother
     love wrestled with a for once satiated paternal appetite in
     desire, we may here discern a possible key of the
     sociological problem which occupies us, and which consisted
     in a conjunction within one group of two adult males.”

In the next paragraph the author presents the situation which in this
way might have arisen--

     “We must conceive that, in the march of the centuries, on
     some fateful day, the bloody tragedy in the last act of the
     familiar drama was avoided, and the edict of exile or death
     left unpronounced. _Pure maternal love triumphed over the
     demons of lust and jealousy._ A mother succeeded in keeping
     by her side a male child, and thus, by a strange
     coincidence, that father and son, who, amongst all mammals,
     had been the most deadly enemies, were now the first to join
     hands. So portentous an alliance might well bring the world
     to their feet. The family would now present for the first
     time, the until then unknown spectacle of the inclusion
     within a domestic circle, and amidst its component females,
     of an adolescent male youth. It must, however, be admitted
     that such an event, at such an epoch, demanded imperatively
     very exceptional qualities, both physiological and
     psychological, in the primitive agents. The new happy ending
     to that old-world drama which had run so long through blood
     and tears, was an innovation requiring very unusually gifted
     actors. How many failures had doubtless taken place in its
     rehearsal during the centuries, with less able or happy
     interpreters!”

Mr. Atkinson supposes that success in the new experiment “was rendered
possible by the rise of new powers in nascent man.” Here I do not
follow him. “The germ of altruism,” which he sees as “already having
risen to make its force felt” was, indeed, as he says “an important
factor.” But is it credible that this altruism existed in the father?
I can conceive him being won over through his own emotional dependence
on some specially pleasing woman; he may well have had favourites
among his wives. I cannot accept “altruism” as a reason for his
conduct, under conditions acting in an exact opposite way in fostering
and increasing egoism. Much more probable is the supposition that he
“must have reached the age when the fire of desire had become somewhat
dulled.”

I must also take exception to a further statement of Mr. Atkinson,
“that with such prolonged infancy there had been opportunity for the
development of paternal philoprogenitiveness.” And again: “It is
evident that such long-continued presence of sons could but result in
a certain mutual sympathy, however inevitable the eventual exile.” It
is unnecessary for me to labour this question. I may, however, point
out, that the identical conditions of the family among the anthropoid
apes (on whom Mr. Atkinson bases his patriarchy) do not afford any
proof of paternal altruism. The polygamous jealous father never enters
into friendly union with the other males. He is strong and sexually
beautiful, but he is never social in his domestic conduct. He is the
tyrant in the family, and the young are guarded from his attacks by
the mothers. With the mothers there is protection and safety, with the
father ownership. The whole argument of the patriarchal theory is
based on the fact of the jealous conduct of the male. Driven to live
in solitary enmity, the patriarch could not voluntarily tolerate the
presence of a rival, if he was to maintain his position as ruler. It
is impossible to get away from this. Mr. Atkinson comes very near to
this essential truth, when he suggests (though he does not fully
acknowledge) that the first step in social development came through
the mother’s love for her child; but at once he turns aside from this,
drawn, I think unconsciously, to the common opinion of the complete
subjection of the females to the male, an opinion always making it
difficult to accept the initiative in reform as coming from the woman.

The exclusive and persisting idea of Mr. Atkinson’s theory is to
establish the action of what he calls “the primal law.” Only by
limiting and defining the marital rights of the males over the females
could advancement be gained. Until this was done these small hostile
groups could not become larger, and expand into the clan or tribe.

I must follow this question a little although it leads us aside from
the immediate subject of my own inquiry. The first step in progress
has been taken; by the triumph of maternal love, an adult male son is
now included in the group. We must conceive that this victory, having
once been gained by one mother, would be repeated by other mothers.
Afterwards, as time went on, the advantage in strength gained to the
group by this increase in their male members, would tend to encourage
the custom. One may reasonably assume that it became established as a
habit in each group that once had taken the first step. Father and
sons, for so long enemies, now enter on a truce.

It must not, however, be concluded that sexual peace followed this new
order. It is part of Mr. Atkinson’s theory that the patriarch’s sexual
jealousy would not be broken down by his tolerance of the presence of
his sons. Peace could be maintained only so long as the intruders
respected his marital rights. Under this condition, all the group
women, as they all belonged to the patriarch, would be taboo to the
young men; otherwise there would be a fight, and the offending son
would be driven into exile. Doubtless this frequently happened, but
the advantages gained by union would tend to prevent the danger. Some
means of preserving sexual peace within the group certainly would come
to be established. “For the first time,” as Mr. Atkinson points out,
“we encounter the factor which is to be the leading power in future
metamorphosis, i. e. _an explicit distinction between female and
female as such_.”

Through this bar placed on the female members within the family
circle, the sons, who remained in peace, would be forced to continue
the practice of capturing their wives, and would bring in women to
live with them from other groups. It is assumed that these captures
were in all cases hostile. I have given my reasons for disagreeing
with this view. I hold that the young women may have been glad to have
been taken by the young men, and most probably assisted them, in a
surely not unnatural desire to escape from their tyrant fathers. I
really cannot credit such continued sexual subjection on the part of
the group-daughters, an opinion which arises, I am certain, from the
curious misconception of the passivity of the human female in love.

I do not wish to conceal that my conjecture of an active part having
been taken by the women, both in their captures and also in all the
relationships of the family, is opposed to the great majority of
learned opinion. The reason for this already has been suggested.
Almost invariably the writers on these questions are men, and there
is, I imagine, a certain blindness in their view. I am convinced that
from the earliest beginnings of the human family women have exercised
a much stronger and more direct influence than is usually believed.
All the movements towards regulation and progress, so ingeniously
worked out by Mr. Atkinson, are easier to credit if we accept the
initiative as having come from the group-mothers. I have an inward
conviction of an unchanging law between the two sexes, and though I
cannot here attempt to give any proof, it seems to me, we can always
trace _the absorption by the male of female ideas_. The man accepts
what the woman brings forward, and then assumes the control, believing
he is the originator of her ideas. Take this case of capture: If, as I
suggest, the young women assisted or even took the initiative in their
own captures, they would very plainly not be willing to allow sexual
relationships with another hoary patriarch. I would urge that here
again it was by the action of the young women, rather than the young
men, that the new order was established. But this is a small matter.
If I am right, the communal living and common danger among the women
would powerfully bind them together in union, and sever them from the
male rulers. Once this is granted, it follows that social
consciousness in the women must have been stronger than in the
solitary males. Then there can be no possible doubt of the part taken
by women in the slow advancement of the group by regulation to social
peace. Moreover, I believe, that confirmation of what is here claimed
for women will be found (as will appear in the later part of my
inquiry) in many social habits among existing primitive peoples, who
still live under the favourable conditions of the maternal family;
habits that suggest a long evolutionary process, and that can be
explained only if they have arisen in a very remote beginning. But
enough on this subject has now been said.

Many interesting questions arise from the action of Mr. Atkinson’s
“primal law.” His theory offers a solution of the much-debated
question of the origin of exogamy,[34] the term used first by Mr.
McLennan, in _Primitive Marriage_, for the rule which prohibited
sexual relationships within the group limit. Continence imposed by the
patriarch on his sons within the group, as a condition of his
tolerance of their presence, necessarily and logically entailed
marriage without, with women from some other group. This explanation
of exogamy is so simple that it seems likely to be true. It is much
more reasonable than any of the numerous other theories that have been
brought forward. Mr. McLennan, for instance, suggests that the custom
arose through a scarcity of females, owing to the widespread practice
of female infanticide. This can hardly be accepted, for such
conditions, where they exist, would arise at a much later period. Even
less likely is the theory of Dr. Westermarck, who explains exogamy as
arising from “an instinct against marriage of near kin.” But we have
no proof of the existence of any such instinct.[35] Mr. Crawley’s
view is similar: he connects the custom with the idea of sexual taboo,
which makes certain marriages a deadly sin. It is evident that these
causes could not have operated with the brute patriarch. One great
point in favour of Mr. Atkinson’s view is that it takes us so much
further back. By it exogamy as a custom must have been much earlier
than totemism, as at this stage the different group-families would not
be distinguished by totem names; but its action as a law would become
much stronger when reinforced by the totem superstitions, and would
become fixed in rigid sexual taboos.[36] The strongest of these taboos
is the avoidance between brothers and sisters; this is Mr. Atkinson’s
_primal law_. It is a law that is still a working factor among
barbarous races, and entails restrictions and avoidances of the most
binding nature.

    [34] _Studies._ Chap. VII. “Exogamy: Its Origin.”

    [35] _History of Human Marriage._ Chap. XIV. “Prohibition of
    Marriage between Kindred.”

    [36] _Mystic Rose._

Unfortunately I have not space to write even briefly on this important
and deeply interesting subject. A right understanding of the whole
question of sexual taboos, with the complicated totem superstitions on
which they are based, is very necessary to any inquiry into the
position of women. But to do this I should have to write another book.
All I can say is this: these avoidances had in their origin no
connection with the relative power of the two sexes; nor do I believe
it can be proved that they were established by men rather than by
women. They arose quite naturally, out of the necessity for regulation
as a condition of peace.

Let me give one example that will serve to show how easily mistakes
may arise. One of these rules, common among primitive peoples,
prevents the women from eating with the men. This is often considered
as a proof of the inferior position of the women, whereas it proves
nothing of the kind. It is just one instance out of many numerous laws
of avoidance between wife and husband, sister and brother, mother and
son, and, indeed, between all relations in the family, which are part
of the general rule to restrict sexual familiarity between the two
sexes, set up at a time when moral restraints upon desire could act
but feebly. It was only much later that these sexual taboos came to be
fixed as superstitions, that with unbreakable fetters bound the
freedom of women.

Here, indeed, are facts causing us to think. We perceive how old and
strongly rooted are many customs from which to-day we are fighting to
escape; customs of separation between women and men, which, with
appalling conservatism, have descended through the ages. Will they
ever be broken down? I do not know. These questions are not considered
in adequate fashion; often we are ignorant of the deep forces driving
the sexes into situations of antagonism. Clearly these primitive
avoidances shed strong light on the sexual problems of our day. The
subject is one of profound interest. I wish that it were possible to
follow it, but all this lies outside the limit set to my inquiry, and
already I have been led far from the patriarchal family.

The group has advanced in progress, and now has many features in
common with existing savage peoples. The friendly conjunction of the
father and his sons has established peace. Exogamy has begun to be
practised; and the family in this way has been increased not only by
the presence of the group-sons, but by their captured wives. We have
seen that this would necessitate certain rules of sexual avoidance;
thus the patriarch still holds marital rights over his wives and the
group-daughters, while the captured women are sacred to the
group-sons.

There is now a further important change to consider. Again the rights
of the patriarch have to be restricted; a bar has to be raised to
prevent his adding his daughters to his wives. Only by overcoming this
habit of paternal incest can further social evolution become possible.

On this question I shall give the explanation of Mr. Atkinson; and it
is with real regret that the limit of my space makes it impossible to
quote in full his own words.[37] The change came by _the entrance of
outside suitors as husbands for the daughters and their acceptance as
group-members_.

    [37] _Primal Law._ The chapter “From the Group to the Tribe,”
    pp. 250-263.

At this point a difficulty once again arises. By what means was the
patriarch brought to accept the presence of these young intruders,
thus usurping his sexual rights over his daughters? Mr. Atkinson
believes this could not have taken place during the life of the
patriarch. “The initiative in change must have arisen irrespective of
him, or without his presence.” Here Mr. Atkinson appears to me to fall
into error, as once more he neglects to consider the effect of the
young women’s own desires. I hold that, by this time, the
group-daughters, supported by their mothers, must have been strong
enough to outwit their father (whose authority already had been
weakened), if not openly, then by deceiving him. They would now see
their brothers living with young wives. Is it credible, I ask, that
they would remain content with the sexual embraces of their father?

In this connection it is of interest to note the opposition sometimes
offered by young females to the advances of an old male among the
families of monkeys. I have received quite recently an account of such
a case in a letter from my friend, Max Henry Ferrass, formerly
Inspector of Schools in India, and the author of a valuable work on
Burmah. This is what he says--

     “I once was able to observe a herd of common long-tailed
     monkeys of the Indian plains at play on a sandbank in a
     river. There were about fifty of all ages. There was one
     great bully among them who looked double the size of the
     average adult--and must have been double the weight, at any
     rate--whose sport was to chase the young females. They,
     knowing his game, fled before him, but he caught them
     readily. But before he could have his will of any, she would
     bound from his grasp as if stung, and always escape, as this
     sudden spurt of energy was more than he could control.”

Here we have a clear instance in which the young females escape from
the thraldom of the male ruler of the horde. The power with which Mr.
Atkinson endows his human patriarch seems to me quite incredible. I
have asserted again and again that the consolidation of the
group-circle was of much greater importance to the women than to the
men. Now this surely points to the acceptance of the view that the
regulation of the brute sexual appetite was initiated by the women.
Thereby, it may be pointed out, their action merely resembles
womankind in any stage from the lowest degree of savagery to the
highest stage of civilisation.

Moreover, there is further proof that points strongly to the
acceptance of this view, that, the new departure, by which young
husbands came into the group, was brought about by the women, in
opposition to the knowledge and will of the patriarch. There exists a
common custom among primitive tribes, which affords evidence of these
outside suitors having visited their brides in secret. I refer to the
practice by which intercourse between the husband and wife is carried
on clandestinely by night. This is one of the earliest forms of
marriage, and, further, it is closely connected, as I shall presently
show, with the maternal family system. There appears to be no real
cause for this precaution. I do not think it can be explained by the
superstitious dread of the sexes for each other, expressing itself in
this form of sexual taboo; as Mr. Crawley and other writers suggest.
Doubtless this is a factor, and a very powerful one, in the
continuance of the custom, but it does not seem to me to be the true
explanation of its origin. Such secrecy and clandestine meetings are,
however, exactly what must have happened if the group-daughters
received their lovers, as I would suggest, in defiance of the will of
the patriarch. May not the custom as it still exists be a survival,
retained and strengthened by superstition, from a time when these
fugitive visits were necessary for safety?[38]

    [38] Mr. Atkinson refers to these clandestine marriages. He
    does not, however, connect the custom, as I suggest, with any
    action on the part of the young women.

Mr. Atkinson’s view is different from mine. He does not allow any
power at all to the women. He holds that after the death of the
patriarch, his daughters, still young, would be left without husbands.
To meet this difficulty suitors are brought from other groups by the
brothers, _i. e._ the sons settled in the group and who now rule. We
are asked to believe that they do this to relieve themselves of the
maintenance of their widowed sisters, and to prevent their being
captured and carried off to other groups. According to Mr. Atkinson
the presence of these outside lovers would not be dangerous to the
family peace. They would come from neighbouring groups, from which
the young men had already captured their wives. In this way the strangers
would be the brothers of their women; and thus the brother-and-sister
avoidance--the primal law already established--would prevent any fear of
interference with the established marital rights on the part of the
new-comers. I strongly differ from the suggestion that the brothers
had to feed and maintain their widowed sisters; such an opinion is but
another example of a failure to appreciate the women’s side of the
question. I allow willingly that the sisters may have had the
assistance of their brothers; I incline, indeed, to the opinion that
they would be strong enough to compel their help, though probably this
was not necessary. The group-sisters and the group-brothers may well
have united against the father, who was the enemy of both. To me the
common-sense view is that these visits from outside suitors were first
paid clandestinely at night. In the light of human nature it is at
least probable that the tyrant father was deceived by his daughters
and his sons. If already he was dead, what reason was there for any
fear--why were the visits secret? This seems to show that I am right;
that once more the initiative in the changes that led to regulation
must be traced back to women. Afterwards, the custom thus established,
would come to be recognised, and the practice of the husband visiting
his wife by night would persist long after the danger making such
secrecy necessary had ceased.

It will be readily seen that the introduction of young husbands from
outside, by whatever means this was done, would be an immense gain in
strength. Again a new regulation in the sexual relationships would
follow, and the group-daughters would now have husbands of their own
generation, sacred to them. Furthermore it was the first direct step
in friendly union between group and group; a step that would open up
ways to further progress. The husband, living in his own group, and
visiting his wife in hers, would at once form a connecting link
between two hitherto separate family circles, which friendly
connection would not be broken, when, later, the custom arose of the
husband leaving his group to take up his residence with his wife.

Such an arrangement must have been of immense advantage to the women.
Under the new order, a wife married to one of these young strangers
would hold a position of considerable power, that hitherto had been
impossible. We have seen that the home was made by the group-women,
and must have belonged to them; but so far, the continuance of a
daughter in the home had entailed the acceptance of her father as a
husband; the only way of escape being by capture, which--whether
forced or, as I hold, aided by the girl’s desire--sent her out from
her own family as a stranger into a hostile group. Now this was
reversed, and the husband entered as the alien into her home and
family.

The following observation of Mr. Atkinson in this connection must be
quoted, as it is in strong agreement with my own view--

     “As a wife who had not been captured, who, in fact, as an
     actual member of the group itself, was, so to speak, the
     capturer, _her position in regard to her dependent husband
     would be profoundly modified_, in comparison with that of
     the ordinary captive female, whereas such a captive, seized
     by the usual process of hostile capture, had been a mere
     chattel utterly without power; _she, as a free agent in her
     own home, with her will backed by that of her brothers_”
     [why not, I would ask, her sisters and her mother?] “_could
     impose law on her subject spouse_.”[39]

    [39] _Primal Law_, p. 256.

In the foregoing sentences Mr. Atkinson affirms the fateful
significance to women of this new form of marriage. I am in
whole-hearted agreement with this opinion. I glean here and there from
the wealth of Mr. Atkinson’s suggestions, statements which indicate
how nearly he came to seeing all that I am trying to establish. Yet, I
am compelled to disagree with his main argument; for always when he
touches the woman’s side, he falls back at once to consider the
question in its relation to the males as the only important members in
the group. I do not, for instance, accept his view that the captive
wives were “mere chattels.” They could not, under the conditions, have
been without some considerable power, even if it arose only from the
sexual dependence of their owners upon them. Much more significant,
however, is Mr. Atkinson’s view regarding the authority of the wife in
these new peaceable marriages. He sees one point only as arising from
such a position, and finds “a psychological factor of enormous power,
now for the first time able to make itself felt, in the play of sexual
jealousy on the part of the wife.” She would now “impose law on her
subject spouse, and such law dictated by jealousy would ordain a bar
to intercourse between him and her more youthful and hence more
attractive daughters.” Now, I do not deny that such a factor may have
acted, for the incentive to jealousy arises always from individual as
opposed to collective possession. Still I do not think jealousy can
have been strong in this case, and, even if it were not, any reversion
on the part of an alien father to the habits of the patriarch must
have been impossible; such conduct would not have been tolerated by
the other males in the group, nor by the daughters, now able to get
young husbands for themselves. To limit the wife’s power to this
single issue can hardly be consistent with the conditions of the case.
Mr. Atkinson, in common with many other anthropologists, seems
disposed to underrate the evidence regarding the far-reaching
importance of this form of marriage. Among existing examples of the
maternal family, the mother-rights and influences of women are
dependent largely on the position of the husband as a stranger in her
family home. This matter will become clear in the later part of my
inquiry.

With the establishment of this new peaceful marriage the way was
cleared for future progress; it is but a few further steps for the
group to grow into the clan and the tribe. The family-group has
increased greatly in size and in social organisation, from the time
when it consisted of the patriarch, and his community of women and
young children. The group-sons have brought in wives from other groups
and have founded families; the group-daughters now have husbands who
live with them. Primitive regulations over the marital rights have
arisen, enabling peace to be maintained. Each family to some extent
would be complete in itself. As the groups advanced in progress, totem
names would come to be used as family marks of distinction, taken
usually from some plant or animal. Peaceable marriages between the
sons and daughters of the different groups would more and more become
the habit, and would gradually take the place of capture marriages.
The regulation of the sexual relationships, by which certain women and
certain men became sacred to each other, would become more strongly
fixed by custom; and afterwards the law would follow that a group of
kindred, distinguished by its totem mark, might not marry within the
hereditary name. The religious superstitions that came to be connected
with these totem names would make binding the new order in the
marriage law. When this stage was reached exogamy would be strictly
practised; and in all cases under the complete maternal system, the
woman on marriage would remain in her family home, where the husband
would come to live with her as a kind of privileged guest.

There is one other matter that must be noted. The totem name was
inherited from the mother, and not the father. This was the natural
arrangement. When the group was small, there may have been a communal
ownership of the group-children by the mothers, under the authority of
the father. But this would not continue for long; when the group
increased in numbers, the mother and her children would keep together
as a little sub-family in the larger circle. This would be especially
the case with captured wives, who would bring with them the totem
marks of their groups, and this would be the name of the children. The
naming of the children after the mother would also be the simplest way
of distinguishing between the offspring of different wives, a
distinction that would often be necessary, during the earlier
conditions, among the polygamous fathers.

It is, however, an entirely mistaken view that the father’s relation
to the child was ever unrecognised. The taking of the name of the
mother arose as a matter of course, and was adopted simply as being
the most convenient custom. It is manifest that mother-descent has no
connection with a period of promiscuity. Quite the reverse. All the
conditions of mother-right arose out of the earliest movements towards
order and regulation in the relationships of the sexes, and were not
the result of licence. Nor was the naming of the child after the
mother so much a question of relationship as of what may be called
“social kinship.” The causes which led to the maternal system are
closely connected with the collective motive, which, if I am right,
was in its origin, at least, the result of the union of the women
against the selfish inclinations of the patriarch. When property
rights came to be recognised, consisting at first of stores of food
and the household goods, it would be perfectly natural that they
should belong to the women, and descend through them. The inheritance
would be to those most closely bound together, and who lived together
in the same home. Thus it appears that descent through the mother was
founded on social rights, by which the organisation of the family,
such as membership in the group or clan, succession and inheritance
were dependent on the mothers. In this sense it is clear that the term
mother-power is fully justified; it is nearer to the facts than the
term mother-kin.

Further than this I must not go; the first part of my inquiry now has
come to an end. It may seem to the reader that the patriarchal theory,
in a book written to establish mother-right, has received more
attention than was called for. I have discussed it so fully, not only
because of the interest of the subject in proving the errors in the
earlier theories of matriarchy, but because of the insight the
conditions of the primordial group give us into the origin of the
maternal family.

Many of the suggestions made are more or less hypothetical, but not a
few, I think, are necessary deductions, based on what is most probable
to have happened. I am fully aware of numerous omissions, and the
inadequacy of this summary; but if the suggestions brought forward
shall prove in themselves to have merit, it has seemed to me that a
fruitful field of investigation has been opened. Much new ground had
to be covered in this attempt to picture the position of women at a
period so remote that the difficulties are very great. I hope at least
to have cleared away the old errors, which connected mother-descent
with uncertainty of paternity and an early period of promiscuity.

Recognising sexual jealousy as the moving force in brute man, I have
accepted that the primeval family was of the patriarchal type. I have
traced the probable development of the group-family, expanding by
successive steps into larger groups living in peaceful association. In
the earlier stage, whilst the men lived as solitary despots, the women
enjoyed a communal life. It is thus probable that the leading power in
the upward movement of the group developing into the clan and tribe
arose among the united mothers, and not with the father. The women
were forced into social conduct. On this belief is based the theory of
mother-power.

The most important result we have gained is the proof that the
maternal system was framed for order, and has no connection with
sexual disorder. It is enough if I have suggested reasons to show that
this widespread custom, which is practised still among many peoples,
has nothing about it that is exceptional, nothing fantastic, nothing
improbable. I hold it to be a perfectly natural arrangement--the
practical outgrowth of the practical needs of primitive peoples. The
strongest and the one certain claim for a belief in mother-right and
mother-power must rest on this foundation. It is left for the second
part of my book to prove how far I am right in what I claim.




PART II

THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION




    “It’s not too late to seek a newer world:

           *       *       *       *       *

    Tho’ much is taken, much abides: and tho’
    We are not now the strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
    One equal temper of heroic hearts;
    Made weak by time and rule, but strong in will
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

                                             TENNYSON.




CHAPTER V

THE MATRIARCHAL FAMILY AMONG THE AMERICAN INDIANS


It is time now to turn to the actual subject of this investigation, in
order to see how far the theory of mother-right has been helped by the
lengthy examination of the patriarchal group.

Since the publication of _Das Mutterrecht_ much has been written that
has tended to raise doubts as to the soundness of the matriarchal
theory, at least in the form held by its early supporters. A reaction
in the opposite direction has set in, before which the former belief
in mother-power has been transformed, and now seems likely to
disappear altogether. In recent years, Westermarck, Starcke, Andrew
Lang, N. W. Thomas, and Crawley among others have given utterance to
this view. The prevalence of a system tracing descent through the
mother is accepted by the majority of learned opinion, though it would
seem somewhat grudgingly. Mr. Crawley is the only writer, as far as I
know, who denies that such a practice was ever common; the cases in
which it still exists, as these cannot be denied, he regards as
exceptions. He affirms: “There is no evidence that the maternal system
was ever general or always preceded the paternal system.” And again:
“Though frequent, maternal descent cannot have been either universally
or generally a stage through which man has passed.”[40]

    [40] _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 460-461.

Mr. Crawley considers this assumption may be taken for granted; so
that he does not trouble himself about proofs. The subject of
mother-right is dismissed as unworthy of serious attention. Such an
attitude is surely instructive, and illustrates the failure, to which
I have already pointed, in considering the woman’s side in these
questions. There would seem to be a tendency to doubt as being
possible any family arrangement favourable to the authority of women.
Even when descent through the mother is accepted as a phase in social
development, it is denied that such descent confers any special rights
to women.

One reason of this prejudice must be sought in the persistence of the
puritan spirit: the objection to mother-kin rests mainly on the
objection to loose sexual relationships. Thus it became necessary to
attempt a new explanation of the origin of the custom, and hence my
examination of the primordial patriarchal group. It may be thought
that I should have done better to confine my inquiry to existing
primitive peoples. But, if I am right, mother-power is rooted much
further back than history, and arose first in the dawn of the human
family. This had to be established.

It is clearly of vital importance to an inquiry that claims to set up
a new belief in a discredited theory to protect it from those
objections which hitherto have prevented its acceptance. This I have
attempted to do. I have shown that the customs connected with
mother-right had no connection at all with a state of promiscuity;
that they were the result of order in the sexual relationships, and
not of disorder. I have traced the causes which appear to have given
rise to such a system, showing that the maternal order was not the
first phase of the family, but was a natural forward movement--one
which developed slowly and quite simply from the conditions of the
patriarchal group. Moreover, I have maintained, and tried to prove,
that the initiative in progress was taken by the women, they being
inspired by their collective interest to overcome the individual
interests of the male members of the group. If this is not assented
to, then indeed, my view of mother-power can find no acceptance.

It is necessary, however, once more to guard against any mistake. I do
not wish to prove a theory of gynæcocracy, or rule of woman. The title
chosen for this chapter at once opens the way to misinterpretation. It
might appear as if I supported Bachofen’s supposition that, under a
system of maternal descent women possessed supreme rule in the family
and in the clan: this is a dream only of visionaries. I declare here
that I consider the theory of the so-called matriarchate at once false
and injurious: false, because it can lead to nothing; and injurious,
because, while it cannot be supported by facts, it overthrows what can
be proved by the evidence that is open to all investigators. Nothing
will be gained by exaggeration and by claiming over much for women.
The term “matriarchal” takes too much for granted that women at one
period ruled. Such a view is far from the truth. All I claim, then, is
this: the system by which the descent of the name and the inheritance
of property passes through the female side of the family placed women
in a favourable position, with definite rights in the family and clan,
rights which, in some cases, resulted in their having great and even
extraordinary power. This, I think, may be granted. _If descent
through the father stands, as it is held to do, for the predominance
of man over woman--the husband over the wife, then it is at least
surely possible that descent through the mother may in some cases have
stood for the predominance of the wife over the husband._ The reader
will judge how far the examples of the maternal family I am able to
bring forward support this claim.

The evidence for mother-right has never yet been fully brought into
notice; but much of the evidence is now available. Our knowledge of
the customs of primitive peoples has increased greatly of late years,
and these afford a wide field for inquiry. And although the examples
of the complete maternal family existing to-day are few in
number--probably not more than twenty tribes,[41] yet the important
fact is that they occur among widely separated peoples in all the
great regions of the uncivilised world. Moreover, side by side with
these, are found a much larger number of imperfect systems, which give
unmistakable evidence of an earlier maternal stage. Such examples are
specially instructive; they belong to a transitional period, and show
the maternal family in its decline as it passes into a new patriarchal
stage; often, indeed, we see the one system competing in conflict with
the other.

    [41] This is the number given by Prof. Tylor. “The
    Matriarchal Family System,” _Nineteenth Century_, July 1896.

In this connection I may note that Westermarck does not accept an
early period when descent was traced exclusively through the mother;
he gives a long list of peoples among whom the system is not
practised. These passages occur in his well-known _Criticism of the
Hypothesis of Promiscuity_,[42] and his whole argument is based on the
assumption that mother-right arose through the tie between the father
and the child being unrecognised. But mother-descent has no connection
at all with uncertainty of paternity. I venture to think Dr.
Westermarck has not sufficiently considered this aspect of the
question, and, if I mistake not, it is this confusion of
mother-descent with promiscuity which explains his attitude towards
the maternal system, and his failure to recognise its favourable
influence on the status of women. In his opinion this system of
tracing descent does not materially affect the relative power of the
two sexes.[43] In such a view I cannot help thinking he is mistaken;
and I am supported in this by the fact that he makes the important
qualification that the husband’s power is impaired when he lives among
his wife’s kinsfolk. Now, it is this form of marriage, or the more
primitive custom when the husband only visits his wife, that is
practised among the peoples who have preserved the complete maternal
family. Under such a domestic arrangement, which really reverses the
position of the wife and the husband, mother-right is found; this
maternal marriage is, indeed, the true foundation of the woman’s
power. Where the marriage system has been changed from the maternal to
the paternal form, and the wife is taken from the protection of her
own kindred to live in the home of her husband, even when descent is
still traced through the mother, the chief authority is almost always
in the hands of the father. Thus it need not cause surprise to find
mother-descent combined with a fully established patriarchal rule. But
among such peoples practices may often be met with that can be
explained only as survivals from an earlier maternal system. Moreover,
in other cases, we meet with tribes that have not yet advanced to the
maternal stage. A study of existing tribes, and of the records of
ancient civilisations, will yield any number of examples.

    [42] _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 97-104.

    [43] “The Position of Woman in Early Civilisations,”
    _Sociological Papers_, 1904.

Unmistakable traces of mother-right may, indeed, be found by those,
whose eyes are opened to see, in all races. In peasant festivals and
dances, and in many religious beliefs and ceremonies, we may meet
with such survivals. They may be traced in our common language,
especially in the words used for sex and for kin relationships. We can
also find them shadowed in certain of our marriage rites, and sex
habits to-day. Another source of evidence is furnished by the
widespread early occurrence of mother-goddesses, who must be connected
with a system which places the mother in the forefront of religious
thought. Further proof may be gathered from folk stories and heroic
legends, whose interest offers rich rewards in suggestions of a time
when honour rested with the sex to whom the inheritance belonged.
Thus, the difficulty of establishing a claim for mother-right and
mother-power does not rest in any paucity of proof--but rather in its
superabundance.

It would be superfluous for me to dwell on the difficulties of such an
inquiry. The subject is immensely complicated and wide-reaching, so
that I must keep strictly to the path set before me. It is my purpose
to outline the domestic relations in the maternal family clan, and to
examine the sex-customs and forms of marriage. I shall limit myself to
those matters which throw some light on the position of women, and
shall touch on the features of social life only in so far as they
illustrate this. These questions will be discussed in the three
succeeding chapters. Some portion of the matter given has appeared
already in the section on the “Mother-Age Civilisation” in _The Truth
about Woman_, which gives examples of the maternal family in America,
Australia, India and other countries. Such examples formed a necessary
part of the historical section of that work; they are even more
necessary to this inquiry. Many new examples will be given, and the
examination of the whole subject will be more exhaustive. These
chapters will be followed by a discussion of certain difficulties, and
an examination of the transition period in which the maternal family
gave way to the second patriarchal stage with the family founded on
the authority of the father. A short chapter will be devoted to the
work done by women in primitive tribes and its importance in relation
to their position. Then will come as full an account as is possible of
the traces of the mother-age to be found in the records of ancient and
existing civilised races; while a brief chapter will be added on
certain myths and legends which help to elucidate the theory of
women’s early power. The final chapter will treat of general
conclusions, with an attempt to suggest certain facts which seem to
bear on present-day problems. Throughout I shall support my
investigation (as far as can be done in a work primarily designed for
a text-book) by examples, which, in each case, have been carefully
chosen from trustworthy evidence of those who are personally
acquainted with the habits of the peoples of whom they write. I shall
try to avoid falling into the error of a one-sided view. Facts will be
more important than reflections, and as far as possible, I shall let
these speak for themselves.

Let us now concentrate our attention on the complete maternal family,
where the clan is grouped around the mothers.

The examples in this chapter will be taken from the aboriginal tribes
of North and South America among whom traces of the maternal system
are common, while in some cases mother-right is still in force. At the
period of European discovery the American Indians were already well
advanced in the primitive arts, and were very far removed from
savagery. Their domestic and social habits showed an organisation of a
very remarkable character; among certain tribes there was a communal
maternal family, interesting and complicated in its arrangements. Such
customs had prevailed from an antiquity so remote that their origin
seems to have been lost in the obscurity of the ages. It is possible,
however, to see how this communism in living may have arisen and
developed out of the conditions we have studied in the far distant
patriarchal groups. For this reason they afford a very special
interest to our inquiry.

Morgan, who was commissioned by the American Government to report on
the customs of the aboriginal inhabitants, gives a description of the
system as it existed among the Iroquois--

     “Each household was made up on the principle of kin. The
     married women, usually sisters, own or collateral, were of
     the same _gens_ or clan, the symbol or _totem_ of which was
     often painted upon the house, while their husbands and the
     wives of their sons belonged to several other _gentes_. The
     children were of the _gens_ of their mother. As a rule the
     sons brought home their wives, and in some cases the
     husbands of the daughters were admitted to the maternal
     household. Thus each household was composed of persons of
     different _gentes_, but the predominating number in each
     household would be of the same _gens_, namely, that of the
     mother.”[44]

    [44] Morgan, _Houses and House-Life of the American
    Aborigines_, p. 64.

We see here, at once, the persistence and development of the
conditions and later customs of the patriarchal family-group, now
evolved into the clan. In the far-distant days the jealous spirit was
still strong; now it has been curbed and regulated, and the female
yoke binds the clan together. We have the mothers as the centre of the
communal home; the sons bringing their wives to live in the circle,
while the daughters’ husbands are received as permanent guests. Under
such a system the mothers are related to each other, and belong to the
same clan, and their children after them; the fathers are not bound
together by the same ties and are of different clans. The limits
within which marriage can take place are fixed, and we can trace the
action of the ancient primal law in the bar that prohibits the husband
from being of the same clan as his wife. Though the husband takes up
his abode in the wife’s family, dwelling there _during her life and
his good behaviour_,[45] he still belongs to his own family. The
children of the marriage are of the kindred of the mother, and never
of his kindred: they are lost to his family. Thus there can be no
extension of the clan through the males, it is the wife’s clan that is
extended by marriage.[46]

    [45] Tylor, “The Matriarchal Family System,” _Nineteenth
    Century_, July 1896.

    [46] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, p. 208. Heriot,
    _Travels through the Canadas_, p. 323.

The important point to note is that the conditions of the clan are
still favourable to the social conduct of the women, who are attached
much more closely to the home and to each other than can be the case
with the men. The wife never leaves the home, because she is
considered the mistress, or, at least, the heiress. In the house all
the duties and the honour as the head of the household fall upon her.
This position may be illustrated by the wife’s obligation to her
husband and his family, which are curiously in contrast with what is
usually expected from a woman. Thus a wife is not only bound to give
food to her husband, to cook his provisions when he sets out on
expeditions, but she has likewise to assist members of his family when
they cultivate their fields, and to provide wood for an allotted
period for the use of his family. In this work she is assisted by
women of her clan. The women are also required in case of need to look
after their parents.

There are many interesting customs in the domestic life of the
Iroquois. I can notice a few only. The system of living, at the time
Morgan visited the tribes, consisted of a plan at once novel and
distinctive. Each _gens_ or clan lived in a long tenement house, large
enough to accommodate the separate families. These houses were
erected on frames of poles, covered with bark, and were from fifty to
a hundred feet in length. A passage way led down the centre, and rooms
were portioned off on either side: the doors were at each end of the
passage. An apartment was allotted to each family. There were several
fireplaces, usually one for every four families, which were placed in
the central passage: there were no chimneys. The Iroquois lived in
these long houses, _Ho-de-no-sau-nee_, up to A.D. 1700, and in
occasional instances for a hundred years later. They were not peculiar
to the Iroquois, but were used by many tribes. Unfortunately this wise
plan of living has now almost entirely passed away.

I wish that I had space to give a fuller account of these
families.[47] Each household practised communism in living, and made a
common stock of the provisions acquired by fishing and hunting, and by
the cultivation of maize and plants. The curse of individual
accumulation would seem not to have existed. Ownership of land and all
property was held in common. Each household was directed by the matron
who supervised its domestic economy. After the daily meal was cooked
at the several fires, the matron was summoned, and it was her duty to
apportion the food from the kettle to the different families according
to their respective needs. What food remained was placed in the
charge of another woman until it was required by the matron. In this
connection Mr. Morgan says: “This plan of life shows that their
domestic economy was not without method, and it displays the care and
management of women, low down in barbarism, for husbanding their
resources and for improving their conditions.”

    [47] The reader is referred to Morgan’s interesting _Houses
    and House-Life of the Aborigines_. It is from this work that
    many of the facts I give have been taken.

In this statement, made by one who was intimately acquainted with the
customs of this people there is surely confirmation of what I have
claimed for women? The further we go in our inquiry the more we are
driven to the conclusion that the favourable conditions uniting the
women with one another exerted a powerful influence on their
character. I think this is a view of the maternal family system that
has never received its proper meed of attention.

It must be noted that the women did not eat with the men; but the fact
that the apportioning of the food was in the women’s hands is
sufficient proof that this separation of women and men, common among
most primitive peoples, has no connection with the superiority of one
sex over the other. It is interesting to find that only one prepared
meal was served in each day. But the pots were always kept boiling
over the fires, and any one who was hungry, either from the household
or from any other part of the village, had a right to order it to be
taken off and to eat as he or she pleased.

We may notice the influence of their communistic living in all the
Indian customs. At all times the law of hospitality was strictly
observed. Food was dispensed in every case to those who needed it; no
excuse was ever made to avoid giving. If through misfortune one
household fell into want, the needs were freely supplied from the
stock laid by for future use in another household. Hunger and
destitution could not exist in any part of an Indian village or
encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere. Such generosity at a time
when food was often difficult to obtain, and its supply was the first
concern of life, is a remarkable fact. Nor does this generosity seem,
as might be thought, to have led to idleness and improvidence. He who
begged, when he could work, was stigmatised with the disgraceful name
of “poltroon” or “beggar”; but the miser who refused to assist his
neighbour was branded as “a bad character.” Mr. Morgan, commenting on
this phase of the Indian life says: “I much doubt if the civilised
world would have in their institutions any system which can properly
be called more humane and charitable.”

These reflections induce one to ask: What were the causes of this
humane system of living among a people considered as uncivilised? Now,
I do not wish to claim overmuch for women. We have seen, however, that
the control and distribution of the supply of food was placed in the
hands of the matrons, thus their association with the giving of food
must be accepted. Is not this fact sufficient to indicate the reason
that made possible this communism? To me it is plain that these
remarkable institutions were connected with the maternal family, in
which the collective interests were more considered than is possible
in a patriarchal society, based upon individual inclination and
proprietary interests.

A brief notice must now be given to the system of government. An
Indian tribe was composed of several _gentes_ or clans, united in what
is known as a _phratry_ or brotherhood. The tribe was an assemblage of
the _gentes_. The _phratry_ among the Iroquois was organised partly
for social and partly for religious objects. Each _gens_ was ruled by
chiefs of two grades, distinguished by Morgan as the _sachem_ and
common chiefs. The _sachem_ was the official head of the _gens_, and
was elected by its adult members, male and female. The _sachems_ and
chiefs claimed no superiority and were never more than the exponents
of the popular will of the people. Unanimity among the _sachems_ was
required on all public questions. This was the fundamental law of the
brotherhood; if all efforts failed to gain agreement the matter in
question was dropped. Under such a system individual rule or the power
of one _gens_ over the other became impossible. All the members of the
different _gentes_ were personally free; equal in privileges, and in
position, and in rights. “Liberty, equality, and fraternity,” though
never formulated, were the cardinal principles of the _gens_.[48] Mr.
Morgan holds the opinion that “this serves to explain that sense of
independence and personal dignity universally attributed to the Indian
character.”

    [48] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 62. Also _Houses and
    House-Life of the American Aborigines_.

Regarding the part taken by the women in the government, we have very
remarkable testimony. Schoolcraft,[49] in his elaborate study of the
customs of the Indian tribes, states that the women had “a
conservative power in the political deliberations. The matrons had
their representatives in the public councils, and they exercised a
negative, or what we call a veto, power, in the important question of
the declaration of war.” They had also the right to interpose in
bringing about a peace. Heriot also affirms: “In the women is vested
the foundation of all real authority. They give efficiency to the
councils and are the arbiters of war and peace.... It is also to their
disposal that the captured slaves are committed.” And again: “Although
by custom the leaders are chosen from among the men, and the affairs
which concern the tribe are settled by a council of ancients, it would
yet seem that they only represented the women, and assisted in the
discussion of subjects which principally related to that sex.”[50]

    [49] _Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the
    History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the
    United States_, 6 vols., Vol. III, p. 195. See also _Notes on
    the Iroquois_ and _The Indian in his Wigwam_.

    [50] Heriot, _op. cit._, pp. 321-322.

These remarkable social and domestic conditions were common to the
American Indians under the maternal system. The direct influence of
women, as directors through the men, is a circumstance of much
interest. Among the Senecas, an Iroquoian tribe with the complete
maternal family, the authority was very certainly in the hands of the
women. Morgan quotes an account of their family system, given by the
Rev. Ashur Wright for many years a resident among the Senecas, and
familiar with their language and customs.

     “As to their family system, it is probable that one clan
     predominated (in the houses), the women taking in husbands,
     however, from other clans, and sometimes for novelty, some
     of their sons bringing in their young wives, until they felt
     brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually the female
     portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough
     about it. The stores were in common, but woe to the luckless
     husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of
     the providing. No matter how many children or whatever goods
     he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered
     to pack up his blanket and budge, and after such orders it
     would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey; the
     house would be too hot for him, and unless saved by the
     intercession of some aunt or grandmother, he must retreat to
     his own clan, or, as was often done, go and start a new
     matrimonial alliance in some other. The women were the great
     power among the clans as everywhere else. They did not
     hesitate, when occasion required, to ‘knock off the horns,’
     as it was technically called, from the head of a chief and
     send him back to the ranks of the warrior. The original
     nomination of the chief also always rested with them.”

Mr. Morgan affirms his acceptance of the Indian women’s authority, and
says, after quoting this passage: “The mother-right and gynæcocracy
among the Iroquois here plainly indicated is not over-drawn. The
mothers and their children, as we have seen, were of the same _gens_,
and to them the household belonged. The position of the mother was
eminently favourable to her influence in the household, and tended to
strengthen the maternal bond.”[51]

    [51] _Houses and House-Life of American Aborigines_, pp.
    65-66.

It is important to note that among the Iroquois polygamy is not
permitted, nor does it appear ever to be practised. Many instances are
reported in the Seneca tribe of a woman having more than one husband,
but an Iroquoian man is never allowed more than one wife.[52] This is
the more remarkable when we consider the fact that the mothers nurse
their children for a very long period, during which time they do not
cohabit with their husbands. Such entire absence of polygamy is to be
explained, in part, by the maternal marriage, a system which in its
origin was closely connected with sexual regulation; nor would
plurality of wives be possible in a society in which all the members
of both sexes enjoyed equal privileges, and were in a position of
absolute equality. Marriages usually take place at an early age. Under
the maternal form, the husband living with the wife worked for her
family, and commonly gained his footing only through his service. As
suitor he was required to make presents to the bride’s family. During
the first year of marriage all the produce of his hunting expeditions
belonged to the wife, and afterwards he shared his goods equally with
her. The marriages were negotiated by the mothers: sometimes the
father was consulted, but this was little more than a compliment, as
his approbation or opposition was usually disregarded. Often it was
customary for the bridegroom to seek private interviews at night with
his betrothed; clearly a survival from a time when such secrecy in
love was necessary. In some instances it was enough if the suitor went
and sat by the girl’s side in her apartment; if she permitted this,
and remained where she was, it was taken for consent, and the act
would suffice for marriage. Girls were allowed the right of choice in
the selection of their partners. There is abundant testimony as to the
happiness of the marriage state. Divorce was, however, allowed by
mutual consent, and was carried out without dispute, quarrel or
contradiction.[53] If a husband and a wife could not agree, they
parted amicably, or two unhappy pairs would exchange husbands and
wives. An early French missionary remonstrated with a couple on such a
transaction, and was told: “My wife and I could not agree; my
neighbour was in the same case, so we exchanged wives and all four
were content. What can be more reasonable than to render one another
mutually happy, when it costs so little, and does nobody any
harm.”[54] It would seem that these maternal peoples have solved many
difficulties of domestic and social life better than we ourselves have
done.

    [52] Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 324. Heriot, _op.
    cit._, pp. 323, 329. Schoolcraft, _op. cit._, Vol. III, p.
    191.

    [53] Heriot, pp. 231-237. See also Report of an Official of
    Indian Affairs on two of the Iroquoian tribes, cited by
    Hartland. _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, p. 298.

    [54] _Charleroix_, Vol. V, p. 48, quoted by Hartland, _op.
    cit._, Vol. II, p. 66.

The Wyandots, another Iroquoian tribe, maintained the maternal
household, though they seem to have reached a later stage of
development than the Senecas. They camped in the form of a horse-shoe,
every clan together in regular order. Marriage between members of the
same clan was forbidden; the children belonged to the clan of the
mother. The husbands retained all their rights and privileges in their
own _gentes_, though they lived in the _gentes_ of their wives. After
marriage the pair resided, for a time, at least, with the wife’s
mother, but afterwards they set up housekeeping for themselves.[55]

    [55] Powell, _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, I, 63.

We may note in this change of residence the creeping in of changes
which inevitably led in time to the decay of the maternal family and
the reassertion of the patriarchal authority of the father. This is
illustrated further by the Musquakies, also belonging to the
Algonquian stock. Though still organised in clans, descent is no
longer reckoned through the mother; the bridegroom, however, serves
his wife’s family, and he lives in her home. This does not make him
of her clan, but she belongs to his, till his death or divorce
separates her from him. As for the children, the minors at the
termination of the marriage belong to the mother’s clan, but those who
had had the puberty feast are counted to the father’s clan.[56]

    [56] Owen: _Musquakie Indians_, p. 72.

The male authority was felt chiefly in periods of war. This may be
illustrated by the Wyandots, who have an elaborate system of
government. In each _gens_ there is a small council composed of four
women, called _yu-waí-yu-wá-na_; chosen by the heads of the household.
These women select a chief of the _gens_ from its male members, that
is, from their brothers and sons. He is the head of the _gentile_
council. The council of the tribe is composed of the aggregated
_gentile_ councils; and is thus made up of four-fifths of women and
one-fifth of men. The _sachem_ of the tribes, or tribal-chief, is
chosen by the chiefs of the _gentes_. All the civil government of the
_gens_ and of the tribe is carried on by these councils; and as the
women so largely outnumbered the men, who are also--with the one
exception of the tribal-chief--chosen by them, it is evident that the
social government of the _gens_ and tribe is largely controlled by
them. On military affairs, however, the men have the direct authority,
though, as has been stated, the women have a veto power and are
“allowed to exercise a decision in favour of peace.” There is a
military council of all the able-bodied men of the tribe, with a
military chief chosen by the council.[57] This seems a very wise
adjustment of civic duties; the constructive social work and the
maintaining of peace directed by the women; the destructive work of
war in the hands of men.

    [57] I have summarised the account of the Wyandot government
    as given by Hartland, who quotes from Powell’s “Wyandot
    Government,” _First Annual Report of the Bureau of American
    Ethnology_, 1879-1880, pp. 61 ff.

Powell gives an interesting account of their communal life. Each clan
owns its own lands which it cultivates; but within these lands each
household has its own patch. It is the women councillors who partition
the clan lands among the households. The partition takes place every
two years. But while each household has its own patch of ground, the
cultivation is communal; that is, all the able-bodied women of the
clan take a share in cultivating every patch. Each clan has a right to
the service of all its women in the cultivation of the soil. It would
be difficult to find a more striking example than this of communism in
labour. I claim it as proof of what I have stated in an earlier
chapter of the conditions driving women into combination and social
conduct.

If we turn now to the South American continent we shall find many
interesting survivals of the complete maternal family, in particular
among the Pueblo peoples of New Mexico and Arizona, so called from the
Spanish word _pueblo_, a town. The customs of the people have been
carefully studied and recorded by Bancroft, Schoolcraft, Morgan,
Tylor, McGee, the Spanish historian, Herrera, and other travellers.
When first visited by European anthropologists the country was divided
into provinces, and in many provinces the people lived in communities
or little republics. The communal life was here more developed even
than among the Northern Indians. The people lived together in joint
tenement houses, much larger, and of more advanced architecture, than
the long houses of the Iroquois. These houses are constructed of
adobe, brick and stone, imbedded in mortar; one house will contain as
many as 50, 100, 200, and in some cases, 500 apartments. Speaking of
these houses, Bancroft states: “The houses are common property, and
both women and men assist in building them; the men erect the wooden
frames, and the women make the mortar and build the walls. In place of
lime for mortar they mix ashes with earth and charcoal. They make
_adobes_, or sun-dried bricks, by mixing ashes and earth with
water.”[58] Cushing, who visited and lived with the Zuñi Indians,
records that among them the houses are entirely built by the women,
the men supplying the material. These houses are erected in terrace
form; within they are provided with windows, fireplaces and chimneys,
and the entrance to the different apartments is gained by rude pole
ladders. The pueblo, or village, consists of one or two, or sometimes
a greater number of these houses, each containing a hundred or more
families, according to the number of apartments.

    [58] _The Native Races of the Pacific States of South
    America_, 5 vols., Vol. I, p. 555. See also Morgan.

Among the Creek Indians of Georgia, Morgan recounts a somewhat
different mode of communal dwelling as formerly being practised. In
1790 they were living in small houses, placed in clusters of from four
to eight together; and each cluster forming a _gens_ or clan, who ate
and lived in common. The food was prepared in one hut, and each family
sent for its portion. The smallest of these “garden cities” contained
10 to 40 groups of houses, the largest from 50 to 200.[59] These
communistic dwelling-houses are so interesting and so important that I
would add a few words. Here, we have among these maternal peoples a
system of living which appears to be identical with the improved
conditions of associated dwelling now beginning to be tried. How often
we consider new things that really are very old! In the light of these
examples, our co-operative dwelling-houses and garden cities can no
longer be regarded as experiments. They were in use in the mother-age,
when many of our new (!) ideas seem to have been common. Can this be
because of the extended power held by women, who are more practical
and careful of detail than men are? I believe that it is possible.
This would explain, too, the revival of the same ideas to-day, when
women are taking up their part again in social life. To those who are
questioning the waste and discomfort of our solitary homes I would
recommend a careful study of this primitive communism. I would point
out the connection of the social ideal with the maternal family, while
the home that is solitary and unsocial must be regarded as having
arisen from the patriarchal customs. I have had occasion again and
again to note that collective interests are more considered by women;
and individual interests by men. This, at least, is how I see it; and
a study of the Indian maternal families seems to give confirmation to
such a conclusion.

    [59] Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, p. 262, gives an account
    of these houses. A similar plan of living is reported of the
    Maya Indians.

But to return to the Pueblo peoples. The tribes are divided into
exogamous totem clans. Kinship is reckoned through the women, and in
several tribes we find the complete maternal family. Among such
peoples the husband goes to live with the wife and becomes an inmate
of her family. If the house is not large enough, additional rooms are
built on to the communal home and connected with those already
occupied. Hence a family with many daughters increases, while one
consisting of sons dies out.

The marriage customs and relationships between the young men and the
girls are instructive; they vary in the different tribes, but have
some points in common. The Pueblos are monogamists, and polygamy is
not allowed amongst them. Bancroft records a very curious custom. The
morals of the young people are carefully guarded by a kind of secret
police, whose duty it is to report all irregularities; and in the
event of such taking place the young man and the girl are compelled to
marry.[60] Now, whatever opinion may be held of such interference with
the love-making of the young people, it affords strong proof of the
error which has hitherto connected the maternal system with
unregulated sexual relationships. This is a fact I am again and again
compelled to point out, risking the fear of wearying the reader.

    [60] Bancroft, _op. cit._, pp. 546, 547.

Among some tribes freedom is permitted to the women before marriage.
Heriot states that the natives who allow this justify the custom, and
say “that a young woman is mistress of her own person, and a free
agent.”[61] The tie of marriage is, however, observed more strictly
than among many civilised monogamous races. And this is so, although
divorce is always easy and by mutual consent; a couple being able to
separate at once if they are dissatisfied with each other. Here are
facts that may well cause us to think. As for the courtship, the usual
custom is reversed; when a girl is disposed to marry she does not wait
for a young man to propose to her, but selects one to her liking, and
then consults her family as to his suitability as a husband. The
suitor has to serve the bride’s family before he can be accepted, and
in some cases the conditions are binding and exceedingly curious.

    [61] Heriot, _op. cit._, p. 340.

How simple and really beautiful are the conditions of life among these
people may be seen from the idyllic record of the Zuñi Indians given
by Mr. Cushing.[62] He describes how the Zuñi girl, when taking a
fancy to a young man, conveys a present of thin _hewe_-bread to him as
a token, and becomes his affianced, or as they say “his-to-be.” He
then sews clothes and moccasins for her, makes her a necklace of gay
beads, and combs her hair out on the terrace in the sun. After his
term of service is over, and all is settled, he takes up his residence
with her; then the married life begins. “With the woman rests the
security of the marriage tie, and, it must be said, in her high
honour, that she rarely abuses the privilege; that is, never sends her
husband ‘to the home of his fathers’ unless he richly deserves it.”
Divorce is by mutual consent, and a husband and wife would “rather
separate than live together unharmoniously.” This testimony is
confirmed by Mrs. Stevenson, who visited the Zuñis, and writes with
enthusiasm of the people. “Their domestic life might well serve as an
example for the civilised world. They do not have large families. The
husband and wife are deeply attached to one another and to their
children.” “The keynote of this harmony is the supremacy of the wife
in the home. The house with all that is in it is hers, descending to
her through her mother from a long line of ancestresses; and the
husband is merely her permanent guest. The children--at least the
female children--have their share in the common home; the father has
none.” “Outside the house the husband has some property in the fields,
although in earlier times he had no possessory rights and the land was
held in common. Modern influences have reached the Zuñi, and
mother-right seems to have begun its inevitable decay.”[63]

    [62] Cushing, “My Visit to the Zuñi Indians,” _Century
    Magazine_, 1883. Prof. Tylor gives these passages in his
    account of the Zuñi Indians, “The Patriarchal Family System,”
    _Nineteenth Century_, 1896. I have quoted from him.

    [63] Mrs. Stevenson, in the _Report Bureau Ethnological_,
    XXIII, pp. 290-293.

The Hopis, another Pueblo tribe, are more conservative, and with them
the women own all the property except the horses and donkeys, which
belong to the men. Among the Pueblos the women commonly have control
over the granary, and they are very provident about the future.
Ordinarily they try to have one year’s provisions on hand. It is only
when two years of scarcity succeed each other that the community
suffers hunger. Like the Zuñis, the Hopis are monogamists. Sexual
freedom is, however, permitted to a girl before marriage. This in no
way detracts from her good repute; even if she has given birth to a
child “she will be sure to marry later on, unless she happens to be
shockingly ugly.” Nor does the child suffer, for among these maternal
peoples, the bastard takes an equal place with the child born in
wedlock. The bride lives for the first few weeks with her husband’s
family, during which time the marriage takes place, the ceremony being
performed by the bridegroom’s mother, whose family also provides the
bride with her wedding outfit. The couple then return to the home of
the wife’s parents, where they remain, either permanently, or for some
years, until they can obtain a separate dwelling. The husband is
always a stranger, and is so treated by his wife’s kin. The dwelling
of his mother remains his true home, in sickness he returns to her to
be nursed, and stays with her until he is well again. Often his
position in his wife’s home is so irksome that he severs his
connection with her and her family, and returns to his old home. On
the other hand, it is not uncommon for the wife, should her husband be
absent, to place his goods outside the door: an intimation which he
well understands, and does not intrude upon her again.[64]

    [64] Voth, _Traditions of the Hopi_, pp. 67, 96, 133. _Rep.
    Bur. Ethn._, XIII, 340. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol.
    II, pp. 74-76.

Again, among the Pueblo peoples, we may consider the Sai. Like the
other tribes they are divided into exogamous totem clans; descent is
traced only through the mother. The tribe through various reasons has
been greatly reduced in numbers, and whole clans have died out, and
under these circumstances exogamy has ceased to be strictly enforced.
This has led to other changes. The Sai are still normally monogamous.
When a young man wishes to marry a girl he speaks first to her
parents; if they are willing he addresses himself to her. On the day
of the marriage he goes alone to her home, carrying his presents
wrapped in a blanket, his mother and father having preceded him
thither. When the young people are seated together the parents address
them in turn, enjoining unity and forbearance. This constitutes the
ceremony. Tribal custom requires the bridegroom to reside with the
wife’s family.[65]

    [65] _Rep. Bur. Ethn._ IX, p. 19. Hartland, _Ibid._, pp.
    76-77.

All the Pueblo peoples are more advanced than the greater number of
the neighbouring tribes; their matrimonial customs are more refined,
their domestic life much happier, and they have an appreciation of
love, a rare thing in primitive peoples.[66] Among other tribes
purchase of a wife is common, always a sure sign of the enslavement of
women. Thus in Columbia what is most prized in a woman is her aptitude
for labour, and the price paid for her (usually in horses) depends on
her capacity as a beast of burden. Sometimes, as in California, a
suitor obtains a wife on credit, but then the man is called “half
married;” and until her price is paid he has to labour as a slave for
her parents. Here, as elsewhere, morality is simply a custom of habit;
Bancroft says that purchase of a wife has become accepted as
honourable, so that among the Californian Redskins “the children of a
wife who has cost nothing to her husband are looked down upon.”[67]
Such customs are in sharp contrast to the liberty granted to the woman
among the Pueblos. As an example of women’s power carried to the
limit of tyranny, we may note the Nicaraguans, of whom Bancroft states
that “the husbands are said to have been so much under the control of
their wives that they were obliged to do the housework, while the
women attended to the trading.” Under these circumstances it is
perhaps not surprising to find the women described as “great shrews,
who would on the slightest provocation drive their offending husbands
out of the house.”[68] This is a curious case of the despotic rule of
women. Westermarck accounts for their position by the strict monogamy
that is enforced, but I do not think this can be the true
explanation.[69]

    [66] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 549.

    [67] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 277. Power’s _Tribes of
    California_, pp. 22, 56.

    [68] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 685.

    [69] _History of Human Marriage_, p. 500.

Among the Guanas the women make their own stipulations with their
lovers before marriage, arranging what they are to do in the
household. They are also said to decide the conditions of the
marriage, whether it is to be monogamous, or if polygamy or polyandry
is to be allowed.[70] The Zapotecs and other tribes inhabiting the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec, are remarkable for “the gentleness, affection,
and frugality that characterises the marital relations. Polygamy is
not permitted, which is very remarkable as the women greatly outnumber
the men.”[71]

    [70] Azara, _Voyages dans l’Amérique Méridionale_, Vol. II,
    p. 93.

    [71] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, pp. 661-662.

Lastly, I wish to bring forward a very striking example of the
complete maternal family among the Seri Indians, on the south-west
coast of North America, now reduced to a single tribe. Their curious
and interesting marriage customs have been described by McGee, who
visited the people to report on their customs for the American
Government. The Seri are probably the most primitive tribe in the
American continent. At the time of Mr. McGee’s visit they preserved
the maternal system in its early form, and are therefore an
instructive example by which to estimate the position of the
women.[72]

    [72] “The Beginning of Marriage,” _American Anthropologist_,
    Vol. IX, p. 376. Also _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, XVII, 275.

     “The tribe is divided into exogamous totem clans. Marriage
     is arranged exclusively by the women. The elder woman of the
     suitor’s family carries the proposal to the girl’s clan
     mother. If this is entertained, the question of marriage is
     discussed at length by the matrons of the two clans. The
     girl herself is consulted; a _jacal_ is erected for her, and
     after many deliberations, the bridegroom is provisionally
     received into the wife’s clan for a year under conditions of
     the most exacting character. He is expected to prove his
     worthiness of a permanent relationship by demonstrating his
     ability as a provider, and by showing himself an implacable
     foe to aliens. He is compelled to support all the female
     relatives of his bride’s family by the products of his skill
     and industry in hunting and fishing for one year. There is
     also another provision of a very curious nature. The lover
     is permitted to share the _jacal_, or sleeping-robe,
     provided for the prospective matron by her kinswomen, not
     as a privileged spouse, but merely as a protective
     companion; and throughout this probationary time he is
     compelled to maintain continence--he must display the most
     indubitable proof of his moral force.”

This test of the Seri lover must not mistakenly be thought to be
connected, as might appear, with the modern idea of continence. As is
pointed out by McGee, it arose out of the primitive sexual taboos, and
is imposed on the young man as a test of his strength to abstain from
any sexual relationships outside the proscribed limits. Such a moral
test may once have been common, but seems to have been lost except
among the Seri; though a curious vestige appears in the anti-nuptial
treatment of the bridegroom, in the Salish tribe. The material test is
common among many peoples, and must not be confused with the later
custom of payment for the wife by presents given to her family. Still
this Seri marriage is one of the most curious I know among any
primitive peoples. And the continence demanded from the bridegroom
appears more extraordinary if we compare it with the freedom granted
to the bride. “During this period the always dignified position
occupied by the daughters of the house culminates.” Among other
privileges she is allowed to receive the “most intimate attentions
from the clan-fellows of the group.” “She is the receiver of the
supplies furnished by her lover, measuring his competence as would-be
husband. Through his energy she is enabled to dispense largess with a
lavish hand, and thus to dignify her clan and honour her spouse in the
most effective way known to primitive life; and at the same time she
enjoys the immeasurable moral stimulus of realising she is the arbiter
of the fate of a man who becomes a warrior or an outcast at her
bidding, and through him of the future of two clans--she is raised to
a responsibility in both personal and tribal affairs which, albeit
temporary, is hardly lower than that of the warrior chief.” At the
close of the year, if all goes well, the probation ends in a feast
provided by the lover, who now becomes the husband, and finally enters
his wife’s _jacal_ as “consort-guest.” His position is wholly
subordinate, and without any authority whatever, either over his
children or over the property. In his mother’s hut he has rights,
which seem to continue after his marriage, but in his wife’s hut he
has none.

I have now collected together, with as much exactitude as I could,
what is known of the maternal family in the American continents. There
are many tribes in which descent is reckoned through the father, and
it would be bold to assert that these have all passed through the
maternal stage. An examination of their customs shows, in some cases,
survivals, which point to such conclusion; among other tribes it seems
probable that the maternal clan has not developed. As illustrations of
mother-power, I claim the examples given speak for themselves. It may,
of course, be urged that these complete maternal families are
exceptions, and thus to dismiss them as unimportant. But this is
surely an unscientific way of settling the question. One has to accept
these cases, or to prove that they are untrue. Moreover, I have by no
means exhausted the evidence; and to these complete maternal families
might be added examples from other tribes which would furnish similar
proofs, but there is such consistency of custom among them all that
further accounts may be dispensed with.

There is one other matter for which I would claim attention before
closing this chapter on the American Indians, and that is the
remarkable similarity to be noticed in many tribes between the faces
of the men and the women. To me this is a point of deep interest,
though I do not claim to understand it. My attention was first drawn
to notice this likeness between the two sexes when I came to know some
Iroquois natives who live in England. I was at once struck with the
appearance of the men: though strong and powerfully built, they were
strikingly like women. Since then I have examined many portraits of
the North Indian tribes; I have found that the great majority of men
approach much more nearly to the feminine than the male type. I might,
however, hesitate to bring the matter forward, were it founded only on
my own observation. But in my reading I have found an important
reference to the question in a recent work, “The Indians of North
America in Recent Times,” by Mr. Cyrus Thomas, Ph.D., Archæologist, in
the _Bureau of American Ethnology_. He writes as follows (p. 41)--

     “Another curious fact, which has not hitherto received
     special notice, though apparently of considerable interest,
     is the prevailing feminine physiognomy of the males, at
     least of those of the northern section. If any one will take
     the trouble to study carefully a hundred or more good
     photographs of males of pure blood he will find that two
     thirds, if not a greater proportion, show feminine faces.
     The full significance of this fact is not apparent, but it
     seems to bear to some extent upon the question of the
     evolution of the race.”

What this fact suggests is a problem to which it is very difficult
even to guess at an answer. Does this lack of differentiation in the
physiognomy of the Indians point to something much deeper? Are the men
really like the women? Such a conception opens up considerations of
very great significance. So far as I understand the matter, it appears
that, as well as the deep inherent differences between the two sexes,
there are other differences due to divergence in function. It seems
probable that changes in environment or in function (as when one sex,
for some reason or other, performs the duties usually undertaken by
the other sex), may alter or modify the differences which tend to
thrust the sexes apart. I feel very sure that there can be changes in
the secondary sexual characters of the male and female. This is
sufficiently proved by many examples. Can we, then, accept the theory
that an environment, which favours women’s forceful function, may
modify the infinitely complicated characters of sex, which, as yet, we
so imperfectly understand? I do not know with any certainty. Yet I can
see no other interpretation; and, if I mistake not, it may be possible
in this way to cast a light on one of the most difficult problems with
which we are faced to-day.




CHAPTER VI

THE MATERNAL FAMILY AMONG THE KHASIS


There are, perhaps, no people among whom the family in the full
maternal form can be studied with more advantage than the Khasi Hill
tribes, in the north-east of India. This race has a special interest
as a people who, in modern times, have preserved their independence
and their ancestral customs through many centuries. We find
mother-descent strictly practised, combined with great and even
extraordinary rights on the part of the women. The isolation of the
Khasis may account for this conservatism, but, as will appear later,
there are other causes to explain the freedom and power of the Khasi
women. We are fortunate in having a fuller knowledge of the Khasi
tribes, than is common of many primitive peoples. Their institutions
and interesting domestic customs have been carefully noted by
ethnologists and travellers, and in all accounts there is united
testimony to the high status of the women. I will quote a statement of
Sir Charles Lyell,[73] which affirms this fact very strongly--

    [73] In an Introduction to _The Khasis_, by P. R. Gurdon.
    This work, written by one who had a long and intimate
    knowledge of the Khasi tribes, gives an admirable account of
    the people, their institutions and domestic life. See also
    Sir J. Hooker, _Himalayan Journal_, Vol. II, pp. 273 _et
    seq._; Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_; and a
    series of papers by J. R. Logan, in the _Journal of the
    Indian Archipelago_, 1850-1857. Mr. Frazer (_The Golden
    Bough_, Part IV, _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_, p. 387) gives a
    short account of the Khasis; also McGee in the article _The
    Beginning of Marriage_ already quoted.

     “Their social organisation presents one of the most perfect
     examples still surviving of matriarchal institutions carried
     out with a logic and a thoroughness which, to those
     accustomed to regard the status and authority of the father
     as the foundation of society, are exceedingly remarkable.
     Not only is the mother the head and source and only bond of
     union of the family, in the most primitive part of the
     hills, the Synteng country, she is the only owner of real
     property, and through her alone is inheritance transmitted.
     The father has no kinship with his children, who belong to
     their mother’s clan; what he earns goes to his own
     matriarchal stock, and at his death his bones are deposited
     in the cromlech of his mother’s kin.”

Such testimony cannot be put aside. I wish it were possible for me to
give a detailed account of this people, there is so much that is of
interest to us in their mother-right customs. All that I can do is to
note briefly a few of these, which to me seem specially important.

And first, in order to understand better their customs, let us
consider a few facts of the people themselves. The Khasis are a
vigorous and sturdy race. The men are short, but exceedingly muscular;
the women are comely, especially when young; and the children are
remarkably pretty. In both the sexes strongly developed calves are
considered a mark of beauty. It is interesting to note that the men
usually wear their hair long, and when it is cut short, a single lock
is preserved at the back, which is called _u niuhtrong_, “the
grandmother’s lock.” In some districts the men pull out the hairs of
the moustaches, with the exception of a few hairs on either side of
the upper lip. In character these people are independent, simple,
truthful and straightforward; cheerful in disposition, and
light-hearted by nature. They thoroughly appreciate a joke, especially
the women. Among the men there is some drunkenness, but not among the
women, though they are the chief distillers of spirits. Men and women
work together, usually at the same occupations. We learn that the
Khasis have an unusual love of nature, and are fond of music; thus
they have names for birds and flowers, also for many butterflies and
moths. These are traits not usually found in the people of India.

There is a point to note of special interest in their language. All
the nouns have a masculine and a feminine gender, and the feminine
nouns immensely predominate. The sun is feminine, the moon masculine.
In the pronouns there is one form only in the plural, and that is
feminine. It may seem that these matters--noted so briefly--are
unimportant; but it is such little things that deserve attentive
study. At least they serve to show that the Khasis have reached a high
level of primitive culture; and they indicate further the strong
importance of the feminine idea, which is the main interest in our
inquiry.

A few words must be said about the organisation of the tribes. These
tribes are formed in sections--of which the chief are the Khasi,
Synteng, and War. Each section or tribe is divided into clans and
sub-clans; these are strictly exogamous. To marry within the clan is
the greatest sin a Khasi can commit. This would explain the strict
reckoning of descent through the mothers.

The Khasi clan grew from the family. There is a saying common among
the people, _Long jaid ne ka kynthei_, “From the woman sprang the
tribe.” All the clans trace their descent from ancestresses
(grandmothers) who are called _Ki Iwabei Tynrai_, literally,
_grandmothers of the root_, i. e. _the root of the tree of the clan_.
In some clans the name of the ancestress survives, as, for instance,
_Kyngas houning_, “the sweet one.” _Ka Iaw shubde_ is the ancestress
of the Synteng tribe, and it is curious to note that she is credited
with having first introduced the art of smelting iron. She is also
said to have founded a market in which she successfully traded in
cattle.[74]

    [74] _The Khasis_, pp. 62, 64, 82. All the facts I have given
    of the Khasis are taken from Mr. Gurdon’s work, unless
    otherwise stated.

It is hardly possible to exaggerate the esteem in which the tribal
ancestress is held; she is so greatly reverenced that she may truly be
said to be deified. In such worship rests the foundation of the deep
tribal piety. _Ka Iawbei_, “the first mother,” has the foremost place
of honour by her side, and acting as her agent is _U Suid Nia_, her
brother. There is another fact to show the honour in which the female
ideal is held. The flat memorial stones set up to perpetuate the
memory of the dead are called after the mothers of the clan, while the
standing stones ranged behind them are dedicated to the male kinsmen
on the female side. These table stones are exceedingly interesting.
They are exactly like the long stones and dolmens which are found in
Brittany, in Ireland, in Galicia in Spain, and other parts of Europe.
Is it possible that some of these memorials, whose history has been
lost, were also set up to commemorate the mothers of tribes? But be
this as it may, among the Khasis, where ancient custom and tradition
have been preserved, goddesses are more important than gods. Almost
all the other deities to whom propitiation is offered are female. Male
personages also figure, and among them _Thaulang_, the husband, is
revered.[75] Still the chief divinity rests in the goddesses; the gods
are represented only in their relation to them. The powers of sickness
and death are all female, and these are most frequently worshipped.
Again, the protectors of the household are goddesses. I wish that I
had space to write of their curious, yet beautiful, religious rites.
The sacrifices are communal in character; they are offered in times of
sickness and when dangers threaten the clan. Priestesses assist at all
sacrifices and the male officiants act only as their agents. The
household sacrifices are always performed by women.

    [75] An incantation used in addressing this god begins: “O
    Father, _Thaulang_, who hast enabled me to be born, who hast
    given me my stature and my life.” This is very certain proof
    that the maternal system among the Khasis has no connection
    with uncertainty of paternity.

Consider what this placing of their goddesses rather than their
gods--of the priestess rather than priest--in the forefront of their
worship signifies! Very plainly it reflects honour on the sex to which
the supreme deities belong. We need no clearer proof of the high
status of women among this people. Such customs are certainly
survivals[76] from the time of a more primitive matriarchate, when the
priestess was the agent for the performance of all religious
ceremonies. In one state a priestess still performs the sacrifices on
the appointment of a new Siem, or ruler. Another such survival is the
High Priestess of Nongkrem, in the Synteng district, who “combines in
her person sacerdotal and regal functions.” In this state the
tradition runs that the first High Priestess was _Ka Pah Synten_, “the
flower-lured one.” She was a beautiful maiden, who had her abode in a
cave at Marai, near Nongkrem whence she was enticed by means of a
flower. She was taken by her lover to be his bride, and she became not
only the first High Priestess of Nongkrem, but also the mother of the
Siems of Nongkrem.

    [76] This is the opinion of Sir Charles Lyell and Mr. Gurdon.
    We may compare the remark of Prof. Karl Pearson: “According
    to the evidence not only the seers but the sacrificers among
    the early Teutons were women.”

It must be noted that the Siems or rulers of the states are always
men. They are chosen from the eldest sister’s children. Possibly the
case of the High Priestess of Nongkrem, who is the nominal head of the
state, points to an earlier period of rule by women; but to-day the
temporal power is delegated to one of her sons or nephews, who becomes
the Siem. I need not labour this question overmuch; it is actualities
I wish to deal with. As I have repeatedly said, there is no sure
ground for believing that the maternal system involves rule by women.
This may have happened in some cases, but I do not think that it can
ever have been common. I am very certain, however, of the error in the
view which accepts the subordination of women as the common condition
among barbarous peoples, whereas there are indications and proofs in
all directions of a more or less strong assertiveness on their part,
and always in the direction of social unity and sexual regulation. The
fact that the maternal system resulted in the limitation of the
freedom of the male members of the family is, in my opinion, to be
attributed to those powerful female qualities which exercised an
immense influence on early societies. Regarding what has been said, I
think it cannot be denied that while individual rights were of far
more importance to the males, the idea of the family and social rights
were, in their turn, essentially feminine sentiments. Thus it was in
the women’s interest to consolidate the family, and by means of this
their own power; and they succeeded in doing so to an extraordinary
extent in primitive communities, without help of the maternal customs,
which, as I have tried to make clear, arose out of the conditions of
the primordial family and by the action of the united mothers. If I am
right, then, here is the primary cause of the women’s position of
authority in the communal maternal family.

I am very certain of the rights such a system conferred upon women;
rights that are impossible under the patriarchal family, which
involves the subordination of the woman to her father first and
afterward to her husband. In proof of this let us now consider
marriage and divorce, the laws of inheritance, and other customs of
the Khasis. And first we may note that polygamy--the distinctive
custom of the patriarchs--does not exist; as Mr. Gurdon remarks, “such
a practice would not be in vogue among a people who observe the
matriarchate.” This is the more remarkable as the Khasi women
considerably outnumber the men. In 1901 there were 1118 females to
1000 males. At the present time the people are monandrists. There are
instances of men having wives other than those they regularly marry,
but the practice is not common. Such wives are called “stolen wives,”
and their children are said “to be from the top,” _i. e._ from the
branches of the clan and not the root. In the War country the children
of the “stolen wife” enjoy an equal share in the father’s property
with the children of the regular wife. Polyandry is said to be
practised, but the fact is not mentioned by Mr. Gurdon; in any case it
can prevail only among the poorer sort, with whom, too, it would often
seem to mean rather facility of divorce than the simultaneous
admission of plurality of husbands.[77]

    [77] Fischer, _Tour. As. Soc._, Bengal, Vol. IX, Part II, p.
    834.

The courtship customs of Khasi youths and maidens are simple and
beautiful. The young people meet at the dances in the spring-time,
when the girls choose their future husbands. There is no practice
among the Khasis of exchange of daughters; and there is an entire
absence of the patriarchal idea of their women as property. Marriage
is a simple contract, unaccompanied by any ceremony.[78] After
marriage the husband lives with his wife in her mother’s home. Of late
years a new custom has arisen, and now in the Khasi tribe, when one or
two children have been born, and _if the marriage is a happy one_, the
couple frequently leave the family home, and set up housekeeping for
themselves. When this is done, husband and wife pool their earnings
for the support of the family. This is clearly a departure from the
maternal marriage, a step in the direction of father-right. Among the
Syntengs, the people who have most closely preserved the customs of
the matriarchate, the husband does not even go to live with his wife,
he only visits her in her mother’s home. In Jowáy this rule is so
strict that the husband comes only after dark. He is not permitted to
sleep, to eat, or smoke during his visit--the idea being that as none
of his earnings go to support the home, he must not partake of food or
any refreshment. Here is a curious instance of etiquette preserving
these clandestine visits long after the time when such secrecy was
necessary. We may note another survival among the Syntengs. The father
is commonly called by the name of the first child, thus, the father of
a child called Bobon, becomes Pa-bobon.[79] This does not, I am sure,
point back to a period when paternity was uncertain, rather, it is an
effort to establish the social relation of the father to the family,
and is connected with domestic and property considerations, not at all
with relationship. The proof of this will appear in a later chapter.

    [78] Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 57.

    [79] McGee, _The Beginning of Marriage_.

Very striking are the conditions attaching to divorce. Again we find
the right of separation granted equally to both sexes, a significant
indication of the high position of women. Marriage being regarded as
an agreement between wife and husband, the tie may be broken without
any question of disgrace. But although divorce is frequent and easy,
and can be claimed for a variety of reasons, all who have dwelt among
the Khasis testify to the durable and happy marriages among them. Only
when they find it impossible to live amicably together do a couple
agree to separate. In this event the children always remain with the
mother. For their mothers the children cherish a very strong
affection, for all their sympathies and affection bind them to her and
her family.

The conditions of divorce vary in the separate tribes. Among the
Khasis both parties must agree to the dissolution of the tie. With the
Synteng and War tribes such mutual consent is not necessary, but the
partner who claims release from the other, without his or her consent,
must pay compensation. A woman cannot be divorced during pregnancy.
The form of divorce is simple; among the Khasis it consists of the
exchange of five cowries. This is done in the presence of witnesses,
and the ceremony must take place in the open air. Then a crier goes
around the village to proclaim the divorce, using the following
words--

     “_Kaw_--hear, oh villagers! that--U and K have been
     separated in the presence of the elders. _Hei!_ thou, oh
     young men, canst go and make love to K--for she is now
     unmarried, and thou, oh maidens, canst make love to
     U--_Hei!_ there is no let or hindrance from henceforth.”

And here I would pause, although it leads me a little aside, to make a
point that to me seems to be of special importance. Obviously this
simple divorce by mutual consent was made easy in its working by the
maternal system. The great drawback to the dissolution of the marriage
tie in the patriarchal family is the effect it has on the lives of the
children; but in the maternal family such evil does not exist, for
the children always live with the mother and take her name. By saying
this, I do not wish to imply that I am necessarily recommending such a
system, but that it had its advantages for the mother and her
children, I think, cannot be denied. Its failure arises, as is
evident, from the alien position of the father in relation to his
children.

In the primitive maternal family the place of the father, to a great
extent, is filled by the maternal uncle. Among the Khasis he is
regarded in the light of a father. It is his duty to assist the mother
in the management of the family. The husband is looked upon merely as
_u shong kha_,[80] a begetter. Only by the later marriage custom, when
the wife and children leave the home of her mother, has the father any
recognised position in the home. “There is no gainsaying the fact,”
writes Mr. Gurdon, “that the husband is a stranger in the wife’s home,
and it is certain he can take no part in the rites and ceremonies of
his wife’s family.”

    [80] _The Khasis_, p. 81.

The important status assigned to women becomes clearer when we
consider the laws of inheritance. Daughters inherit, not sons. The
youngest daughter is heiress to the family property, but the other
daughters are entitled to a share on the mother’s death. No man can
possess property unless it is self-acquired. Among the Synteng, such
property on the man’s death goes to his mother. This would seem to be
the primitive custom. There is now a provision that, if the wife
undertakes not to re-marry she has half of her husband’s property,
which descends to her youngest daughter. In the Khasi states a man’s
property, if acquired before his marriage, goes to his mother, but
what is gained afterwards goes to the wife, for the youngest daughter.
Only in the War country do the sons inherit from the father with the
daughters, but something in addition is given to the youngest
daughter. The family property always descends in the female line. For
this reason, daughters are of more importance than sons. A family
without daughters dies out, which among the Khasis is the greatest
calamity, as there is no one qualified to bury the dead and perform
the religious rites. Thus both the Khasis and the Syntengs have a plan
of adoption. The male members of any family, if left without females,
are allowed to call in a young girl from another family to perform the
family religious ceremonies. She takes the place of the youngest
daughter, and becomes the head of the household. She inherits the
ancestral property.

In the face of these facts it can hardly be denied that mother-right
and mother-power among the Khasis are still very much alive. Here at
least descent through the mother does involve power to women, and
confers exceptional rights, especially as regards inheritance. I have
already called attention to the equality of the women with men in the
code of sexual morality. This is so important that it is worth while
to follow it a little further. That freedom in love carries with it
domestic and social rights and privileges to women I have no longer
to prove. We found the same freedom under the maternal family among
the Iroquois and Zuñi Indians: there courtship was in the hands of the
woman; there also divorce was free, and a couple would rather separate
than live together inharmoniously. I have given proof of the happy
domestic life of these peoples. Equality in the sexual relationships
has always been closely associated with the status of women. Wherever
divorce is difficult, there woman’s lot is hard, and her position low.
It is part of the patriarchal custom which regards the man as the
owner of the woman. It would be easy to prove this by the history of
marriage in the races of the past, as also by an examination of the
present divorce laws in civilised countries. I cannot do this, but I
make the assertion without the least shadow of doubt. “Free divorce is
the charter of Woman’s Freedom.” I would point back in proof to these
examples of the maternal family, foremost among whose privileges is
this equality of partnership in marriage. Here you have before you,
solved by these primitive peoples, some of the most urgent questions
that yet have to be faced by us to-day. To hear of peoples who live
gladly, and without those problems that are rotting away our
civilisation, brings a new courage to those of us, who sometimes grow
hopeless at our own needless wastage of love and life.

I must not say more upon this question, though it is one that tempts
me strongly. It is not, however, my purpose in this book to offer
opinions of my own on these problems of the relations of the two
sexes; I prefer to leave the facts of the mother-age to speak for
themselves. Those whose eyes are not blinded will not fail to see.[81]

    [81] Mrs. Chapman Catt has an article in the April number of
    _Harper’s Magazine_ on “A Survival of Matriarchy.” It gives
    an account of her visit to the Malay States, and the
    favourable position of the women under the maternal customs.
    I have received a letter from the great American champion of
    Women’s Rights in which she states how pleased she is that I
    am writing this book on the Mother-age. “There are many
    facts,” she says, “of the early power of women which the
    great world does not know.”




CHAPTER VII

FURTHER EXAMPLES OF THE MATERNAL FAMILY


Pursuing our inquiry into the social organisation of mother-right, an
interesting example occurs among the peoples of the Malay States,
where, notwithstanding the centres of Hindu and Moslem influence, much
has been retained of the maternal system, once universally prevalent.
The maternal marriage, here known as the _ambel-anak_, in which the
husband lives with the wife, paying nothing to the support of the
family and occupying a subordinate position, may be taken as typical
of the former condition. But among the tribes who have come in contact
with outside influences the custom of the husband visiting the wife,
or residing in her house, is modified, and in some cases has
altogether disappeared.

From a private correspondent, a resident in the Malay States, I have
received some interesting notes about the present conditions of the
native tribes and the position of women. “In most of the Malay States
exogamous matriarchy has in comparatively modern times been superseded
by feudalism (_i. e._, the patriarchal rights of the father). But
where the old customs survive, the women are still to a large extent
in control. The husband goes to live in the wife’s village; thus the
women in each group are a compact unity, while the men are strangers
to each other and enter as unorganised individuals. This is the real
basis of the women’s power. In other tribes, where the old customs
have changed, the women occupy a distinctly inferior position, and
under the influence of Islam the idea of secluding adult women has
been for centuries spreading and increasing in force.” Here, again,
clear proof is shown of the maternal system exercising a direct
influence on the position of women. And this statement is in agreement
with Robertson Smith, who, in writing of the maternal marriage, says:
“And it is remarkable that when both customs--the woman receiving her
husband in her own hut, and the man taking his wife to his--occur side
by side among the same people, descent in the former case is traced
through the mother, in the latter through the father.”[82]

    [82] _Marriage and Kinship in Early Arabia_, p. 74. See also
    Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, p. 225.

In its ancient form the maternal communal family has notably persisted
among the Padang Highlanders of Sumatra. These people live in village
communities, with long timber houses placed in barrack-like rows, very
similar to the communal dwellings of the American Indians. The houses
are gay in appearance, and are adorned with carved and coloured
woodwork. One dwelling will contain as many as a hundred people, who
form a _sa-mandei_, or mother-hood. Again we find the family
consisting of the house-mother and her descendants in the female
line--sons and daughters, and the daughters’ children. McGee thus
describes these maternal households--[83]

    [83] “The Beginning of Marriage,” _American Anthropologist_,
    Vol. IX, p. 376.

     “If the visitor, mounting the ladder steps, looks in at one
     of the doors of the separate dwellings, he may see seated
     beyond the family hearth the mother and her children, eating
     the midday meal, and very likely the father, who may have
     been doing a turn of work in his wife’s rice-plot. If he is
     a kindly husband, he is there much as a friendly visitor,
     but his real home remains in the house in which he was
     born.”

The husband has no permanent residence in the woman’s house, and at
dusk each evening the men may be seen walking across the village to
join their wives and families. The father has no rights over his
children, who belong wholly to the wife’s _suku_, or clan. But this in
no way implies that the father is unknown, for monogamy is the rule;
as is usual the question is one rather of social right than of
relationship. The maternal uncle is the male head of the house, and
exercises under the mother the duties of a father to the children. The
brother of the eldest grandmother is the male head of the family
settlement and the clan consists of a number of these families. It
would seem that these male rulers act as the agents of the female
members, whose authority is great. This power is dependent on the
inheritance; as is the descent, so is the property, and its
transmission is arranged for the benefit of the maternal lineage. For
this reason daughters are preferred rather than sons.

This account of the Padang Malays may be supplemented by the Jesuit
missionary De Mailla’s description of the maternal marriage in the
Island of Formosa.[84] Speaking of this marriage, McGee says: “If it
had received the notice it deserves, it might long ago have placed the
study of maternal institutions on a sounder basis.”

    [84] _Lettres edefiantes et curieux_, Vol. XVIII, p. 441,
    copied in Dunhalde, _Description de la Clune_, Vol. I, p.
    166, and cited by McGee.

     “The Formosan youth wishing to marry makes music day by day
     at the maid’s door, till, if willing, she comes out to him,
     and when they are agreed, the parents are told, and the
     marriage feast is prepared in the bride’s house, whence the
     bridegroom returns no more to his father, regarding his
     father-in-law’s house as his own, and himself as the support
     of it, while his own father’s house is no more to him than
     in Europe the bride’s home is henceforth to her when she
     quits it to live with her husband. Thus the Formosans set no
     store on sons, but aspire to have daughters, who procure
     them sons-in-law to become the support of their old age.”

It will be noted that here the house is spoken of as the father’s, and
not as belonging to the mother. The bridegroom is the suitor, and we
see the creeping in of property considerations always associated with
the rise of father-right. Though the husband has as yet no recognised
position and lives in the wife’s home, he is valued for his service to
his father-in-law, clearly a step in the direction of property
assertion. Among many of the Malay hill tribes of Formosa the maternal
system is dying out, though the old law forbidding marriage within the
clan remains in force.

These changes must be expected wherever the transition towards
father-right has begun; the older forms of courtship and marriage, so
favourable to the woman, are replaced by patriarchal customs. One or
two curious examples of primitive courtship, in which the initiative
is taken entirely by the girl may be noted here. Among the Garos tribe
it is not only the privilege, but the duty of the girl to select her
lover, while an infringement of this rule is severely and summarily
punished. Any declaration made on the part of the young man is
regarded as an insult to the whole _mahári_ (motherhood) to which the
girl belongs, a stain only to be expiated by liberal presents made at
the expense of the _mahári_ of the over-forward lover. The marriage
customs are equally curious. On the morning of the wedding a ceremony
very similar to capture takes place, only it is the bridegroom who is
abducted. He pretends to be unwilling and runs away and hides, but he
is caught by the friends of the bride. Then he is taken by force,
weeping as he goes, in spite of the resistance and counterfeited grief
of his parents and friends, to the bride’s house, where he takes up
his residence with his mother-in-law. It is instructive to find that
these marriages are usually successful. Although divorce is easy, it
is not frequent. “The Garos will not hastily make engagements,
because, when they do make them, they intend to keep them.”[85]

    [85] Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, pp. 64, 142.
    See also Tylor, “The Matriarchal Theory,” _Nineteenth
    Century_, July 1896, p. 89.

In Paraguay, we are told, the women are generally endowed with
stronger passions than the men, and are allowed to make the
proposals.[86] So also among the Ahitas of the Philippine Islands,
where, if her clan-parents will not consent to a love match the girl
seizes the young man by the hair, carries him off, and declares she
has run away with him. In such a case it appears the marriage is held
to be valid whether the parents consent or not.[87] A similar custom
of a gentler character, is practised by the Tarrahumari Indians of
Northern Mexico, among whom, according to Lumboltz, the maiden is a
persistent wooer employing a _répertoire_ of really exquisite love
songs to soften the heart of a reluctant swain.[88] Again, in New
Guinea, where the women held a very independent position, “the girl is
always regarded as the seducer. Women steal men.” A youth who
proposed to a girl would be making himself ridiculous, would be called
a woman, and laughed at by the girls. The usual method by which a girl
proposes is to send a present to the youth by a third party, following
this up by repeated gifts of food; the young man sometimes waits a
month or two, receiving presents all the time, in order to assure
himself of the girl’s constancy, before decisively accepting her
advances.[89]

    [86] Moore, _Marriage Customs: Modes of Courtship_, etc., p.
    261. Rengger, _Naturgeschichte der Säugelliere von Paraguay_,
    p. 11, cited by Westermarck, _op. cit._, p. 158.

    [87] J. M. Wheeler, “Primitive Marriage,” an article in
    _Progress_, 1885, p. 128.

    [88] McGee, “The Beginning of Marriage,” _American
    Anthropologist_, Vol. IX.

    [89] Haddon, “Western Tribes of the Torres States,” _Journal
    of the Anthropological Society_, Vol. XIX, Feb. 1890. Cited
    by Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. III, p. 185.

It is clear that these cases, which I have chosen from a number of
similar courtship customs, differ very much from what is our idea of
the customary rôle of the girl and her lover. To me they are very
instructive. They show the error of the long-held belief in the
passivity of the female as a natural law of the sex.[90] Such openness
of conduct in courtship is impossible except where women hold an
entirely independent position. Here, then, is another advantage that
may be claimed as arising for women out of the maternal system. I
claim this: the woman’s right of selection in love--yes, her greatest
right, one that is necessary for a freer and more beautiful mating.

    [90] For further examination of this question of the supposed
    passivity of the woman in courtship, see _The Truth about
    Woman_, pp. 65-69, 251-257.

Terminating this short digression, I return to my examination of the
peoples among whom the family is especially maternal.

The Pelew Islanders of the South Sea have customs in many respects
the same as those of the Khasi tribes. They preserve strict maternal
descent, and like the Khasis, the deities of all the clans are
goddesses. The life and social habits of the people have been
described by Kubary, a careful and sympathetic observer, for long
resident in the island.[91] The tribes are divided into exogamous
clans, and intermarriage between any relations on the mother’s side is
unlawful. These clans are grouped together in villages and the life is
of a communal character. Each village consists of about a score of
clans, and forms with its lands a petty independent state.

    [91] _Die socialen Einrichtungen der Pelauer. Die Religion,
    de Pelauer._ Mr. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Part IV, _Adonis,
    Attis, Osiris_, pp. 387 _et seq._, summarises the account of
    Kubary. See also Waitz-Gerland, Vol. V, Part II, p. 106 _et
    seq._, and an account of the Pelews given by Ymer.

Again we find the maternal system intimately connected with religious
ideas, and it is interesting to recall what was said by Bachofen:
“Wherever gynæcocracy meets us the mystery of religion is bound up
with it, and lends to motherhood an incorporation in some divinity.”
Among these Islanders every family traces its descent from a
woman--the common mother of the clan. And for this reason the members
worship a goddess and not a god. In the different states there are,
besides other special deities, usually a goddess and a god, but as
these are held to be derived directly from a household-goddess, it is
evident that here, as among the Khasis, goddesses are older than the
gods. This is shown also by the names of the goddesses. There is
another fact of interest: some women are reputed to be the wives of
the gods, they are called _Amalalieys_ and have a great honour paid to
them, while their children pass for the offspring of the gods.

The reverence paid to the ancestral goddesses is explained by Mr.
Kubary as arising from the importance of women in the clans.

     “The existence of the clan depends entirely on the life of
     the women, and not at all on the life of the men. If the
     women survive, it is no matter though every man in the clan
     should perish, for the women will, as usual, marry men of
     another clan, and their offspring will inherit their
     mother’s clan, and thereby prolong its existence. Whereas if
     the women of the clan die out the clan necessarily becomes
     extinct, even if every man in it should survive; for the men
     must, as usual, marry women of another clan, and their
     offspring will inherit their mother’s clan and not the clan
     of the father, which accordingly, with the death of the
     father, is wiped off the community.”

I quote this passage because it shows so clearly what I am claiming,
that descent through the mother, under the condition of strict
exogamy, conferred a very marked distinction on the female members of
the clan, whose existence depended on them; this cannot possibly have
failed to act favourably on their position. I may note, too, in
passing, the fallacy of Mr. McLennan’s view that polyandry (which, it
will be remembered, he held to have been developed from and connected
with mother-descent) arose as a result of female infanticide. Such a
practice is clearly impossible in clans whose existence depends on the
life of its female members; daughters among them are prized more
highly than sons.

The case we are now examining affords the strongest confirmation of
the honour paid to women under the strict maternal system. Take alone
the titles that these Pelew islanders give to their women, as _Adhalál
a pelú_, “mothers of the land,” and _Adhalál a blay_, “mothers of the
clan.” The testimony of those who know their customs is that the women
enjoy complete equality with the men in every respect. Mr. Kubary
affirms the predominance of female influence in all the social life of
the clan. He asserts, without qualification, that the women both
politically and socially enjoy a position superior to that of the men.
The eldest women in the clans exercise the most decisive influence in
the conduct of affairs; the head men do nothing without full
consultation with them, and their power extends to affairs of state
and even to foreign politics. No chief would venture to come to a
decision without the approval of the mothers of the families. As one
consequence of this power the women have clubs of association similar
to the clubs of men that are common in so many tribes. A curious
privilege given to women is recorded: “The women have an unlimited
privilege of striking, fining, or if it be done on the spot, killing
any man who makes his way into their bathing places.”[92]

    [92] Semper, _Die Palau-Inseln_, p. 68, cited by Westermarck
    _op. cit._, p. 211.

The marriage customs I shall pass over briefly, as they are similar to
those of other tribes under the maternal system, though changes may be
noted, such, for instance, as presents in the form of a kind of
bride-price being given by the bridegroom to the parents of the bride.
This is not a maternal custom, and although half of such presents
belongs by right to the girl, it is clearly a form of wife-purchase.
Then polygamy is practised, though it is expressly stated to be
uncommon.[93] There is now a marriage ceremony. Divorce still remains
free, and the conditions are favourable for the wife. Jealousy is said
to be prevalent both among the men and the women. The wedding
monologue is interesting and indicates the relative position of the
female and male members of the family. The salutation is as follows--

    [93] Ymer, Vol. IV, p. 333.

     “Hei, thou, oh mother; oh grandmothers; oh maternal uncle;
     oh elder grandmother; oh younger grandfather; oh elder
     grandfather! As the flesh has fallen the ring has been put
     on.... You will all of you give ear [the ancestresses and
     ancestors] you will continue giving strength and spirit that
     they [the bride and bridegroom] may be well.”

There is left an important fact to consider, which explains the
persistence of the women’s authority under marriage conditions much
less favourable than the complete maternal form. The Pelew women have
another source of power; their position has an industrial as well as a
kinship basis. In this island the people subsist mainly on the produce
of their taro fields, and the cultivation of this, their staple food,
is carried out by the women alone. And this identification of women
with the industrial process has without doubt contributed materially
to the predominance of female influence on the social life of the
people. Wherever the control over the means of production is in the
hands of women, we find them exercising influence and even authority.
Among these islanders the women do not merely bestow life on the
people, they also work to obtain that which is most essential for the
preservation of life, and therefore they are called “mothers of the
land.”[94] Now, considering this honour paid to the Pelew women, it is
clearly impossible to regard their work in cultivating the taro as a
sign of their subordinate position in the social order. The facts of
primitive life are often mistaken. This is a question to which I shall
refer again in a later chapter.

    [94] Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 380.

In the same way among the Pani Kotches, tribes of Bengal, we find the
women in a privileged position, due to their greater industrial
activity and intelligence.

     “It is the women’s business to dig the soil, to sow and
     plant, as well as to spin, weave and brew beer; they refuse
     no task, and leave only the coarsest labour to the men. The
     mother of the family marries her daughter at an early age;
     at the feast of betrothal she dispenses half as much again
     to the bride as to the bridegroom-elect. As for the grown-up
     girls and the widows, they know very well how to find
     husbands; the wealthy never lack partners. The chosen one
     goes to reside with his mother-in-law, who both reigns and
     governs, with her daughter for prime minister. If the
     consort permits himself to incur expenses without special
     authorisation, he must meet them as best he can. Fathers of
     families have been known to be sold as slaves, the wives
     refusing to pay the penalties they incurred. Under these
     circumstances, it was lawful for them to marry again.”[95]

    [95] Hodgson, _Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal_, 1847
    (Dalton).

Here, as among the Pelew islanders, special industrial conditions are
combined with the maternal system, and as a result we find what may,
perhaps, be termed “an economic matriarchy.” Another cause of
authority, quite as powerful, is the possession by women of inherited
property. Among barbarous peoples the importance of this is not so
great, but where mother-descent has, for any reason, been maintained
up to a time when individual possession has been developed and
property is large, we meet with a remarkable “pecuniary matriarchate,”
based on the women holding the magic power of money.

An example may be found in the interesting Touaregs of the Sahara, a
race very far advanced in civilisation, who, even at the present day,
have preserved their independence and many of their ancient customs.
Among them all relationship is still maternal and confers both rank
and inheritance. “The child follows the blood of the mother,” and the
son of a slave or serf father and a noble woman is noble. “It is the
womb which dyes the child,” the Touaregs say in their primitive
language.[96] All property descends only through the mother, and by
means of accumulation the greatest part of the fortune of the
community is in the hands of women. This is the real basis of the
women’s power. “Absolute mistress of her fortune, her actions, and her
children, who belong to her and bear her name, the Targui woman goes
where she will and exercises a real authority.” The unusual position
of the wife is significantly indicated by the fact that, although
polygamy is permitted by the law, she practically enforces monogamy,
for the conditions of divorce are so favourable for a woman that she
can at once separate from a husband who attempts to give her a rival.
Again the initiative in courtship is taken by the woman, who chooses
from her suitors the one whom she herself prefers.[97]

    [96] Duveyrier, _Toûareg du Nord_, p. 337 _et seq._

    [97] Chavanne, _Die Sahara_, pp. 181, 209, 234.

It is interesting to note that the Targui women know how to read and
write in greater numbers than the men. Duveyrier states that to them
is due the preservation of the ancient Libyan and Berber writings.[98]
“Leaving domestic work to their slaves, the Targui ladies occupy
themselves with reading, writing, music and embroidery; they live as
intelligent aristocrats.”[99] “The ladies of the tribe of Ifoghas, in
particular, are renowned for their _savoirvivre_ and their musical
talent; they know how to ride _mehari_ better than all their rivals.
Secure in their cages, they can ride races with the most intrepid
cavaliers, if one may give this name to riders on dromedaries; in
order, also, to keep themselves in practice in this kind of riding,
they meet to take short trips together, going wherever they like
without the escort of any man.”[100] In the tribe of Imanan, who are
descended from the ancient sultans, the women are given the title
_Timanôkalîn_, “royal women,” on account of their beauty and their
talent in the art of music. They often give concerts, to which the men
come “from long distances--decked out like male ostriches.” In these
concerts the women improvise the songs, accompanying themselves on the
tambourine and a sort of violin or _rebâza_. They are much sought
after in marriage, because of the title of _cherif_ which they confer
on their children.[101]

    [98] _Ibid._, p. 387.

    [99] Duveyrier, _op. cit._, p. 430.

    [100] _Ibid._, p. 362.

    [101] _Ibid._, p. 347.

There is a touch of chivalrous sentiment in the relations between men
and women.[102] “If a woman is married,” Duveyrier tells us, “she is
honoured all the more in proportion to the number of her masculine
friends, but she must not show preference to any one of them. The lady
may embroider on the cloak, or write on the shield of her chevalier,
verses in his praise and wishes for his good fortune. Her friend may,
without being censured, cut the name of the lady on the rocks or chant
her virtues. ‘Friends of different sexes,’ say the Touaregs, ‘are for
the eyes and heart, and not for the bed only, as among the
Arabs.’”[103] Letourneau, in quoting these passages from Duveyrier,
makes the following comment: “Such customs as these indicate delicate
instincts, which are absolutely foreign to the Arabs. They strongly
remind us of the times of our southern troubadours and of the _cours
d’amour_, which were the quintessence of chivalry.”[104]

    [102] Chavanne, _op. cit._, p. 208 _et seq._

    [103] Duveyrier, _op. cit._, p. 429.

    [104] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 180-181.

The foregoing example is exceedingly interesting; it shows women
holding the position that as a rule belongs to men, and is thus worthy
of most careful study, but at the same time we must guard against
according it a general value which it does not possess. Such a case is
exceptional, though it by no means stands alone, and the social
position of Targui women is analogous to that of the women of ancient
Egypt. It is important to note that their great independence arose
through the persistence of maternal descent, and could not have been
maintained apart from that system, which placed in their hands the
strong power of wealth. Here, then, is certain proof of the favourable
influence mother-descent may exercise on the status of women. It is
because of this I have brought forward this example of the Targui
women.

Enough has now been said. I have examined the institution of the
maternal family, both in the early communal stage and also under
later social conditions, where, in certain cases, mother-descent has
been maintained. In all the examples cited I have given the marriage
customs and domestic habits of the people as they are testified to by
authorities whose records cannot be questioned. Many similar examples,
it may be said, might be brought forward from other races, and the
proof of mother-right and mother-power greatly strengthened thereby.
There is, however, so much similarity in the maternal family, so much
correspondence in the marriage forms and social habits prevailing
among races widely separated, that the points of difference are little
in comparison with those they have in common. My object is not so much
to exhaust the subject as to bring into relief the radical differences
between the maternal communal clan, with its social life centred
around the mothers, and the opposite patriarchal form in which the
solitary family is founded on the individual father. I hold that,
other conditions being equal, the one system is favourable to the
authority of women, the other to the authority of men. The facts which
have been cited are, I submit, amply sufficient to support this view.

We have seen that the life of the maternal clan is dependent on the
women--and not upon the men; we have noted that the inheritance of the
family name and the family property passing through the women adds
considerably to their importance, and that daughters are preferred to
sons. We have found women the organisers of the households, the
guardians of the household stores, and the distributors of food, under
a social organisation that may be termed “a communal matriarchy.” More
important than all else, we have noted the remarkable freedom of women
in the sexual relationships; in courtship they are permitted to take
the active part; in marriage their position is one of such power that,
sometimes, they are able to impose the form of the marriage; in
divorce they enjoy equal, and even superior, rights of separation;
moreover, they are always the owners and controllers of the children.
Nor is the influence of women restricted to the domestic sphere. We
have found them the advisers, and in some cases the dictators, in the
social organisation under the headmen of the clan. Then we examined
the cases in which the women’s power has an industrial as well as a
kinship basis, and have proved the existence of an “economic
matriarchy.” And further even than this, we have found women the sole
possessors of accumulated wealth, and noted that, under the favourable
conditions of such a “pecuniary matriarchy,” they are able to obtain a
position in learning and the arts excelling that of the men. We have
even seen goddesses set above the gods, and women worshipped as
deities.

Now I submit to the judgment of my readers--what do these examples of
mother-right show, if not that, broadly speaking, women were the
dominant force in this stage of the family. No doubt too much
importance may be attached to the idea of women ruling. This is an
error I have tried to guard against. My aim throughout has been to
establish mother-right, not mother-rule. I believe it is only by an
extraordinary power of illusion that we can recognise, in the
favourable position of women under mother-descent Bachofen’s view of
an Amazonian gynæcocracy. But this does not weaken at all my position.
I maintain that such customs of courtship, marriage and divorce, of
property inheritance and possession, and of the domestic and social
rights, as those we have seen in the cases examined, afford conclusive
proof of women’s power in the maternal family. If this is denied, the
only conclusion that suggests itself to me is that, those who seek to
diminish the power of mother-right have done so in reinforcement of a
preconceived idea of the superiority of the man as the natural and
unchanging order in the relationships of the sexes. One suspects
prejudice here. To approach this question with any fairness, it is
absolutely essential to clear the mind from the current theories
regarding the family. The order is not sacred in the sense that it has
always had the same form. It is this belief in the immutability of our
form of marriage and the family which accounts for the prejudice with
which this question is approached. The modern civilised man cannot
easily accustom himself to the idea that in the maternal family the
dominion of the mother was regarded as the natural, and, therefore,
the right and accepted order of the family. It is very difficult for
us even to believe in a relationship of the mother and the father that
is so exactly opposite to that with which we are accustomed.




CHAPTER VIII

MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS AND THE TRANSITION TO FATHER-RIGHT


Endeavour has been made in the previous chapters to present the case
for mother-right as clearly and concisely as possible. The point we
have now reached is this: while mother-right does not constitute or
make necessary rule by women, under that system they enjoy
considerable power as the result (1) of their organised position under
the maternal marriage among their own clan-kindred, (2) of their
importance to the male members of the clan as the transmitters and
holders of property.

It is necessary to remember the close connection between these
mother-right customs and the communal clan, which was a free
association for mutual protection. This is a point of much interest.
As we have seen, the undivided family of the clan could be maintained
only by descent through the mothers, since its existence depended on
its power to retain and protect all its members. In this way it
destroyed the solitary family, by its opposition to the authority and
will of the husband and father.

These conclusions will be strengthened as we continue our examination
of mother-right customs as we shall find them in all parts of the
world. I must select a few examples only and describe them very
briefly, not because these cases offer less interest than the complete
maternal families already examined, but because of the length to which
this part of my inquiry is rapidly growing. The essential fact to
establish is the prevalence of mother-descent as a probable universal
stage in the past history of mankind, and then to show the causes
which, by undermining the dominion of the maternal clan, led to the
adoption of father-right and the re-establishment of the patriarchal
family.

Let us begin with Australia, where the aboriginal population is in a
more primitive condition than any other race whose institutions have
been investigated. I can notice a few facts only from the harvest of
information brought together by anthropologists and travellers. The
tribes are grouped into exogamous sub-divisions, and each group has
its own land from which it takes a local name. Each group wanders
about on its own territory in order to hunt game and collect roots,
sometimes in detached families and, less often, in larger hordes, for
there seems to be a tendency to local isolation. A remarkable feature
of the social organisation is found in the more advanced tribes,
where, in addition to the division into clans, the group is divided
into male and female classes. All the members of such clans regard
themselves as kinsmen, or brothers and sisters; they have the same
totem mark and are bound to protect each other. The totem bond is
stronger than any blood tie, while the sex totems are even more sacred
than the clan totems.

Much confusion has arisen out of the attempts to explain the
Australian system; and for long the close totem kinship was supposed
to afford evidence of group marriage, by which a man of one clan was
held to have sexual rights over all the women in another clan. But
further insight into their customs has proved the error of such a
view, which arose from a misunderstanding of the terms of relationship
used among the tribes. Nowhere is marriage bound by more severe laws;
death is the penalty for sexual intercourse with a person of a
forbidden clan. And it is certain that there is no evidence at all of
communism in wives.[105]

    [105] _See_ Westermarck, _op. cit._, pp. 54-56.

A system of taboos is very strongly established, and as we should
expect the women appear to be most active in maintaining these sexual
separations. If a man, even by mistake, kills the sex-totem of the
women, they are as much enraged as if it were one of their own
children, and they will turn and attack him with their long poles.

In Australia it is easy to recognise a very early stage in human
society. The organisation of the family group into the clan is still
taking place. Moreover, the most primitive patriarchal conditions have
not greatly changed, for the males are great individualists and cannot
readily suffer the rights of others than themselves. Mother-right can
hardly be said to exist, and the position of women is low. It is not
the custom among any tribes for the husband to reside in the home of
the wife; this in itself is sufficient to explain the power of the
husbands. Wives are frequently obtained by capture, and fights for
women are of common occurrence. Here it would seem that progress has
been very slow. Indeed, it is the chief interest of the Australian
tribes that we can trace the transformation from the early patriarchal
conditions to the communal clan.

There is still another fact of very special interest. In the large
majority of tribes known to us descent is traced through the mother;
the proportion of these tribes to those with father-descent being four
to one. Now, the question arises as to which of these two systems is
the earlier custom? As a rule it is assumed that in all cases descent
was originally traced through the mother. But is this really so? The
evidence of the Australian tribes points to the exact opposite
opinion. For what do we find? The tribes that have established
mother-descent have advanced further, with a more developed social
organisation, which could hardly be the case if they were the more
primitive. To this question Starcke, in _The Primitive Family_, has
drawn particular attention; he regards “the female line as a later
development,” arrived at after descent through the father was
recognised, such change being due to an urgent necessity which arose
in the primitive family for cohesion among its members, making
necessary sexual regulation and the maternal clan.

It is certainly difficult to decide on the priority of this or that
custom. But what is significant is that in Australia the tribes which
maintain the male line of descent must be assigned to the lowest stage
of development. The rights established by marriage among them are less
clearly defined, and the use of the totem marks, with the sexual
taboos arising from them, are less developed. Everything tends to show
that clan organisation and union in peace have arisen with
mother-descent, which cannot thus be regarded as a survival from the
earlier order, but as a later development--a step forward in progress
and social regulation.

I take this as being exceedingly important: it serves to establish
what it has been my purpose to show, that in the first stage the
family was patriarchal--small hostile groups living under the jealous
authority of the fathers; and that only as advancement came did the
maternal clan develop, since it arose through a community of purpose
binding all its members in peace, and thereby controlling the warring
individual interests. The reasons for mother-descent have been
altogether misunderstood by those who regard it as the earliest phase
of the family, and connect the custom with sexual disorder and
uncertainty of paternity. In all cases the clan system shows a marked
organisation, with a much stronger cohesion than is possible in the
restricted family, which is held together by the force of the father.
It was within the clan that the rights of the father and husband were
endangered: he lost his position as supreme head of the family, and
became an alien member in a free association where his position was
strictly defined. The incorporation of the family into the clan arose
through the struggle for existence forcing it into association; it was
the subordinate position of the husband under such a system which
finally made the women the rulers of the household. If we regard the
social conditions of the maternal system as the first stage of
development, they are as difficult to understand as they become
intelligible when we consider it as a later and beneficent phase in
the growth of society.

This, then, I claim as the chief good of the maternal system. As I see
it, each advance in progress rests on the conquest of sexual distrusts
and fierceness forcing into isolation. These jealous and odious
monopolist instincts have been the bane of humanity. Each race must
inevitably in the end outlive them; they are the surviving relics of
the ape and the tiger. They arise out of that self-concentration and
intensity of animalism that binds the hands of men and women from
taking their inheritance. The brute in us still resents association.
Am I wrong in connecting this individual monopolist idea of My power!
My right! with the paternal as opposed to the maternal family? At any
rate I find it absent in the communal clan grouped around the mothers,
where the enlarged family makes common cause and life is lived by all
for and with each other.

An instructive example of the joint maternal family is furnished by
the Naïrs of Malabar, where we see a very late development of the
clan system. The family group includes many allied families, who live
together in large communal houses and possess everything in common.
There is common tenure of land, over which the eldest male member of
the community presides; while the mother, and after her death the
eldest daughter, is the ruler in the household. It is impossible to
give the details of their curious conjugal customs. The men do not
marry, but frequent other houses as lovers, without ceasing to live at
home, and without being in any way detached from the maternal family.
There is, however, a symbolic marriage for every girl, by a rite known
as tying the _tali_; but this marriage serves the purpose only of
initiation, and the couple separate after one day. When thus prepared
for marriage, a Naïr girl chooses her lovers, and any number of unions
may be entered upon without any restrictions other than the strict
prohibitions relative to caste and tribe. These later marriages,
unlike the solemn initial rite, have no ceremony connected with them,
and are entered into freely at the will of the woman and her
family.[106]

    [106] Starcke’s _Primitive Family_, pp. 85-88. Letourneau,
    _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 80-81, 311-312. Hartland,
    _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, pp. 269, 288.

Now, if we regard these customs in the light of what has already been
established, it is clear that they cannot be regarded as the first
stage in the maternal family. Such a view is entirely to mistake the
facts. The Naïrs are in no respect a people of primitive culture.
Through a long period they have most strictly preserved the custom of
matriarchal heredity, which has led to an unusual concentration of the
family group, and it is probable that here is the best explanation of
the conjugal liberty of the Naïr girls. However singular their system
may appear to us, it is the most logical and complete of any
polyandric system. If we compare it with the more usual form of
patriarchal polyandry we see at once the influence of maternal
descent. Here, the woman makes a free choice of her husbands; in no
sense is she their property. It is common for them to work for her,
one husband taking on himself to furnish her with clothes, another to
give her rice and food, and so on. It is, in fact, the wife who
possesses, and it is through her that wealth is transmitted. In
fraternal polyandry, on the other hand (as, for instance, it is
practised in Thibet and Ceylon), the husbands of a woman are always
brothers; she belongs to them, and for her children there is a kind of
collective fatherhood. But among the Naïrs the man as husband and
father cannot be said to exist; he is reduced to the most subordinate
rôle of the male--he is simply the progenitor.

I know of no stronger case than this of the degraded position of the
father. And what I want to make clear is that in such negation of all
father-right rested the inherent weakness in the matriarchal
conditions--a weakness which led eventually to the re-establishment of
the paternal family. We must be very clear in our minds as to the
sharp distinction between the restricted family and the communal
clan. The clan as a confederation of members was opposed to the family
whose interests were necessarily personal and selfish. Such communism,
to some may appear strange at so early a stage of primitive cultures,
yet, as I have more than once pointed out, it was a perfectly natural
development; it arose through the fierce struggle for existence,
forcing the primitive hostile groups to expand and unite with one
another for mutual protection. Such conditions of primitive socialism
were specially favourable for women. As I have again and again
affirmed, the collective motive was more considered by the mothers,
and must be sought in the organisation of the maternal clan. But since
individual desires can never be wholly subdued, and the male nature is
ever directed towards self-assertion, the clan, organised on the
rights of the mothers, had always to contend with an opposing force.
At one stage the clan was able to absorb the family, but only under
exceptional conditions could such a system be maintained. The social
organisation of the clan was inevitably broken up as society advanced.
With greater security of life the individual interests reasserted
their power, and this undermined the dominion of the mother.

To bring these facts home, we must now consider some further examples
of mother-right, in order to show how closely these customs are
connected with the conditions of the maternal familiar clan.

The Yaos of Africa have what may be regarded as a matriarchal
organisation. Kinship is reckoned and property is inherited through
the mother. When a man marries, he is expected to live in his wife’s
village, and his first conjugal duties are to build a house for her,
and hoe a garden for her mother. This gives the woman a very important
position, and it is she, and not the man, who usually proposes
marriage.[107]

    [107] Alice Werner, “Our Subject Races”, _National Reformer_,
    Aug. 1897, p. 169.

In Africa descent through the mother is the rule, though there are
exceptions, and these are increasing. The amusing account given by
Miss Kingsley[108] of Joseph, a member of the Batu tribe in French
Congo, strikingly illustrates the prevalence of the custom. When asked
by a French official to furnish his own name and the name of his
father, Joseph was wholly nonplussed. “My fader!” he said. “Who my
fader?” Then he gave the name of his mother. The case is the same
among the negroes. The Fanti of the Gold Coast may be taken as
typical. Among them an intensity of affection (accounted for partly by
the fact that the mothers have exclusive care of the children) is felt
for the mother, while the father is almost disregarded as a parent,
notwithstanding the fact that he may be a wealthy and powerful man.
The practice of the Wamoimia, where the son of a sister is preferred
in legacies, “because a man’s own son is only the son of his wife,” is
typical. The Bush husband does not live with his wife, and often has
wives in different places.[109]

    [108] _Travels_, p. 109.

    [109] Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte_, etc., Vol. II, p. 57.
    Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, pp. 274, 286.

In Africa the clan system is firmly established, which explains the
prevalence of mother-descent. Women, on the whole, take an important
position, and here, as elsewhere, their inheritance of property
enables them to maintain their equality with their husbands.
Individual possession of wealth is allowed, but a married man usually
cannot dispose of any property unless his wife agrees, and she acts as
the representative of the children’s claims upon the father. The
privilege that, according to Laing, the Soulima women have, of leaving
their husbands when they please, is also proof of the maternal
customs.[110] Moreover, among some tribes, the influence of the
mothers as the heads of families extends to the councils of state; it
is even said that the chiefs do not decide anything without their
consent.[111]

    [110] Letourneau, pp. 306-307; citing Laing, _Travels in
    Western Africa_.

    [111] Giraud-Teulon, _Les origines du mariage et de la
    famille_, pp. 215 _et seq._

Mother-right is still in force in many parts of India, though owing to
the influence of Brahminism on the aboriginal tribes the examples of
the maternal family are fewer than might be expected. Among the once
powerful Koochs the women own all the property, which is inherited
from mother to daughter. The husband lives with his wife and her
mother, and, we are told, is subject to them. These women are most
industrious, weaving, spinning, planting and sowing, in a word, doing
all the work not above their strength.[112] The Koochs may be compared
with the Khasis, already noticed, and these maternal systems among the
Indian hill tribes may surely be regarded as showing conditions at one
time common. Even tribes who have passed from the clan organisation to
the patriarchal family preserve numerous traces of mother-right. Thus,
the choice of her lover often remains with the girl; again, divorce is
easy at the wish either of the woman or the man.[113] Such freedom in
love is clearly inconsistent with the patriarchal authority of the
husband. I must note too the practice, common among many tribes, by
which the husband remains in the wife’s home for a probationary
period, working for her family.[114] This is clearly a step towards
purchase marriage, as is proved by the Santals, where this service is
claimed when a girl is ugly or deformed and cannot be married
otherwise, while other tribes offer their daughters when in want of
labourers. This service-marriage must not be confused with the true
maternal form, where the bridegroom visits or lives with the wife and
any service claimed is a test of his fitness; it shows, however, the
power of the woman’s kindred still curbing the rights of the husband.

    [112] Hodgson, _Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal_, 1855,
    Vol. XVIII, p. 707, cited by Starcke, _op. cit._, pp. 79,
    285.

    [113] Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II, pp. 155-157.

    [114] This custom prevails, for instance, among the Kharwârs
    and Parahiya tribes, and is common among the Ghasiyas, and is
    also practised among the Tipperah of Bengal.

The existence of mother-descent among the peoples of Western Asia has
been ascertained with regard to some ancient tribes; but I may pass
these over, as they offer no points of special interest. I must,
however, refer briefly to the evidence brought forward by the late
Prof. Robertson Smith[115] of mother-right in ancient Arabia. We find
a decisive example of its favourable influence on the position of
women in the custom of _beena_ marriage. Under this maternal form, the
wife was not only freed from any subjection involved by the payment of
a bride-price in the form of compulsory service or of gifts to her
kindred (which always places her more or less under authority), but
she was the owner of the tent and the household property, and thus
enjoyed the liberty which ownership always entails. This explains how
she was able to free herself at pleasure from her husband, who was
really nothing but a temporary lover. Ibn Batua, even in the
fourteenth century found that the women of Zebid were perfectly ready
to marry strangers. The husband might depart when he pleased, but his
wife in that case could never be induced to follow him. She bade him a
friendly adieu and took upon herself the whole charge of any children
of the marriage. The women in Jâhilîya had the right to dismiss their
husbands, and the form of dismissal was this: “If they lived in a
tent they turned it round, so that if the door faced east it now faced
west, and when the man saw this, he knew he was dismissed and did not
enter.” The tent belonged to the woman: the husband was received
there, and at her good pleasure. We find many cases of _beena_
marriage among widely different peoples. Frazer[116] cites an
interesting example among the tribes on the north frontier of
Abyssinia, partially Semitic peoples, not yet under the influence of
Islam, who preserve a maternal marriage closely resembling the _beena_
form, but have as well a purchase marriage, by which a wife is
acquired by the payment of a bride-price and becomes the property of
her husband.

    [115] _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia._ See also
    Barton, _Semitic Origins_.

    [116] _Academy_, March 27, 1886.

A very curious form of conjugal contract is recorded among the
Hassanyeh Arabs of the White Nile, where the wife passed by contract
for a portion of her time only under the authority of her husband. It
illustrates in a striking way the conflict in marriage between the old
rights of the woman and the rising power of the husband.

     “When the parents of the man and the woman meet to settle
     the price of the woman, the price depends on how many days
     in the week the marriage tie is to be strictly observed. The
     woman’s mother first of all proposes that, taking everything
     into consideration, with due regard to the feelings of the
     family, she could not think of binding her daughter to a due
     observance of that chastity which matrimony is expected to
     command for more than two days in the week. After a great
     deal of apparently angry discussion, and the promise on the
     part of the relations of the man to pay more, it is arranged
     that the marriage shall hold good, as is customary among the
     first families of the tribe, for four days in the week, viz.
     Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and in compliance
     with old established custom, the marriage rites during the
     three remaining days shall not be insisted on, during which
     days the bride shall be perfectly free to act as she may
     think proper, either by adhering to her husband and home, or
     by enjoying her freedom and independence from all observance
     of matrimonial obligations.”[117]

    [117] Spencer, _Descriptive Sociology_, Vol. V, p. 8, citing
    Petherick, _Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa_, pp.
    140-141.

A further striking example of mother-right is furnished by the Mariana
Islands, where the position of women was distinctly superior.

     “Even when the man had contributed an equal share of
     property on marriage, the wife dictated everything, and the
     man could undertake nothing without her approval; but if the
     woman committed an offence, the man was held responsible and
     suffered the punishment. The women could speak in the
     assembly; they held property, and if a woman asked anything
     of a man, he gave it up without a murmur. If a wife was
     unfaithful, the husband could send her home, keep her
     property, and kill the adulterer; but if the man was guilty
     or even suspected of the same offence, the women of the
     neighbourhood destroyed his house and all his visible
     property, and the owner was fortunate if he escaped with a
     whole skin; and if the wife was not pleased with her
     husband, she withdrew, and a similar attack followed. On
     this account many men were not married, preferring to live
     with paid women.”[118]

    [118] Thomas, _Sex and Society_, pp. 73-74, quoting
    Waitz-Gerland.

A similar case of the rebellion of men against their position is
recorded in Guinea, where religious symbolism was used by the husband
as a way of obtaining control and possession of his wife. The maternal
system held with respect only to the chief wife.

     “It was customary, however, for a man to buy and take to
     wife a slave, a friendless person with whom he could deal at
     pleasure, who had no kindred who could interfere with her,
     and to consecrate her to his Bossum, or god. The Bossum
     wife, slave as she had been, ranked next to the chief wife,
     and was exceptionally treated. She alone was very jealously
     guarded, she alone was sacrificed at her husband’s death.
     She was, in fact, wife in a peculiar sense. And having by
     consecration been made of the kindred and worship of her
     husband her children could be born of his kindred and
     worship.”[119]

    [119] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, p. 235.

It will be readily seen that the special rights held by the husband
over these captive-wives would come to be greatly desired. But the
capture of women was always difficult, as it frequently led to
quarrels and even warfare with the woman’s tribe, and for this reason
was never widely practised. It would therefore be necessary for
another way of escape from the bonds of the maternal marriage to be
found. This was done by a system of buying the wife from her
clan-kindred, in which case she became the property of her husband.

The change did not, of course, take place at once, and we have many
examples of a transition period where the old customs are in conflict
with the new. Both forms of marriage, the maternal and the purchase
contract, are practised side by side by many peoples. These cases are
so instructive that I must add one or two examples to those already
noticed. The _ambel-anak_ marriage of Sumatra is the maternal form,
but there is another marriage known as _djudur_, by which a man buys
his wife as his absolute property. There is a complicated system of
payments, on which the husband’s rights to take the wife to his home
depends. If the final sum is paid (but this is not commonly claimed
except in the case of a quarrel between the families) the woman
becomes to all intents and purposes the slave of the man; but if, on
the other hand, as is not at all uncommon, the husband fails or has
difficulty in making the main payment, he becomes the debtor of his
wife’s family, and he is practically the slave, all his labour being
due to his wife’s family without any reduction in the debt, which must
be paid in full, before he regains his liberty.[120] In Ceylon, again,
there are two forms of marriage, called _beena_ and _deega_, which
cause a marked difference in the position of the wife. A woman married
under the _beena_ form lives in the house or immediate neighbourhood
of her parents, and if so married she has the right of inheritance
along with her brothers; but if married in _deega_ she goes to live in
her husband’s house and village and loses her rights in her own
family.[121]

    [120] Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, pp. 225-227.

    [121] Forbes, _Eleven Years in Ceylon_, Vol. I, p. 333.

In Africa where the _beena maternal marriage_ is usual, and the
husband serves for his wife and lives with her family, it is said that
families are usually more or less willing _for value received_ to give
a woman to a man to take away with him, or to let him have his _beena_
wife to transfer to his own house. Among the Wayao and Mang’anja of
the Shirehighlands, south of Lake Nyassa, a man on marrying leaves his
own village and goes to live in that of his wife; but, as an
alternative, he is allowed to pay a bride-price, in which case he
takes his wife away to his home.[122] Again among the Banyai on the
Zambesi, if the husband gives nothing the children of the marriage
belong to the wife’s family, but if he gives so many cattle to his
wife’s parents the children are his.[123] Similar cases may be found
elsewhere. In the Watubela Islands between New Guinea and Celebes a
man may either pay for his wife before marriage, or he may, without
paying, live as her husband in her parents’ house, working for her. In
the former case, the children belong to him, in the latter to the
mother’s family, but he may buy them subsequently at a price.[124]
Campbell records of the Limboo tribe (where the bride is usually
purchased and lives with the husband), that if poverty compels the
bridegroom to serve for his wife, he becomes the slave of her father,
“until by his work he has redeemed his bride.”[125] An interesting
case occurs in some Californian tribes where the husband has to live
with the wife and work, until he has paid to her kindred the full
price for her and her child. So far has custom advanced in favour of
father-right that the children of a wife not paid for are regarded as
bastards and held in contempt.[126]

    [122] Macdonald, _Africana_, Vol I, p. 136.

    [123] Livingstone, _Travels_, p. 622.

    [124] Riedel, p. 205; cited by McLennan, _Patriarchal
    Theory_, p. 326.

    [125] _Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal_, Vol. IX, p. 603.

    [126] Bancroft, Vol. I, p. 549.

Wherever we find the payment of a bride-price, in whatever form, there
is sure indication of the decay of mother-right: woman has become
property. Among the Bassa Komo of Nigeria marriage is usually effected
by an exchange of sisters or other female relatives. The men may marry
as many wives as they have women to give to other men. In this tribe
the women look after the children, but the boys, when four years old,
go to live and work with the fathers.[127] The husbands of the Bambala
tribe (inhabiting the Congo states between the rivers Inzia and Kwilu)
have to abstain from visiting their wives for a year after the birth
of each child, but they are allowed to return to her on the payment to
her father of two goats.[128] Among the Bassanga on the south-west of
Lake Moeru the children of the wife belong to the mother’s kin, but
the children of slaves are the property of the father.

    [127] _Journal African Society_, VIII, 15 _et seq._

    [128] Torday and Joyce, _J. A. I._, XXXV, 410.

The right of a father to his children was established only by
contract. Even where the wife had been given up by her kindred and
allowed to live with her husband, we find that the children may be
claimed by her family. Thus among the Makolo the price paid on
marriage might merely cover the right to have the wife, and in this
case the children belonged to the wife’s family. It might, however,
cover a certain right to the children if that had been contracted for,
but never such a right as separated them wholly from the mother’s
family. To effect this it was necessary that a further price should be
paid at the father’s death. This sum once paid, her family had “given
her up” and her children were entirely severed from them.[129] The
legal acknowledgment of fatherhood in all cases had to be paid for.

    [129] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, pp. 324-325, 240.

There are many customs pointing to this new father-force asserting
itself, and pushing aside the mother-power. In Africa, among the
Bavili the mother has the right to pawn her child, but she must first
consult the father, so that he may have a chance of giving her goods
to save the pledging.[130] This is very plainly a step towards
father-right. There is no distinction between legitimate and
illegitimate children. Similar conditions prevail among the Alladians
of the Ivory Coast, but here the mother cannot pledge her children
without the consent of her brother or other male head of the family.
The father has the right to ransom the child.[131] An even stronger
example of the property value of children is furnished by the custom
found among many tribes, by which the father has to make a present to
the wife’s family when a child dies: this is called “buying the
child.”[132] A similar custom prevails among the Maori people of New
Zealand; when a child dies, or even meets with an accident, the
mother’s relations, headed by her brothers, turn out in force against
the father. He must defend himself until wounded. Blood once drawn,
the combat ceases; but the attacking party plunders his house and
appropriates the husband’s property, and finally sits down to a feast
provided by him.[133]

    [130] Dennett, _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I, 266.

    [131] _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I, 412.

    [132] Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, pp. 275 _et
    seq._

    [133] _Old New Zealand_, p. 110.

These cases, with the inferences they suggest, show that the power a
husband and father possessed over his wife and her children was gained
through purchase. And it is not the fact of the husband’s power,
however great it might be, that is so important, but the fact that by
the change in the form of marriage the wife and her children were cut
off from the woman’s clan-kindred, whose duty to protect them was now
withdrawn. Here, then, was the reason of the change from mother-right
to father-right. The monopolist desire of the husband to possess for
himself the woman and her children (perhaps the deepest rooted of all
the instincts) reasserted itself. But the regaining of this individual
possession by man was due, not to male strength, but to purchase. I
must insist upon this. As soon as women became sexually marketable
their freedom was doomed.

There are many interesting cases of transition in which the children
belong sometimes to the mother and sometimes to the father. Again I
can give one or two examples only. In the island of Mangia the parents
at the birth of the child arranged between themselves whether it
should be dedicated to the father’s god or to the mother’s. The
dedication took place forthwith, and finally determined which parent
had the ownership of the child.[134] Among the Haidis, children belong
to the clan of the mother, but in exceptional cases when the clan of
the father is reduced in numbers, the new-born child may be given to
the father’s sister to suckle. It is then spoken of as belonging to
the paternal aunt and is counted to its father’s clan.[135] It is also
possible to transfer a child to the father by giving it one of the
names common to his clan. There are many curious customs practised by
certain tribes, wavering between mother and father descent. In Samoa
religion decides the question. At the birth of a child the totem of
each parent is prayed to in turn (usually, though not always, starting
with that of the father) and whichever totem happens to be invoked at
the moment of birth is the child’s totem for life and decides whether
he or she belongs to the clan of the mother or the father.[136]
Equally curious was the custom of the Liburni, where the children were
all brought up together until they were five years old. They were then
collected and examined in order to trace their likeness to the men and
they were assigned to their fathers accordingly. Whoever received a
boy from his mother in this way regarded him as his son.[137]
Similarly with the Arabs, where one woman was the wife of several men,
the custom was either for the woman to decide to which of them the
child was to belong, or the child was assigned by an expert to one of
the joint husbands to be regarded as his own.[138]

    [134] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_.

    [135] _Survey of Canada_, Report for 1878-79, 134 B. Cited by
    Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 76.

    [136] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 78.

    [137] _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 20, quoted by Starcke, _op.
    cit._, pp. 126-127.

    [138] Wilken, _Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern_, p. 26.

These facts throw a strong light on the bond between the father and
the child, which was a legal bond, not dependent, as it is with us,
upon blood relationship. Fatherhood really arose out of the ownership
of purchase. And for this reason the father’s right came to extend to
all the children of the wife. It does not appear that the husband
makes any distinction between his wife’s children, even if they were
begotten by other men. Chastity is not regarded as a virtue, and in
those cases where unfaithfulness in a wife is punished, it is always
because the woman, who has passed from the protection of her kindred,
acts without her husband’s permission. Interchange of wives is common,
while it is one of the duties of hospitality to offer a wife to a
stranger guest. Husbands sometimes, indeed, seek other men for their
wives, believing they will obtain sons who will excel all others. Thus
of the Arabs we are told, there is one form of marriage according to
which a man says to his wife, “Send a message to such a one and beg
him to have intercourse with you.” The husband acts in this way in
order that his offspring may be noble.[139] When a Hindu marries, all
the children previously born from his wife become his own; in
Pakpatan, even when a woman has forsaken her husband for ten years,
the children she brings forth are divided between her and her
lover.[140] Similarly in Madagascar, when a woman is divorced, any
children she afterwards bears belong to her husband.[141] Campbell
tells us of children born out of wedlock in the Limboo tribe that the
father may obtain possession of the boys by purchase and by naming
them, but the girls belong to the mother.[142]

    [139] Wilken, _op. cit._, p. 26.

    [140] Wade, _Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal_, Vol. VI, p.
    196.

    [141] See _Truth about Woman_, pp. 160-161, for account of
    Madagascar.

    [142] _Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal_, Vol. IX, p. 603.

I am very certain that it was through property considerations and for
no moral causes that the stringency of the moral code was tightened
for women. It seems to me of very great importance that women should
grasp firmly this truth: the virtue of chastity owes its origin to
property. Our minds fall so readily under the spell of such ideas as
chastity and purity. There is a mass of real superstition on this
question--a belief in a kind of magic in chastity. But, indeed,
continence had at first no connection with morals. The sense of
ownership has been the seed-plot of our moral code. To it we are
indebted for the first germs of the sexual inhibitions which,
sanctified, by religion and supported by custom, have, under the
unreasoned idealism of the common mind, filled life with cruelties and
jealous exclusions, with suicides, and murders, and secret
shames.[143]

    [143] This passage is quoted from _The Truth about Woman_, p.
    171. I give it here, because its importance seems to me to be
    very great.

This brings me to summarise the point we have reached. Father-right
was dependent on purchase-possession and had nothing to do with actual
fatherhood. The payment of a bride-price, the giving of a sister in
exchange, as also marriage with a slave, gained for the husband the
control over his wife and ownership of the children. I could bring
forward much more evidence in proof of this fact that property, and
not kinship, was the basis of fatherhood, did the limits of my space
allow me to do so; such cases are common in all parts of the world
where the transitional stage has been reached. The maternal clan, with
its strong social cohesion is then broken up by the growing power of
individual interests pushing aside the old customs, and bringing about
the restoration of the family. I believe that the causes by which the
father gained his position as the dominant partner in marriage must be
clear to every one from the examples I have given. Fatherhood
established in the first stage of the family on jealous authority,
now, after a period of more or less complete obscuration, rises again
as the dominant force in marriage. The father has bought back his
position as patriarch. On the other hand the mother has lost her
freedom that came with the protection of her kindred, under the social
organisation of the clan. Looking back through the lengthening record,
we find that another step has been taken in the history of the family.
This time is it a step forward, or a step backward? This is a question
I shall not try to answer, for, indeed, I am not sure.

Yet in case I am mistaken here, let me say at once I am certain that
this return to the restricted family was a necessary and inevitable
step. The individual forces had to triumph. This may seem a
contradiction to all I have just said. What I wish to show is this:
one and all the phases in the development of society have been needful
and fruitful as successive stages in growth; yet none can
continue--none be regarded as the final stage, for each becomes
insufficient and narrow from the standpoint of the needs of a later
stage. We have reached the third stage--the patriarchal family which
still endures. And last and hardest to eradicate is that monopoly of
sexual possession, which says: “This woman and her children are mine:
I have tabooed her for life.” Mankind has still to outlive this brute
instinct in its upward way to civilisation.




CHAPTER IX

WOMEN AND PRIMITIVE INDUSTRY


I have referred in an earlier chapter to a letter from Mr. H. G.
Wells, sent to me after the publication of my book, _The Truth about
Woman_. Now, there is one sentence in this letter that I wish to quote
here, because it brings home just what it is my purpose in this
chapter to show--that the mother-age was a civilisation owing its
institutions, and its early victories over nature, rather to the
genius of woman than to that of man. Mr. Wells does not, indeed, say
this. He rejects the mother-age, and in questioning my acceptance of
it as a stage in the past histories of societies, he writes: “The
primitive matriarchate never was anything more than mother at the
washing-tub and father looking miserable.”

It seems to me that here, in his own inimitable way, Mr. Wells (though
I think quite unconsciously) sums up the past labour-history of woman
and man. His statement has very far-reaching considerations. It forces
us to accept the active utility of primitive woman in the community--a
utility more developed and practical than that of man. This was really
the basis of women’s position of power. The constructive quality of
the female mind, at a time when the male attention and energy were
fixed chiefly on the destructive activities of warfare, was liberated
for use and invention. Women were the seekers, slowly increasing their
efficiency.

Very much the same account of the primitive sexual division in work
was given by an Australian Kurnai to Messrs. Fison and Howitt, in a
sentence that has been quoted very frequently: “A man hunts, spears
fish, fights and sits about, all the rest is woman’s work.” This may
be accepted as a fair statement of how work is divided between the two
sexes among primitive peoples. Now, what I wish to make plain is that
it was an arrangement in which the advantage was really on the side of
the woman rather than on that of the man. I would refer the reader
back to what has been said on this subject in Chapter III, where I
summed up the conditions acting on the women in the hypothetical first
stage of the primordial family. We saw that the males were chiefly
concerned with the absorbing duties of sex and fighting rivals, and
also hunting for game. The women’s interest, on the other hand, was
bent on domestic activities--in caring for their children and
developing the food supplies immediately around them. From the
hearth-home, or shelter, as the start of settled life, and with their
intelligence sharpened by the keen chisel of necessity, women carried
on their work as the organisers and directors of industrial
occupations. Very slowly did they make each far-reaching discovery;
seeds cast into the ground sprouted and gave the first start of
agriculture. The plant world gave women the best returns for the
efforts they made, and they began to store up food. Contrivance
followed contrivance, each one making it possible for women to do
more. Certain animals, possibly brought back by the hunters from the
forests, were kept and tamed. Presently the use of fire was
discovered--we know not how--but women became the guardians of this
source of life. And now, instead of caves or tree-shelters, there were
huts and tents and houses, and of these, too, women were frequently
the builders. The home from the first was of greater importance to the
women; it was the place where the errant males rejoined their wives
and children, and hence the women became the owners of the homes and
the heads of households. For as yet the men were occupied in fighting.
The clumsy and the stupid among them were killed soonest; the fine
hand, the quick eye--these prevailed age by age. Tools and weapons
were doubtless fashioned by these fighters, but for destruction; the
male’s attention was directed mainly by his own desires. And may we
not accept that among the most pressing activities of women was the
need to tame man and make him social, so that he could endure the
rights of others than himself?

So through the long generations the life of human societies continued.
Those activities, due to female influence, developing and opening up
new ways in all directions, until we have that early civilisation,
which I have called the mother-age.

All the world over, even to this day, this separation in the labour
activities of the two sexes can be traced. Destructive work, demanding
a special development of strength, with corresponding periods of rest,
falls to men; and contrasted with this violent and intermittent male
force we find, with the same uniformity, that the work of women is
domestic and constructive, being connected with the care of children
and all the various industries which radiate from the home--work
demanding a different kind of strength, more enduring, more
continuous, but at a lower tension.

Bonwick’s account of the work of Tasmanian women may be taken as
typical--

     “In addition to the necessary duty of looking after the
     children, the women had to provide all the food for the
     household excepting that derived from the chase of the
     kangaroo. They climbed up hills for the opossum” (a very
     difficult task, requiring great strength and also skill),
     “delved in the ground for yams, native bread, and nutritious
     roots, groped about the rocks for shellfish, dived beneath
     the sea for oysters, and fished for the finny tribe. In
     addition to this, they carried, on their frequent tramps,
     the household stuffs in native baskets of their own
     manufacture.”[144]

    [144] _Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians_, p. 55.

Among the Indians of Guiana the men’s work is to hunt, and to cut down
the trees when the cassava is to be planted. When the men have felled
the trees and cleaned the ground, the women plant the cassava and
undertake all the subsequent operations; agriculture is entirely in
their hands. They are little, if at all, weaker than the men, and they
work all day while the men are often in their hammocks smoking; but
there is no cruelty or oppression exercised by the men towards the
women.[145]

    [145] Everard im Thurn, _Among the Indians of Guiana_.

In Africa we meet with much the same conditions of labour. “The work
is done chiefly by the women, this is universal; they hoe the fields,
sow the seed, and reap the harvest. To them, too, falls all the labour
of house-building, grinding corn, brewing beer, cooking, washing, and
caring for almost all the material interests of the community. The men
tend the cattle, hunt, go to war; they also spend much time sitting in
council over the conduct of affairs.”[146]

    [146] Macdonald, “East Central African Customs,” _Journal
    Anthropological Institute_, Feb. 1890, p. 342.

I may note the interesting account of Prof. Haddon[147] of the work of
the Western Tribes of the Torres Straits--

    [147] _Journal Anthropological Institute_, Feb. 1890, p. 342.

     “The men fished, fought, built houses, did a little
     gardening, made fish-lines, fish-hooks, spears, and other
     implements, constructed dance-masks and head-dresses, and
     all the paraphernalia for the various ceremonies and dances.
     They performed all the rites and dances, and in addition did
     a good deal of strutting up and down, loafing and ‘yarning.’
     The women cooked and prepared the food, did most of the
     gardening, collected shell-fish, and speared fish on the
     reefs, made petticoats, baskets and mats.”

Similar examples might be almost indefinitely multiplied. Among the
Andamanese, while the men go into the jungle to hunt pigs, the women
fetch drinking water and firewood, catch shell-fish, make fishing nets
and baskets, spin thread, and cook the food ready for the return of
the men.[148] The Moki women of America have fifty ways of preparing
corn for food. They make all the preparations necessary for these
varied dishes, involving the arts of the stonecutter, the carrier, the
mason, the miller and the cook.[149] In New Caledonia “girls work in
the plantations, boys learn to fight.”[150]

    [148] Owen, _Transactions of the Ethnological Society_, New
    Series, Vol. II, p. 36.

    [149] Mason, _Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture_, p. 143.

    [150] Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_, p. 424.

We should, however, fall into a popular error concerning the division
of labour in savagery, if we consider that all women’s work is
regarded as degrading to men and all men’s work is tabooed to women.
The duties of war and the chase are the chief occupation of men, yet
in all parts of the world women have fought at need, and sometimes
habitually, both to assist their men and also against them. Thus
Buckley, who lived for many years among the Australian tribes, relates
that when the tribe he lived with was attacked by a hostile party, the
men “raised a war-cry; on hearing this the women threw off their rugs
and, each armed with a short club, flew to the assistance of their
husbands and brothers.”[151] In Central Australia the men occasionally
beat the women through jealousy, but on such occasions it is by no
means rare for the women, single handed, to beat the men
severely.[152] Again, men carry on, as a rule, the negotiations on
tribal concerns, but in such matters exceptions are very numerous.
Among the Australian Dieyerie, Curr states that the women act as
ambassadors to arrange treaties, and invariably succeed in their
mission.[153] The same conditions are found among the American
Indians. Men are the hunters and fishers, but women also hunt and
fish. Among the Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego fishing is left entirely to
the women,[154] and this is not at all unusual. Mrs. Allison states of
the Similkameen Indians of British Columbia that formerly “the women
were nearly as good hunters as the men,” but being sensitive to the
ridicule of the white settlers, they have given up hunting.[155] In
hunting trips, the help of women is often not to be despised.
Warburton Pike writes thus: “I saw what an advantage it is to take
women on a hunting trip. If we killed anything, we had only to cut up
and _cache_ the meat, and the women would carry it. On returning to
camp we could throw ourselves down on a pile of caribou skins and
smoke our pipes in comfort, but the women’s work was never
finished.”[156] This account is very suggestive. The man undergoes the
fatigue of hunting, and when he has thrown the game at the woman’s
feet his part is done; it is her duty to carry it and to cook it, as
well as to make the vessels in which the food is placed. The skins and
the refuse are hers to utilise, and all the industries connected with
clothing are chiefly in her hands.[157] Hearne, in his delightful old
narrative, speaks of the assistance of women on hunting expeditions--

     “For when all the men are heavy laden they can neither hunt
     nor travel to any considerable distance; and in case they
     meet with any success in hunting, who is to carry the
     produce of their labour?”

    [151] _Life and Adventures of William Buckley_, p. 43.

    [152] _Journal Anthropological Institute_, Aug. 1890, p. 61.

    [153] _Australian Races_, cited by Ellis, _Man and Woman_, p.
    9 _note_.

    [154] Haydes et Deniker, _Mission Scientifique de Cape Horn_,
    tome vii, 1891.

    [155] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, Feb. 1892,
    p. 307.

    [156] Warburton Pike, _Barren Grounds_, p. 75.

    [157] Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, p. 5.

He adds with a charming frankness--

     “Women were made for labour; one of them can carry or haul
     as much as two men can do. They also pitch our tents, make
     and mend our clothing, keep us warm at night, and, in fact,
     there is no such thing as travelling any considerable
     distance, or any length of time, in this country without
     their assistance.”[158]

    [158] _A Journey from Prince of Wales’s Fort to the Northern
    Ocean_, p. 55.

Numerous other examples might be added which illustrate how women take
part in the destructive work of men; conversely we find not a few
cases of the co-operation of men in the women’s activities. The world
over, women are usually the weavers and spinners; but with the Navajo
and in some of the Pueblos the men are among the best weavers.[159]
Among the Indians of Guiana the men are specially skilful in
basket-weaving, and here also they as well as the women spin and
weave.[160] More curious is the custom in East Africa where all the
sewing for their own and the women’s garments is done by the men, and
very well done. Sewing is here so entirely recognised as men’s work
that a wife may obtain a divorce if she “can show a neglected rend in
her petticoat.”[161]

    [159] Mason, _op. cit._, p. 10.

    [160] Im Thurn, _Among the Indians of British Guiana_.

    [161] Macdonald, _Journal Anthropological Institute_, Aug.
    1892.

It is a common mistake, arising from insufficient knowledge, to
suppose that savage women are specially subject to oppression. Their
life is hard as we look at it, but not as they look at it. We have
still much to learn on these matters. An even greater error is the
view that these women are a source of weakness to the male members of
their families. The very reverse is the truth. Primitive women are
strong in body and capable in work. Fison and Howitt, in discussing
this question, state of the Australian women, “In times of peace, they
are the hardest workers and the most useful members of the community.”
And in times of war, “they are perfectly capable of taking care of
themselves at all times, and so far from being an encumbrance on the
warriors, they will fight, if need be, as bravely as the men, and with
even greater ferocity.”[162] This is no exceptional case. The strength
of savage women is proved by reports from widely different races, of
which all testify to their physical capability and aptness for labour.
Schellong,[163] who has carefully studied the Papuans of the German
protectorate of New Guinea, from the anthropological point of view,
“considers that the women are more strongly built than the men.” Nor
does heavy work appear to damage the health or beauty of the women,
but the contrary. Thus among the Andombies on the Congo, to give one
instance, the women, though working very hard as carriers, and as
labourers in general, lead an entirely happy existence; they are often
stronger than the men and more finely developed: some of them, we are
told, have really splendid figures. And Parke, speaking of the
Manyuema of the Arruwimi in the same region, says that “they are fine
animals, and the women very handsome; they carry loads as heavy as
those of the men and do it quite as well.”[164] Again, McGee[165]
comments on the extraordinary capacity of quite aged women for heavy
labour. He tells of “a withered crone, weighing apparently not more
than 80 to 90 lb. who carried a _kilio_ containing a stone mortar 196
lb. in weight for more than half a mile on a sandy road without any
perceptible exhaustion. The proportion of the active aged is much
larger than among civilised people.”

    [162] _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 133, 147.

    [163] Cited by Ellis, _Man and Woman_, p. 4.

    [164] H. H. Johnston, _The Kilimanjaro Expedition_; Parke,
    _Experiences in Equatorial Africa_. These examples are cited
    by Ellis.

    [165] “The Beginnings of Agriculture,” _American
    Anthropologist_, Oct. 1895, p. 37.

I may pause to note some of the numerous industries of which women
were the originators. First of all, woman is the food-giver; all the
labours relating to the preparation of food, and to the utilisation of
the side products of foodstuffs are usually found in the hands of
women. Women are everywhere the primitive agriculturists. They beat
out the seeds from plants; dig for roots and tubers, strain the
poisonous juices from the cassava and make bread from the residue; and
it was under their attention that a southern grass was first developed
into what we know as Indian corn.[166] The removal of poisonous matter
from tapioca by means of hot water is also the discovery of savage
women.[167] All the evolution of primitive agriculture may be traced
to women’s industry. Power tells of the Yokia women in Central
California who employ neither plough nor hoe, but cultivate the ground
by digging the earth deep and rubbing it fine with their hands, and by
this means they get an excellent yield.[168] Women have everywhere
been the first potters; vessels were needed for use in cooking, to
carry and to hold water, and to store the supplies of food. For the
same reason baskets were woven. Women invented and exercised in common
multifarious household occupations and industries. Curing food,
tanning the hides of animals, spinning, weaving, dyeing--all are
carried on by women. The domestication of animals is usually in
women’s hands. They are also the primitive architects; the hut, in
widely different parts of the world--among Kaffirs, Fuegians,
Polynesians, Kamtschatdals--is built by women. We have seen that the
communal houses of the American Indians are mainly erected by the
women. Women were frequently, though not always, the primitive
doctors. Among the Kurds, for instance, all the medical knowledge is
in the hands of the women, who are the hereditary _hakims_.[169] Women
seem to have prepared the first intoxicating liquors. The Quissama
women in Angola climb the gigantic palm trees to obtain
palm-beer.[170] In the ancient legends of the North, women are clearly
represented as the discoverers of ale.[171]

    [166] Thomas, _Sex and Society_, p. 136.

    [167] Mason, _op. cit._ p. 24.

    [168] _Cont. North American Ethnology_, Vol. III, p. 167.

    [169] Mrs. Bishop, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_, cited
    by H. Ellis, _op. cit._, p. 6.

    [170] _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, Vol. I, p. 190.

    [171] “Magic Songs of the Finns,” _Folk-lore_, Mar. 1892.

It would be easy to go on almost indefinitely multiplying examples of
the industries of primitive women. There can be no doubt at all that
their work is exacting and incessant; it is also inventive in its
variety and its ready application to the practical needs of life. If a
catalogue of the primitive forms of labour were made, each woman would
be found doing at least half-a-dozen things while a man did one. We
may accept the statement of Prof. Mason that in the early history of
mankind “women were the industrial, elaborative, conservative half of
society. All the peaceful arts of to-day were once women’s peculiar
province. Along the lines of industrialism she was pioneer, inventor,
author, originator.”[172]

    [172] _American Antiquarian_, Jan. 1899.

There is another matter that must be noted. The primitive division of
labour between the sexes was not in any sense an arrangement dictated
by men, nor did they impose the women’s tasks upon them. The view that
the women are forced to work by the laziness of the men, and that
their heavy and incessant labour is a proof of their degraded position
is entirely out of focus. Quite the reverse is the truth. Evidence is
not wanting of the great advantage arising to women from their close
connection with labour. It was largely their control over the food
supply and their position as actual producers which gave them so much
influence, and even authority in the mother-age. In this connection I
may quote the statement of Miss Werner about the African women as
representing the true conditions--

     “I cannot say that, so far as my own observations went, the
     women’s lot seemed to be a specially hard one. In fact, they
     are too important an element in the community not to be
     treated with consideration. The fact that they do most of
     the heavy field-work does not imply that they are a
     down-trodden sex. On the contrary, it gives them a
     considerable pull, as a man will think twice before
     endangering his food supply.”[173]

    [173] “Our Subject Races,” _The Reformer_, April 1897, p. 43.

Mr. Horatio Hale, a well-known American anthropologist likewise
observes--

     “The common opinion that women among savage tribes in
     general are treated with harshness, and regarded as slaves,
     or at least as inferiors, is, like many common opinions,
     based on error, originating in too large and indiscriminate
     deduction from narrow premises.... The wife of a Samoan
     landowner or Navajo shepherd has no occasion, so far as her
     position in her family or among her people, to envy the wife
     of a German peasant.”[174]

    [174] _Journal Anthropological Institute_, May 1892, p. 427,
    cited by H. Ellis.

Certainly savage women do not count their work as any degradation.
There is really an equal division of labour between the sexes, though
the work of the men is accomplished more fitfully than that of the
women. The militant activities of fighting and hunting are essential
in primitive life. The women know this, and they do their share--the
industrial share, willingly, without question, and without compulsion.
It is entirely absurd in this work-connection to regard men as the
oppressors of women. Rather the advantage is on the women’s side. For
one thing, just because they are accustomed to hard labour all their
lives, they are little, if any, weaker than men. Primitive women are
strong in body, and capable in work. The powers they enjoy as well as
their manifold activities are the result of their position as mothers,
this function being to them a source of strength and not a plea of
weakness.

     “They who are accustomed to the ways of civilised women
     only,” remarks Mr. Fison, “can hardly believe what savage
     women are capable of, even when they may well be supposed to
     be at their weakest. For instance, an Australian tribe on
     the march scarcely take the trouble to halt for so slight a
     performance as childbirth. The newly born infant is wrapped
     in skins, the march is resumed, and the mother trudges on
     with the rest. Moreover, as is well known, among many tribes
     elsewhere it is the father who is put to bed, while the
     mother goes about her work as if nothing had happened.”[175]

    [175] _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 358.

Another important advantage arising to women, through their
identification with the early industrial process, was their position
as the first property owners. They were almost the sole creators of
ownership in land, and held in this respect a position of great power.
This explains the fact that in the transactions of the North American
tribes with the Colonial Government many deeds of assignment bear
female signatures.[176] A form of divorce used by a husband in ancient
Arabia was: “Begone, for I will no longer drive thy flocks to
pasture.”[177] In almost all cases the household goods belonged to
the woman. The stores of roots and berries laid up for a time of
scarcity were the property of the wife, and the husband would not
touch them without her permission. In many cases such property was
very extensive. Among the Menomini Indians, for instance, a woman of
good circumstances would own as many as 1200 to 1500 birch-bark
vessels.[178] In the New Mexico Pueblos what comes from the outside of
the house as soon as it is inside is put under the immediate control
of the women. Bandelier, in his report of his tour in Mexico, tells us
that “his host at Cochiti, New Mexico, could not sell an ear of corn
or a string of chili without the consent of his fourteen-year-old
daughter, Ignacia, who kept house for her widowed father.”[179]

    [176] Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, Vol. II, p. 130.

    [177] Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early
    Arabia_, p. 65.

    [178] Hoffman, “The Menomini Indians,” _Fourteenth Report of
    the Bureau of American Ethnology_, p. 288.

    [179] Papers of the _Archæological Institute of America_,
    Vol. II, p. 138.

I must now bring this brief chapter to a close. But first I would give
one further example. It is an account of the Pelew matrons’ work in
the taro fields. Here the richest and most influential women count it
their privilege to labour, and it will be remembered that these women
are called “mothers of the land.” They are politically and socially
superior to the men; and their position is dependent largely on their
close connection with the staple industry of the island.

     “The richest woman in the village looks with pride on her
     taro patch, and although she has female followers enough to
     allow her merely to superintend the work without taking part
     in it, she nevertheless prefers to lay aside her fine apron,
     and to betake herself to the field, merely clad in a small
     apron that barely hides her nakedness, with a little mat on
     her back to protect her from the burning heat of the sun,
     and with a shade of banana leaves for her eyes. There,
     dripping with sweat in the burning sun, and coated with mud
     to the hips and over the elbows, she toils to set the
     younger women a good example. Moreover, as in every other
     occupation, the _Kalitho_, the gods must be invoked, and who
     could be better fitted for the discharge of so important a
     duty than ‘the Mother of the House.’”

Here is a picture of labour that may well make women pause to think.




CHAPTER X

TRACES OF MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CIVILISATIONS


I propose in this chapter to examine, as fully as I can, the traces
that mother-right customs have left among some of the great races of
antiquity, as also in the early records of western civilisations. It
is the more necessary to do this because there is so marked a tendency
to minimise the importance of the mother-age, and to regard the
patriarchal family as primeval and universal. So much interesting
material is available, and so wide a field of inquiry must be covered,
that I shall be able to give a mere outline sketch, for the purpose of
suggesting, rather than proving, the widespread prevalence of the
communal clan and the maternal family.

As to whether this maternal-stage, with kinship and inheritance
passing through the mother, has everywhere preceded the second
patriarchal period, it is difficult to be at all certain. Dr.
Westermarck, Mr. Crawley and others have argued against this view. But
(as I have before had occasion to point out) their chief motive has
been to discredit the theory of promiscuity, with which
mother-descent has been so commonly, and so mistakenly, connected. It
does not seem to have been held as possible that the mother-age was a
much later development, whose social customs were made for the
regulation of the family relationships. A number of very primitive
races exhibit no traces, that have yet been discovered, of such a
system, and have descent in the male line. This has been thought to be
a further proof against a maternal stage. But here again is an error;
we are not entitled to regard mother-descent as necessarily the
primitive custom. I believe and have tried to show, from the examples
of the Australian tribes and elsewhere, that in many cases the stage
of the maternal clan has not been reached. If I am right here, we have
the way cleared from much confusion. I would suggest, as also
possible, that there may among some people, have been retrogressions,
customs and habits found out as beneficial, and perhaps for long
practised, have by some tribes been forgotten. There can be no hard
and fast rule of progress for any race. The whole subject is thorny
and obscure, and the evidence on the question is often contradictory.
Still I hold the claim I make is not without foundation. I have tried
to show how the causes which led to the maternal system were perfectly
simple and natural causes, arising out of needs that must have
operated universally in the past history of mankind. And this
indicates a maternal stage at some period for all branches of the
human family. Again the widespread prevalence of mother-right
survivals among races where the patriarchal system has been for long
firmly established lends support to such a view, which will be
strengthened by the evidence now to be brought forward. It will be
necessary to go step by step, from one race to another, and to many
different countries, and I would ask my readers not to shrink from the
trouble of following me.

Let us turn first to ancient Egypt, where women held a position more
free and more honourable than they have in any country to-day.

Herodotus, who was a keen observer, records his astonishment at this
freedom, and writes--

     “They have established laws and customs opposite for the
     most part to those of the rest of mankind.... With them
     women go to market and traffic; men stay at home and
     weave.... The men carry burdens on their heads; the women on
     their shoulders.... The boys are never forced to maintain
     their parents unless they wish to do so; the girls are
     obliged to, even if they do not wish it.”[180]

    [180] Herodotus, Book II, p. 35.

From this last rule it is logical to infer that women inherited
property, as is to-day the case among the Beni-Amer of Africa,[181]
where daughters have to provide for their parents.

    [181] Starcke, _The Primitive Family_, p. 67.

Diodorus goes further than Herodotus: he affirms that in the Egyptian
family it is the man who is subjected to the woman.

     “All this explains why the queen receives more power and
     respect than the king, and why, among private individuals,
     the woman rules over the man, and that it is stipulated
     between married couples, by the terms of the dowry-contract,
     that the man shall obey the woman.”[182]

    [182] Diodorus, Book I, p. 27.

There is probably some exaggeration in this account, nevertheless, the
demotic deeds, in a measure, confirm it. By the law of maternal
inheritance, an Egyptian wife was often richer than her husband, and
enjoyed the dignity and freedom always involved by the possession of
property. More than three thousand three hundred years ago men and
women were recognised as equal in this land.

Under such privileges the wife was entirely preserved from any
subjection; she was able to dictate the terms of the marriage. She
held the right of making contracts without authorisation; she remained
absolute mistress of her dowry. The marriage-contract also specified
the sums that the husband was to pay to his wife, either as a nuptial
gift or annual pension, or as compensation in case of divorce. In some
cases the whole property of the husband was made over to the wife, and
when this was done, it was stipulated that she should provide for him
during his life, and discharge the expenses of his burial and tomb.

These unusual proprietary rights of the Egyptian wife can be explained
only as being traceable to an early period of mother-right. Without
proof of any absolutely precise text, we have an accumulation of facts
that render it probable that, at one time, descent was traced through
the mother. It is significant that the word _husband_ never occurs in
the marriage deeds before the reign of Philometor. This ruler (it
would appear in order to establish the position of the father in the
family) decreed that all transfers of property made by the wife should
henceforth be authorised by the husband. Up to this time public deeds
often mention only the mother, but King Philometor ordered the names
of contractors to be registered according to the paternal line.
Besides this, the hieroglyphic funeral inscriptions frequently bear
the name of the mother, without indicating that of the father.[183]

    [183] For a fuller account of the position of women in Egypt,
    see the chapter on this subject in _The Truth about Woman_,
    pp. 179-201.

All these facts attest that women in Egypt enjoyed an exceptionally
favourable position. We may compare this position with that held by
the Touareg women of the Sahara, who, through the custom of maternal
inheritance, for long continued, have in their hands the strong power
of wealth, and thus exercise extraordinary authority, giving rise to
what I have called “a pecuniary matriarchy.”

It is probable that in Egypt property was originally entirely in the
hands of women, as is usual under the matriarchal system. Later, a
tradition in favour of the old privileges would seem to have
persisted after descent was changed from the maternal to the paternal
line. The marriage-contracts may thus be regarded as enforcing by
agreement what would occur naturally under the maternal customs. The
husband’s property was made over by deed to the wife (at first
entirely, and afterwards in part) to secure its inheritance by the
children of the marriage. It was in such wise way the Egyptians
arranged the difficult problem of the fusing of mother-right with
father-right.

In the very ancient civilisation of Babylon we find women in a
position of honour, with privileges similar in many ways to those they
enjoyed in Egypt. There are even indications that the earliest customs
may have gone beyond those of the Egyptians in exalting women. All the
available evidence points to the conclusion that at the opening of
Babylonian history women had complete independence and equal rights
with their husbands and brothers. It is significant that the most
archaic texts in the primitive language are remarkable for the
precedence given to the female sex in all formulas of address:
“Goddesses and gods;” “Women and men,” are mentioned always in that
order; this is in itself a decisive indication of the high status of
women in this early period. And there are other traces all pointing to
the conclusion that in the civilisation of primitive Babylon
mother-right was still in active force. Later (as is shown by the Code
of Hammurabi) a woman’s rights, though not her duties, were more
circumscribed; in the still later Neo-Babylonian periods, she again
acquired, through the favourable conditions with regard to property,
full liberty of action and equal rights with her husband.[184]

    [184] H. Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI, p. 393.

Let us now turn our attention to the Græco-Roman civilisation. It is
convenient to take first a brief glance at Rome. I may note that the
family here would certainly appear to have developed from the
primitive clan, or _gens_. At the dawn of history the patriarchal
system was already firmly established, with individual property, and
an unusually strong subjection of woman to her father first and
afterwards to her husband. There are, however, numerous indications of
a prehistoric phase of communism. I can mention only the right of the
_gens_ to the heritage, and in certain cases the possession of an
_ager publicus_, which certainly bears witness in favour of an antique
community of property.[185] Can we, then, accept that there was once a
period of the maternal family, when descent and inheritance were
traced through the mother? Frazer[186] has brought forward facts which
point to the view that the Roman kingship was transmitted in the
female line; and, if this can be accepted, we may fairly conclude that
at one time the maternal customs were in force. The plebeian marriage
ceremonies of Rome should be noted. The funeral inscriptions in
Etruria in the Latin language make much greater insistence on the
maternal than the paternal descent; giving usually the name of the
mother alone, or indicating the father’s name by a simple initial,
whilst that of the mother is written in full.[187] This is very
significant. Very little trustworthy evidence, however, is
forthcoming, and of the position of women in Rome in the earliest
periods we know little or nothing. And for this reason I shall refer
my readers to what I have written elsewhere[188] on this matter;
merely saying that there are indications and traditions pointing to
the view that here, as in so many great civilisations, women’s actions
were once unfettered, and this, as I believe, can be explained only on
the hypothesis of the existence of a maternal stage, before the
establishment of the individual male authority under the patriarchal
system.

    [185] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 335.

    [186] _Golden Bough_, Part I. _The Magic Art_, Vol. II, pp.
    270, 289, 312.

    [187] Müller and Bachofen, cited by Giraud-Teulon, _op. cit._
    pp. 283-284.

    [188] _The Truth About Woman_, pp. 227-242.

The evidence with regard to prehistoric Greece is much more complete.
The Greek γένος resembled the Roman _gens_. Its members had a common
sepulture, common property, the mutual obligation of the _vendetta_
and archon.[189] In the prehistoric clans maternal descent would seem
to have been established. Plutarch relates that the Cretans spoke of
Crete as their motherland, and not fatherland. In primitive Athens,
the women had the right of voting, and their children bore their
name--privileges that were taken from them, says the legend, to
appease the wrath of Poseidon, after his inundation of the city,
owing to the quarrel with Athene. Tradition also relates that at
Athens, until the time of Cecrops, children bore the name of their
mother.[190] Among the Lycians, whose affinity to the Greeks was so
pronounced, a matriarchate prevailed down to the time of Herodotus.
Not the name only, but the inheritance and status of the children
depended on the mother. The Lycians “honoured women rather than men;”
they are represented “as being accustomed from of old to be ruled by
their women.”[191]

    [189] Grote, _History of Greece_, Vol. III, p. 95.

    [190] Letourneau, _op. cit._ pp. 335-336.

    [191] Herodotus, Book I, p. 172.

One of the most remarkable instances of a gynæcocratic people has only
now been fully discovered as having existed in ancient Crete. It seems
probable that women enjoyed greater powers than they had even in
Egypt. The new evidence that has come to light is certainly most
interesting; the facts are recorded by Mr. J. R. Hall in a recent
book, _Ancient History in the Far East_, and I am specially glad to
bring them forward. He affirms: “It may eventually appear that in
religious matters, perhaps even the government of the State itself as
well, were largely controlled by the women.” From the seals we gather
a universal worship of a supreme female goddess, the Rhea of later
religions, who is accompanied sometimes by a youthful male deity.
Wherever we find this preponderating feminine principle in worship we
shall find also a corresponding feminine influence in the customs of
the people. We have seen this, for instance, among the Khasis, where
also goddesses are placed before gods. Mr. Hall further states: “It is
certain that they [the women in Crete] must have lived on a footing of
greater equality with men than in any other ancient civilisation.” And
again: “We see in the frescoes of Knossos conclusive indications of an
open and free association of men and women, corresponding to our idea
of ‘Society,’ at the Minoan court, unparalleled till our own day.” The
women are unveiled, and the costumes and setting are extraordinarily
modern. Mr. Hall draws attention to the curious fact that in
appearance the women are very similar to the men, so that often the
sexes can be distinguished only by the conventions of the artists,
representing the women in white, and the men in red outline; the same
convention that was used in Egypt. I may recall to the reader the
likeness of the men to the women among the North American Indians, and
the same similarity between the sexes occurs among the ancient
Egyptians.[192] It is perhaps impossible to search for an explanation.
I would, however, point out that in all these cases, where the sexes
appear to be more alike than is common, we find women in a position of
equality with men. This is really very remarkable; I think it is a
fact that demands more attention than as yet it has received.

    [192] See pp. 129-131, also _The Truth about Woman_, pp.
    199-201.

At one time there would seem to have been in prehistoric Greece a
period of fully established mother-right. Ancient Attic traditions are
filled with recollections of female supremacy. Women in the Homeric
legends hold a position and enjoy a freedom wholly at variance with a
patriarchal subjection. Not infrequently the husband owes to his wife
his rank and his wealth; always the wife possesses a dignified place
and much influence. Even the formal elevation of women to positions of
authority is not uncommon. “There is nothing,” says Homer, “better and
nobler than when husband and wife, being of one mind, rule a
household. Penelope and Clytemnestra were left in charge of the realms
of their husbands during their absence in Troy; the beautiful Chloris
ruled as queen in Pylos. Arete, the beloved wife of Alcinous played an
important part as peacemaker in the kingdom of her husband.”[193]

    [193] Gladstone, _Homeric Studies_, Vol. II, p. 507.
    Donaldson, _Woman_, pp. 18-19.

If we turn to the evidence of the ancient mythology and art, it is
also clear that the number of female deities must be connected with
the early predominance of women in Greece. We have to remember that
“the gods” are shaped by human beings in their own image, and the
status of women on earth is reflected in the status of a goddess. Five
out of the eight divinities of immemorial Greek worship were female,
Hera, Demeter, Persephone, Athene and Aphrodite. In addition there
were numerous lesser goddesses. One must consider also that it was
not uncommon for cities to be named after women; and the Greek stories
seem to point to tribes with totem names. How can these things be
explained, unless we accept a maternal stage? There are numerous other
facts all indicating this same conclusion. We find relationships on
the mother’s side regarded as much more close than those on the
father’s side. In Athens and Sparta a man might marry his father’s
sister, but not his mother’s sister. Lycaon, in pleading with
Achilles, says in order to appease him, that he is not the uterine
brother of Hector. It is also noteworthy to find that the Thebans,
when pressed in war, seek assistance from the Æginetans as their
nearest kin, _recollecting that Thebe and Æginia had been sisters_. A
similar case is that of the Lycaones in Crete, who claimed affinity
with Athens and with Sparta, which affinity was traced through the
mother.[194]

    [194] McLennan, “Kinship in Ancient Greece”; Essay in
    _Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 195-246.

There is much evidence I am compelled to pass over. It must, however,
be noted that there seems clear proof of the maternal form of marriage
having at one time been practised. Plutarch mentions that the
relations between husband and wife in Sparta were at first
secret.[195] The story told by Pausanias about Ulysses’ marriage
certainly points to the custom of the bridegroom going to live with
the wife’s family.[196] In this connection the action of Intaphernes
is significant, who, when granted by Darius permission to claim the
life of a single man, chose her brother, saying that both husband and
children could be replaced.[197] Similarly the declaration of Antigone
that neither for husband nor children would she have performed the
toil she undertook for Polynices[198] clearly shows that the tie of
the common womb was held as closer than the tie of marriage; and this
points to the conditions of the communal clan.

    [195] Plutarch, _Apophthegms of the Lacedæmonians_, LXV.

    [196] Pausanias, III, 20 (10), (Frazer’s translation).

    [197] Herodotus, III, 119.

    [198] Sophocles, _Antigone_, line 905 _et seq._

Andromache, when she relates to Hector how her father’s house has been
destroyed, with all who are in it, turns to him and says: “But now,
Hector, thou art my father and gracious mother, thou art my brother,
nay, thou art my valiant husband.”[199] It is easy, I think, to see in
this speech how the early idea of the relationships under mother-right
had been transferred to the husband, as the protector of the woman
conditioned by father-right. As in so many countries, the patriarchal
authority of the husband does not seem to have existed in Greece at
this early stage of development. It may, however, be said that all
this, though proving the high status of women in the prehistoric
period, does not establish the existence of the maternal family. I
would ask: how, then, are these mother-right customs to be explained?
In the later history of Greece, with the family based on patriarchal
authority, all this was changed. We find women occupying a much less
favourable position, their rights and freedom more and more
restricted. In Sparta alone, where the old customs for long were
preserved, did the women retain anything of their old dignity and
influence. The Athenian wives, under the authority of their husbands,
sank almost to the level of slaves.[200]

    [199] _Iliad_, VI, 429-430.

    [200] _The Truth about Woman_, pp. 210-227.

The patriarchal system is connected closely in our thought with the
Hebrew family, where the father, who is chief, holds grouped under his
despotic sway his wives, their children, and slaves. Yet this Semitic
patriarch has not existed from the beginning; numerous survivals of
mother-right customs afford proof that the Hebrew race must have
passed through a maternal stage. These survivals have a special
interest, as we are all familiar with them in Bible history, but we
have not understood their significance. It is possible to give a few
illustrations only. In the history of Jacob’s service for his wives,
we have clear proof of the maternal custom of _beenah_ marriage. As a
suitor Jacob had to buy his position as husband and to serve Laban for
seven years before he was permitted to marry Leah, and seven years for
Rachel, while six further years of service were claimed before he was
allowed the possession of his cattle.[201] Afterwards, when he wished
to depart with his wives and his children, Laban made the objection,
“these daughters are my daughters, and these children are my
children.”[202] Now, according to the patriarchal custom, Laban’s
daughters should have been cut off from their father by marriage, and
become of the kindred of their husbands. Such a claim on the part of
the father proves the subordinate position held by the husband in the
wife’s family, who retained control over her and the children of the
marriage, and even over the personal property of the man, as was usual
under the later matriarchal custom. Even when the marriage is not in
the maternal form, and the wife goes to the husband’s home, we find
compensation has to be paid to her kindred. Thus when Abraham sought a
wife for Isaac, presents were taken by the messenger to induce the
bride to leave her home; and these presents were given not to the
father of the bride, but to her mother and brother.[203] This is the
early form of purchase marriage, such bridal-gifts being the
forerunners of the payment of a fixed bride-price. We still find
purchase marriage practised side by side with _beenah_ marriage in the
countries where the transitional stage has been reached and
mother-right contends with father-right. But there is stronger
evidence even than these two cases. The injunction in Gen. ii, 24:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife,” refers without any doubt to the early form of
marriage under mother-right, when the husband left his own kindred and
went to live with his wife and among her people. We find Samson
visiting his Philistine wife who remained with her own people.[204]
Even the obligation to blood vengeance rested apparently on the
maternal kinsmen (Judges viii, 19). The Hebrew father did not inherit
from the son, nor the grandfather from the grandson, which points back
to a time when the children did not belong to the clan of the
father.[205] Among the Hebrews individual property was instituted at a
very early period,[206] but various customs show clearly the early
existence of communal clans. Thus the inheritance, especially the
paternal inheritance, must remain in the clan “then shall their
inheritance be added unto the inheritance of the tribe.” Marriage in
the tribe is obligatory for daughters. “Let them marry to whom they
think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they
marry. So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from
tribe to tribe.”[207] We have here an indication of the close relation
between father-right and property.

    [201] Gen. xxx, 18-30; xxxi, 14, 41.

    [202] Gen. xxxi, 43.

    [203] Gen. xxiv, 5, 53.

    [204] Judges xv, 1.

    [205] Numb., xxxii, 8-11. See Letourneau, _Evolution of
    Marriage_, p. 326.

    [206] Gen. xxiii, 13.

    [207] Numb. xxxvi, 4-8.

Under mother-right there is naturally no prohibition against marriage
with a half-sister upon the father’s side. This explains the marriage
of Abraham with Sarah, his half-sister by the same father. When
reproached for having passed his wife off as his sister to the King of
Egypt, the patriarch replies: “For indeed she is my sister; she is the
daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she
became my wife.”[208] In the same way Tamar could have married her
half-brother Amnon, though they were both the children of David:
“Speak to the King, for he will not withhold me from thee.” And it was
her uterine brother, Absalom, who revenged the rape of Tamar by
slaying; afterwards he fled to the kindred of his mother.[209] Again,
the father of Moses and Aaron married his father’s sister, who legally
was not considered to be related to him.[210] Nabor, the brother of
Abraham, took to wife his fraternal niece, the daughter of his
brother.[211] It was only later that paternal kinship became legally
recognised among the Hebrews by the same titles as the natural kinship
through the mother.

    [208] Gen. xii, 10-20.

    [209] 2 Sam. xiii, 13-16 and 37.

    [210] Exod. vi, 20.

    [211] Gen. xi. 26-29.

It is by considering these survivals of mother-right in connection
with similar customs to be found among existing maternal peoples that
we see their true significance. They warrant us in believing that the
patriarchal family, as we know it among the Hebrews and elsewhere, was
a later stage of an evolution, which had for its starting-point the
communal clan, and that these races have passed through the maternal
phase. We come to understand the change in the privileged position of
women. As the husband and father continued to gain in power, with the
reassertion of individual interests, it was inevitable that the mother
should lose the authority she had held, under the free social
organisation of the undivided clan.

Traces of a similar evolution of the family may, I am convinced, be
found by all who will undertake an inquiry for themselves. The subject
is one of great interest. So far as my own study goes, I believe that
these survivals of the maternal-group customs may be discovered in the
early history of every people, where the necessary material for such
knowledge is available. I wish it were possible for me even to
summarise all the evidence, direct and inferential, that I have
collected for my own satisfaction. I must reluctantly pass over many
countries I would like to include; some of these--China, Japan, Burma
and Madagascar--have been noticed briefly in _The Truth about
Woman_.[212] There is surprising similarity between the facts; and,
the more of such survivals that can be found, the more the evidence
seems to grow in favour of the acceptance of a universal maternal
stage in the evolution of society.

    [212] See pp. 156-161.

I must now, before closing this chapter (whose accumulation of facts
may, I fear, have wearied my readers), refer briefly to the races of
barbarous Europe. The point of interest is, of course--how far
mother-right may be accepted, as at one period, having existed. The
earliest direct evidence is the account given by Strabo of the
Iberians of ancient Spain. And first it is important to note that the
Iberians belonged to the Berber race, now widely regarded as the
parent of the chief and largest element in the population of Europe.
There is another fact that must be noted. The general characteristic
of the Berber family seems to have been the privileged position they
accorded to their women, privileges so great that we meet with strong
tendencies towards the matriarchate. This last is still in force among
the Touaregs of the Sahara; and there are as well numerous traces of
its former existence among the neighbouring Kabyles, though there the
most rigorous patriarchate has replaced the maternal family.[213] We
have seen, too, that in ancient Egypt, where the Berbers were largely
represented, women enjoyed a position of extraordinary freedom and
authority.

    [213] Letourneau, _op. cit._ 328.

Bearing this in mind, we may accept the statement of Strabo: “Among
the Cantabrians usage requires that the husband shall bring a dower to
his wife, and the daughters inherit, being charged with the marriage
of their brothers, which constitutes a kind of gynæcocracy.” There is
possibly some exaggeration in the term gynæcocracy; yet if there is no
proof of “rule by women,” there can be no doubt that, through the
system of female inheritance, property was held by them, and this must
certainly have given them the power always involved by the possession
of wealth.

The freedom of the women of ancient Spain is sufficiently indicated by
the fact that they took part in the activities usually considered as
belonging to men. It was these women who played their part in driving
back the Roman legions from the mountainous districts of northern
Spain; we read of them fighting side by side with men, where they used
their weapons with courage and determination. They received their
wounds with silent fortitude, and no cry of pain ever escaped their
lips, even when the wounds which laid them low were mortal. To women
as well as men liberty was a possession more valued than life, and,
when taken prisoners, they fell upon their own swords, and dashed
their little ones to death rather than suffer them to live to be
slaves. Nor were the activities of women confined to warfare. Justin
speaks of women as not only having the care of all domestic matters,
but also cultivating the fields. And Strabo, writing of these Amazons,
tells us that they would often step aside out of the furrows “to be
brought to bed,” and then, having borne a child, would return to their
work “just as if they had only laid an egg.” He notes, too, as being
practised among them the _couvade_, whereby the husband, in assertion
of his legal fatherhood, retired to bed when a child was born.[214]

    [214] See in this connection my book, _Spain Revisited_, pp.
    291-304.

Spain is a land that I know well, and for this reason I have chosen to
write of it in fuller detail. Persistent relics of the early maternal
period even yet may be traced in the customs of this strongly
conservative people. Women are held in honour. There is a proverb
common all over Spain to the effect that “he who is unfortunate and
needs assistance should seek his mother.” Many primitive customs
survive, and one of the most interesting is that by which the eldest
daughter in some cases takes precedence over the sons in inheritance.
Among the Basques, until quite recently, the administration of the
family property passed to the eldest child, whether a boy or a girl;
and in the case of a daughter, her husband was obliged to take the
name of the family and to live in the wife’s home. Spanish women
always retain their own names after marriage, and as far back as the
fourth century we find them at the Synod of Elvira resisting an
attempt to limit this freedom. The practice is still common for
children to use the name of the mother coupled with that of the
father, and even, in some cases, alone, showing a quite unusual
absence of preference for paternal descent. This is very significant.
It explains the recognition given in old Spain to the unmarried
mother; even to-day in no country, that I know, does less social
stigma fall on a child born out of wedlock. The profound Spanish
veneration of the Virgin Mary, as well as the number of female saints,
is another indication of the honour paid to women, which must, I am
certain, be connected with a far back time when goddesses were
worshipped. I would note, too, the fine Spanish understanding of
hospitality. This belongs to the ideals of communal life. I know
nothing to equal it in the common habits of other European countries.
It may be compared with the conditions in the joint-family communities
of the American Indians.[215]

    [215] See pp. 107-109.

Much more might be said on the position of the Spanish women. I have,
however, written elsewhere of these women,[216] of their intelligence,
and strength, and beauty, and of the active part they take still in
the industrial life of the country. There can be no question that some
features of the maternal customs have left their imprint on the
domestic life of Spain, and this, as I believe, explains how women
here have in certain directions, preserved a freedom of action and
privileges, which even in England have never been established, and
only of late claimed.

    [216] _Spain Revisited; Things Seen in Spain; Moorish
    Cities._

As we may expect, there is less direct evidence of mother-right in the
other European countries than is the case in conservative Spain.
Dargun, who has written much on this subject,[217] believes that
maternal descent was formerly practised among the Germans. He holds
further “that the ancient Aryans at the time of their dispersion
regarded kinship through the mother as the sole, or chief, basis of
blood-kinship, and all their family rights were governed by this
principle.” There is much conflict of opinion on this matter, and it
would, perhaps, be rash to make any definite statement. We may recall
what Tacitus says of the Germans:

    [217] _Mutterrecht und Raubehe und ihre Reste im Germanischen
    Recht und Leben_, Vol. XVI, quoted by Starcke, _The Primitive
    Family_, pp. 103 _et seq._

“The son of a sister is as dear to his uncle as to his father; some
even think that the first of these ties is the most sacred and close;
and in taking hostages they prefer nephews, as inspiring a stronger
attachment, and interesting the family on more sides.” The same
authority tells us that the Germans of his day met together to take a
clan meal, to settle clan business, _i. e._ for the clan council--and
to arrange marriages. This is strong confirmation of what I am trying
to establish.[218] Further evidence may be gathered from the ancient
religion. There are many Teutonic goddesses, who may well be connected
with the primitive tribal-mothers.[219] Religion here, as so often
elsewhere, would seem to have been symbolised as feminine. Not only
the seers, but the sacrificers among the early Teutons were
women.[220] To this evidence may be added that in Germany up to a late
period the mother could be the guardian of her children; that a wife
had to be bought by the husband, both she and her children remaining
under the guardianship of her father. All this points to mother-right
and the existence of the maternal clan.[221] Let us note also that in
the Slav communities women had the right to vote, and might be elected
to the government of the community.

    [218] _De moribus Germanorum_, XX. See also K. Pearson, _The
    Chances of Death_, Vol. II, p. 132.

    [219] Grimm, _Mythologie_, Vol. I, p. 248.

    [220] K. Pearson, _The Chances of Death_, Vol. II, p. 102.

    [221] Starcke, _op. cit._ p. 105, citing Dargun and Grimm.
    See also Letourneau, _op. cit._ pp. 339-340.

It will interest my readers to know that mother-descent must once
have prevailed in Britain. Among the Picts of Scotland kingship was
transmitted through women.[222] Bede tells us that down to his own
time--the early part of the eighth century--whenever a doubt arose as
to the succession, the Picts chose their king from the female rather
than from the male line.[223] There is an ancient legend which
represents the Irish as giving three hundred wives to the Picts, on
the condition that the succession to the crown should always be
through their females--

    “There were oathes imposed on them,
    By the stars, by the earth,
    That from the nobility of the mother
    Should always be the right to the sovereignty.”[224]

    [222] Giraud-Teulon, _op. cit._ pp. 41-42.

    [223] Bede, II. 1-7.

    [224] McLennan, _Studies_, p. 46.

Similar traces are found in England: Canute, the Dane, when
acknowledged King of England, married Emma, the widow of his
predecessor, Ethelred. Ethelbald, King of Kent, married his
stepmother, after the death of his father Ethelbert; and, as late as
the ninth century, Ethelbald, King of the West Saxons, wedded Judith,
the widow of his father. Such marriages are intelligible only if we
suppose that the queen had the power of conferring the kingdom upon
her consort, which could only happen where maternal descent was, or
had been, practised. These marriages with the widow of a king were at
one time very common. The familiar example of Hamlet’s uncle is one,
who, after murdering his brother, married his wife and became king.
His acceptance by the people, in spite of his crime, is explained if
it was the old Danish custom for marriage with the king’s widow to
carry the kingdom with it. In Hamlet’s position as avenger, and his
curious hesitancy, we have really an indication of the conflict
between the old and the new ways of descent.[225]

    [225] See Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Part I. _The Magic Art_,
    Vol. II, 282-283.

The Celtic population of Britain preserved the institution of the clan
much longer than the other European races. In Wales and in Ireland, in
particular, communism was strongly established. The clan was
responsible for the crimes of its members, paid the fines, and
received the compensations.[226] There are numerous indications of
mother-right. In Ireland women retained a very high position and much
freedom, both before and after marriage, to a late period: temporary
unions were freely allowed, and customs having the force of law
safeguarded the rights of the wife. “Every woman,” it was said, “is to
go the way she willeth freely.”[227]

    [226] Letourneau, _op. cit._ p. 338. Maine, _Early
    Institutions_, pp. 113 _et seq._

    [227] Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, _The Welsh People_.

The early Celtic mythologies and folk-records are full of these
survivals. Goddesses are frequent as primeval tribal-mothers. Let me
give one instance. The Irish goddess Brigit (whose attributes at a
later date were transferred to St. Bridget) is referred to in a
ninth-century glossary as--_operum atque artificiorum initia_. She was
the tribal-mother of the Bringantes. Similarly Vote was tribal-mother
of the Burgundians; and the goddess Bil of the Billings, and there are
numerous other cases. In a recent book on _Ulster Folk-lore_,[228] I
have been fortunate enough to find a most interesting passage
referring to the Irish goddess Brigit. I quote it with pleasure as a
fitting ending to this chapter.[229]

     “Now, St. Bridget had a pagan predecessor, Brigit, a poetess
     of the Tuatha de Danann, and whom we may perhaps regard as a
     female Apollo. Cormac in his _Glossary_ tells us she was a
     daughter of the Dagda and a goddess whom all poets adored,
     and whose sisters were Brigit the physician and Brigit the
     smith. Probably the three sisters represent the same divine,
     or semi-divine, person whom we may identify with the British
     goddess Brigantia and the Gaulish Brigindo.”

    [228] By E. Andrews, p. 18.

    [229] I would refer the reader to a most interesting article
    on “Old English Clans” (_Cornhill_, Sept. 1881); this I had
    not read when I wrote this chapter. The author holds that the
    clan system was once common to the whole Aryan race. In the
    Teutonic stock its memory died out in an early stage of
    development, owing to the strong individuality of the
    Teutonic mind. Yet it has left behind it many traces.
    Numerous examples are given. Perhaps the most interesting is
    the evidence showing that totemism seems to have existed; the
    clan names being taken from animals or plants.




CHAPTER XI

THE SURVIVALS OF MOTHER-RIGHT IN FOLK-LORE, IN HEROIC LEGENDS, AND IN
FAIRY STORIES


In the preceding chapter we have found the former existence of the
maternal family, or some indication of it, in the early records of
many races, proving this by numerous survivals of customs entirely at
variance with the patriarchal conditions. Should it be thought that
this claim has not been supported by sufficient evidence, I must plead
the difficulties of such an inquiry. My survey has been very
incomplete. I am certain, however, that these survivals will be
recognised by any one who will undertake for themselves the collection
and interpretation of the facts from the records of the past.

There is a point to consider here. The absence, or rather the rarity,
of mother-right survivals in some civilisations cannot be counted as
proof that the maternal system never existed. As I have shown in the
earlier chapters of this book, the mother-age was a transitional
stage, between the very early brute-conditions of the family and the
second firmly established patriarchate. Now, it is clear that the
customs of a transitional stage are very likely to disappear; they are
also very likely to be mistaken. Bearing this in mind, the number of
survivals that do occur are, I hold, extraordinary, and, indeed,
impossible to account for if the maternal family was not a universal
stage in the development of society. Moreover, I am certain from my
own study that these survivals are of much wider occurrence than is
believed, but as yet the facts are insufficiently established.

It now remains to consider a new field of inquiry; and that is the
abundant evidence of mother-right to be found in folk-lore, in heroic
legends, and in the fairy-stories of our children. There is a special
value in these old-world stories, that date back to a time long before
written history. They belong to all countries in slightly different
forms. We have regarded them as fables, but there was never a fable
that did not arise out of truth--not, of course, the outside truth of
facts, but from that inward truth of the life and thought of a people,
which is what really matters. I cannot, then, do better than conclude
the evidence for the mother-age by referring to some few of these
myths and legends.

In order to group the great mass of material I will take first the
creation myths. One only out of many examples can be given. The Zuñi
Indians, who, it will be remembered, are a maternal people, give this
account of the beginning of the world. We read how the Sun-god,
withdrawing strength from his flesh, impregnated the great waters,
until there arose upon them, waxing wide and weighty, the “Fourfold
Mother-earth” and the “All-covering Father-sky.”

     “From the lying together of these twain, upon the great
     world water, so vitalising, life was conceived, whence began
     all beings of the earth, men and creatures, in the four-fold
     womb of the world. Thereupon the Earth-mother repulsed the
     Sky-father, growing big and sinking deep into the embrace of
     the waters below, thus separated from the Sky-father, in the
     embrace of the waters above.” The story states, “Warm is the
     Earth-mother and cold the Sky-father, even as woman is warm
     and man is cold.” Then it goes on, “‘So is thy will,’ said
     the Sky-father, ‘yet not alone shalt thou helpful be unto
     our children’;” and we learn how the Sky-father assisted the
     Earth-mother. “Thus in other ways, many diversed, they
     worked for their offspring.”[230]

    [230] Cushing, _Zuñi Creation Myths_.

There is one reflection only I desire to offer on this most beautiful
maternal version of the creation legend. Here we find complete
understanding of the woman’s part; she is the one who gives life; she
is the active partner. The Sky-father is represented as her agent, her
helper. Why should this be? Contrast this idea with the patriarchal
creation story of the Bible.

     “And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be
     alone; I will make him an help meet for him.... And the Lord
     God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept;
     and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
     thereof: and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the
     man made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the
     man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
     flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out
     of Man.”[231]

    [231] Gen. ii, 18, 21-23.

I would again assert my strong belief that in the religious conception
of a people we find the true thoughts and the customs of the period in
which they originated. A patriarchal people could not have given
expression to a creation myth in which the female idea prevailed, and
the mother, and not the father, was dominant. For men have ever
fashioned the gods in their own human image, endowing them with their
thoughts and actions. The sharp change in the view of woman’s part in
the relationship of the sexes is clearly symbolised in these creation
myths. Yes, it marks the degradation of woman; she has fallen from the
maternal conception of the feminine principle, guiding, directing, and
using the male, to that of the woman made for the man in the
patriarchal Bible story.

Another group of legends that I would notice refer to the conflict
between the right of the mother and that of the father in relation to
the children. These stories belong to a period of transition. In
ancient Greece, as we have seen, the paternal family succeeded the
maternal clan. In his _Orestia_, Æschylus puts in opposition before
Pallas Athene the right of the mother and the right of the father.
The chorus of the Eumenides, representing the people, defends the
position of the mother; Apollo pleads for the father, and ends by
declaring, in a fit of patriarchal delirium, that _the child is not of
the blood of the mother_. “It is not the mother who begets what is
called her child; she is only the nurse of the germ poured into her
womb; he who begets is the father. The woman receives the germ merely
as guardian, and when it pleases the gods, she preserves it.” Plato
also brings forward this view, and states that the mother contributes
nothing to the child’s being. “The mother is to the child what the
soil is to the plant; it owes its nourishment to her, but the essence
and structure of its nature are derived from the father.” Again the
Orestes of Euripides takes up the same theory, when he says to
Tyndarus: “My father has begotten me, and thy daughter has given birth
to me, as the earth receives the seed that another confides to it.”
Here we trace a different world of thoughts and conceptions; the
mother was so little esteemed as to be degraded into the mere
nourisher of the child. These patriarchal theories naturally
consecrated the slavery of woman.[232]

    [232] McLennan, _Studies_, “Kinship in Ancient Greece”;
    Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 336-337, and
    Starcke, _The Primitive Family_, pp. 115-116.

Another point strikingly illustrated by many of these ancient legends
is the struggle for power between the two sexes--a struggle that would
seem to have been present at all stages of civilisation, but always
most active in periods of transition. One out of many examples is all
that I can give. In Hawaii, worship is given to the goddess Pele, the
personification of the volcano Kilauea, and the god Tamapua, the
personification of the sea, or rather, of the storm which lashes the
sea and hurls wave after wave upon the land. The myth tells that
Tamapua wooed Pele, who rejected his suit, whereupon he flooded the
crater with water, but Pele drank up the water and drove him back into
the sea.[233]

    [233] Starcke, pp. 249-250, citing Bachofen’s _Antiquarische
    Briefe_, Vol. I, p. 140.

Here a brief digression into the early mythologies may be made,
although this question of the connection between mother-right and
religious ideas is one on which I have already enlarged. The most
primitive theogony is that of Mother-Earth and her son. Goddesses are
at first of greater importance than gods. The Earth-mother springs
from chaos, and in the beginning her children have no father.[234]
Traces of such a goddess are to be found in many ancient religions.
Afterwards as a modification, or rather a development, of the
Earth-mother, we have the goddesses of fertility. This idea arose with
the development of agriculture, and was closely connected in the
primitive mind with the sex functions. Demeter is of this type; and
there are many of these mother-deities who once were universally
worshipped. Virgin goddesses are a much later creation, and must be
connected with the patriarchal ideals for women. The original god-idea
symbolised as woman is the free mother; she is the source of all
fertility; she is the goddess of love. The servants of these goddesses
were priestesses, or at a later date men dressed as women. At first
the gods, in so far as they had any existence, appear in the form of
temporary lovers of the goddesses; they are very plainly the
transitory male element needful for fertilisation, and then destined
to disappear.[235] We find very early the brother as the husband and
dependent of the Mother-goddess. Thus Isis did not change or lose her
independent position after her marriage to her brother Osiris; her
importance as a deity remained always greater than his.[236] Only at a
much later stage--the patriarchal stage--was the wandering lover-god
or dependent brother-spouse raised to the position of authority of the
All-Father. We may find in the religious sexual festivals, common to
all civilisations, abundant confirmation of these facts. As one
illustration out of many that might be chosen, I will refer to the
account given by Prof. K. Pearson[237] of the festival of Sakäēs, held
in Babylon in honour of the great goddess Mylitta, who was essentially
a mother-goddess of fertility. The festival lasted for five days in
the month of July. It was presided over by the priestess of the
goddess, who represented the goddess herself. She sat enthroned on a
mound which for the time was the sanctuary of the deity, with the
altar with oil and incense before her. To her came the god-lover
represented by a slave, who made homage and worshipped. From her he
received the symbols of kingly power, and she raised him to the throne
by her side. As her accepted lover and lord of the festival, he
remained for five days, during which the law of the goddess prevailed.
Afterwards on the fifth day the god-lover was sacrificed on the pyre.
The male element had performed its function.

    [234] K. Pearson, _Chances of Death_, Vol. II, Essays on the
    Mother-age Civilisation, etc. Many of the facts given in this
    chapter are taken from these illuminative essays.

    [235] K. Pearson, _Ibid._, p. 102.

    [236] _The Truth about Woman_, p. 198.

    [237] _Ibid._, pp. 109-110.

I cannot leave this subject without emphasising the importance of
these erotic-religious festivals, once of universal occurrence. They
afford the strongest evidence of the early privileged position of
women in the relationships between the two sexes. It is, I think,
impossible to avoid giving to this a matriarchal interpretation. For
it is by contrasting the religious-sex standpoints of the maternal and
the paternal ideals that the inferior position of women under the
later system can be demonstrated. Moreover, in much later periods, and
even to our own day, we may yet find broken survivals of the old
customs. Illustrations are not far to seek in the common festivals of
the people in Germany and elsewhere, and as I have myself witnessed
them in Spain, a land which has preserved its old customs much more
unchanged than is usual.[238] One example may be noted in England,
which would seem to have a very ancient origin; it is given by Prof.
K. Pearson.[239] “The Roman _Lupercalia_ held on February 15 was
essentially a worship of fertility, and the privileges supposed to be
attached to women in our own country during this month--especially on
February 14 and 29--are probably fossils of the same sex-freedom.”

    [238] See _Spain Revisited_, and _Things Seen in Spain_.

    [239] _Ibid._, p. 158.

Passing again to the old legends, we find not a few that attempt to
account for both the rise and the decline of the custom of maternal
descent. I will give an example of each. Newbold relates that in
Menangkabowe, where the female line is observed, it is accounted for
by this legend--

     “Perpati Sabatang built a magnificent vessel, which he
     loaded with gold and precious stones so heavily that it got
     aground on the sands at the foot of the fiery mountains, and
     resisted the efforts of all the men to get it off. The sages
     were consulted, and declared that all attempts would be in
     vain until the vessel had passed over the body of a pregnant
     woman. It happened that the Rajah’s own daughter was in the
     condition desired; she was called upon to immolate herself
     for the sake of her country, but refused. At this juncture
     the pregnant sister of the Rajah boldly stepped forward, and
     cast herself beneath the prow of the vessel, which instantly
     put itself in motion, and again floated on the waves without
     injury to the princess. Whereupon the Rajah disinherited the
     offspring of his disobedient daughter in favour of the child
     of his sister, and caused this to be enrolled in the
     records of the empire as the law of succession in time to
     come.”[240]

    [240] Newbold, _Account of the British Settlements in the
    Straits of Malacca_, Vol. II, p. 221.

The second illustration is taken from the quarrel between Pallas
Athene and Poseidon to which already I have referred. The myth tells
us--

     “A double wonder sprang out of the earth at the same
     time--at one place the olive tree and at another water. The
     people in terror sent to Delphi to ask what should be done.
     The god answered that the olive tree signified the power of
     Athene, and the water that of Poseidon; and that it remained
     with the burgesses to choose after which of the two they
     would name their town. An assembly was called of the
     burgesses, both men and women, for it was then the custom to
     let the women take part in the public councils. The men
     voted for Poseidon, the women for Athene; and as there were
     more women than men by one, Athene conquered. Thereupon
     Poseidon was enraged, and immediately the sea flowed over
     all the lands of Athens. To appease the sea-god, the
     burgesses found it necessary to impose a threefold
     punishment on 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 after the
     goddess.”[241]

    [241] McLennan, _Studies_, “Kinship in Ancient Greece,” p.
    235.

The origin of these myths is perfectly clear. There is no reason to
force their interpretation by regarding them as historical evidence of
a struggle taking place between the maternal and the paternal custom
of tracing descent;[242] rather they are poetical explanations,
plainly invented to account for women’s predominance at a time when
such power had come to be considered as unusual. The same may be said
of many of these old myths. Man’s fancy begins to weave poetic
inventions around anything he considers abnormal or is not able to
understand. The idea or custom for which an explanation is being
sought must, however, have been present for long in the common life
and thought of the people. Without realising this, all these old
stories become unintelligible. I believe they have been greatly
misinterpreted in the thought of writers bound by patriarchal ideas.

    [242] This is done by Bachofen, and also, to some extent, by
    McLennan.

The limitation of my space does not allow me to enter into the great
amount of evidence provided by these mythical stories of the
privileged position of women. One instance, however, may be referred
to as an illustration. We find a wide range of stories connected with
the mythical Amazons. Now, if I am right, the frequency of these
legends among so many races points to the acceptance of the Amazon
heroines as an historical fact. Fancy, without doubt, wove the details
of their stories, occurrences would be chosen or imagined to give
colour to the narratives, but such poetic inventions, with all their
repetitions, all their reproductions of what is practically one
situation, would take only definite form from conditions so impressed
on the popular mind by facts that must have had a real existence.
Bearing this in mind, special significance attaches to a discovery
recently made by Prof. d’Allosso. In the ancient necropolis of
Belmonte, dating from the iron age, are two very rich tombs of women
warriors with war chariots over their remains. Prof. d’Allosso states
that several details given by Virgil of the Amazon Camilla, who fought
and died on the field of battle, coincide with the details on these
tombs. The importance of this discovery is thus very great, as it
certainly seems to indicate what I am claiming--that the existence of
the Amazon heroines, leaders of armies and sung by the ancient poets,
is not a poetic fancy, but an historic reality.[243]

    [243] See _The Truth about Woman_, p. 228.

I must turn now to the last group of evidence that I am able to bring
forward; to find this we must enter that realm of fancy--the world of
fairyland. We shall see that this land has its own customs, and its
own laws, entirely at variance with all those to which we are
accustomed. How is this to be explained? These stories are founded
really on the life of the common people, and they have come down from
generation to generation, handed on by the storytellers, from a time
long before the day when they were ever collected and written in
books. It is the popular and social character of these stories that is
so important; they are records of customs and habits long forgotten,
but once common in the daily life of the people. In them the past is
potent with life, and for this reason they claim the most careful and
patient study. I speak of the most familiar stories that we have
regarded as foolish fables. Nowhere else can we gain so clear and
vivid a picture of the childhood of civilisation, when women were the
transmitters of inheritance and the guardians of property.

Let me try to prove this. I have before me a collection of these
folk-stories, gathered from many countries. Now, the most popular
story (whose theme occurs again and again, the details varied in the
different renderings) is concerned with the gaining of a princess as a
bride by a wooer, usually of humble birth. This lover to obtain his
wife achieves some mighty deed of valour, or performs tasks set for
him by the parents of the bride; he thus inherits the kingdom through
the daughter of the king. Hans, faring forth to seek his luck; the
Dummling in the Golden Goose story; the miller’s son, who gained his
bride by the wit of his cat, and Aladdin with his magic lamp are
well-known examples of this story. The Scottish and Irish legends are
particularly rich in examples of these hero lovers. Assipattle, the
dirty ash-lad, who wins the fair Gemdelovely and then reigns with her
as queen and king, is one of the most interesting. Similar stories may
be found in the folk-lore of every country. Ash-lad figures in many of
the Norwegian tales. There is a charming version in the Lapp story of
the “Silk Weaver and her husband,” where we read, “Once upon a time a
poor lad wooed a princess and the girl wanted to marry him, but the
Emperor was against the match. Nevertheless she took him at last and
they were wed together.”[244]

    [244] K. Pearson, _The Truth about Woman_, p. 70 _note_.

This “fairy theory” of marriage is really the maternal or _beenah_
form: such a marriage as was made by Jacob and is still common among
all maternal peoples. The inheritance passes through the daughters;
the suitors gain their position by some deed of valour or by service
done for the bride’s family; sometimes it is the mother who sets the
task, more often it is the father, while, in some cases, the girl
herself imposes the conditions of marriage. It is possible to trace a
development in these stories. We can see the growth of purchase-marriage
in the service demanded by the parents of the bride, this taking the
place of the earlier custom of the bridegroom proving his fitness by
some test of strength. Again, those stories in which the arrangement
of the marriage remains with the mother or with the girl, and not with
the father, must be regarded as the older versions. This change
appears also in the conditions of inheritance; in some cases the
kingdom passes at once with the bride, in others the half of the
kingdom is the marriage portion, while in the later stories the full
authority to rule comes only after the death of the king. But always
sooner or later the daughter of the king conveys the kingdom to her
husband. The sons of the king do not inherit; they are of much less
importance than the daughters; they are sent forth to seek their own
fortunes. This is the law where the inheritance passes through the
daughter.

This law of female inheritance must at one time have been universal.
We are brought, indeed, constantly back to that opinion--so amply
evidenced by these folk-relics. In the old West country ballad “The
Golden Vanity” or “The Lowland’s Low,” the boy who saves the ship from
the Spanish pirate galleon is promised as a reward “silver and gold,
with the skipper’s pretty little daughter who lives upon the shore.”
Similarly in the well-known folksong “The Farmer’s Boy,” the lad who
comes weary and lame to the farmer’s door, seeking work, eventually
marries the farmer’s daughter and inherits the farm. Again, Dick
Whittington, the poor country lad, who faithfully serves his master in
London, marries his employer’s daughter. This theme is very frequently
found in ballads, romances, and dramas; in all cases the way to
fortune for the lover is through marriage--the daughter carries the
inheritance.

Let us take Assipattle of the Scottish legend as a type of these hero
wooers. He is represented always as the youngest son, held in contempt
by his brothers, and merely tolerated by his parents. He lies in the
ashes, from which he gains his name. Some emergency arises; a great
danger threatens the land or, more often, a princess has to be
delivered from a position of peril. Assipattle executes the deed, when
his brothers and all others have failed; he frees the land or rescues
the king’s daughter, and is covered with honour. He marries the
princess and inherits the kingdom. Assipattle always begins in the
deepest degradation, and ends on the highest summit of glory. There is
a special interest in this story. The reader will not have failed to
notice the similarity of Assipattle with Cinderella. In both stories
the circumstances are the same, only the Ash-lad has been replaced by
the Cinder-girl. There is no doubt which version is the older:[245]
the one is the maternal form, the other the patriarchal.

    [245] In this connection, see K. Pearson in the essay already
    quoted, p. 85 _et seq._

The setting of these stories should be noticed. We see the simplicity
of the habits and life so vividly represented. All folk-legends deal
with country people living near to nature. So similar, indeed, are the
customs depicted throughout that these folk-records might well be
taken as a picture of the social organisation among many barbarous
tribes. I should like to wait to point out these resemblances, such,
for instance, as the tendency to personify natural objects, the
identification of human beings with animals and trees, found so often
in the stories, as well as many other things--the belief in magic and
the power of wise women. And what I want to make clear is the very
early beginning of these folk-tales; they take us back to the social
institutions of the mother-age. Thus there is nothing surprising to
find that kingdoms and riches are won by hero-lovers, and that
daughters carry the inheritance. This is really what used to happen.
It is our individual ideas and patriarchal customs that make these
things seem so strange.

I wish I had space in which to follow further these still-speaking
relics of a past, whose interest offers such rich reward. In his essay
“Ashiepattle, or Hans seeks his Luck” (_The Chances of Death_, Vol.
II, pp. 51-91), Prof. Karl Pearson has fully and beautifully shown the
evidence for mother-right to be found in these stories. To this essay
the reader, who still is in doubt, is referred. All that has been
possible to me is to suggest an inquiry that any one can pursue for
himself. It is the difficulty of treating so wide and fascinating a
subject in briefest outline that so many things that should be noticed
have to be passed over.

The witness afforded by these folk-stories for mother-right cannot be
neglected. For what interpretation are we to place on the curious
facts they record? Are we to regard this maternal marriage with
descent through the daughter, and not the son, as idle inventions of
the storytellers? Do these princesses and their peasant wooers belong
to the topsy-turvy land of fairies? No: in these stories, drawn from
so many various countries, we have echoes of a very distant past. It
is by placing the customs here represented by the side of similar
social conditions still to be found among primitive maternal peoples,
that we find their significance. We then understand that these old,
old stories of the folk really take us back to the age in which they
first took form. We have read these “fairy stories” to our children,
unknowing what they signified--a prophetic succession of witnesses,
pointing us back to the ripening of that phase of the communal family,
before the establishment of the individual patriarchal rule, when the
law was mother-right, and all inheritance was through women.

I would add to this chapter a notice I have just recently lighted
on[246] of the ancient warrior, Queen Meave of Ireland. She is
represented as tall and beautiful, terrible in her battle chariot,
when she drove full speed into the press of fighting men. Her virtues
were those of a warlike barbarian king, and she claimed the like large
liberty in morals. Her husband was Ailill, the Connaught king; their
marriage was literally a partnership wherein Meave, making her own
terms, demanded from her husband exact equality of treatment. The
three essential qualities on which she insisted were that he should be
brave, and generous, and completely devoid of jealousy.

    [246] “Ancient Irish Sagas,” _Century_, Jan. 1907.




CHAPTER XII

CONCLUDING REMARKS


My investigation of the mother-age might fitly have terminated with
the preceding chapter; but the immense interest which attaches to the
subject, and the amount of misconception which prevails regarding the
origin and conditions of the maternal family, as well as my own
special views upon it, induce me to devote a brief final chapter to a
few observations that to me seem to be important.

In my little book (which must be regarded rather as a sketch or design
than as a finished work) an attempt has been made to approach the
problem of the primitive family from a new and decisive standpoint. I
am well aware that in certain directions I have crossed the threshold
only of the subjects treated. I hope that at least I have opened up
suggestions of many questions on which I could not dwell at length.
All this may bring the hesitation that leads to further inquiry. And I
believe that those of my readers who will follow out an investigation
for themselves in any direction--either in the collecting of maternal
customs among existing primitive peoples, or in noting the relics of
such customs to be met with in historical records and in folk-lore,
will find an ever increasing store of evidence, and that then the
discredited mother-age, with its mother-right customs, will become for
them what it is for me, a necessary and accepted stage in the
evolution of human societies.

Many of the conclusions to which I have come are so completely opposed
to those which generally have been accepted as correct, that now, I am
at the end of my inquiry it will be well to sum up briefly its result.

The facts I have so rapidly enumerated have a very wide bearing; they
serve to destroy the accepted foundations on which the claim for
mother-right has hitherto been based. The first stage of the family
was patriarchal. All the evidence we possess tends to show that
tracing descent through the mother was not the primitive custom.
Throughout my aim has been to bring into uniformity the opposing
theories of the primeval patriarchate and the maternal family. The
current view, so often asserted, and manifestly inspired by a
Puritanical ideal, insists that mother-descent arose through uncertain
fatherhood, and was connected with an early period of promiscuous
relationships between the two sexes. This view has been proved to be
entirely wrong. The system of maternal descent was a system framed for
order, and had in its origin, at least, no connection with sexual
disorder. Further than this, it is certain that marriage in some form
has always existed, and that the sexual relationships have never been
unregulated. We must renounce any theory of primitive promiscuity.
And there is more than this to be said. Such freedom in love and in
marriage as we do find in barbarous societies is so strong a proof of
friendly feeling and security that it is certain it could not have
existed in the first stage of the jealous patriarchate; rather it must
have developed at a subsequent period with the growth of the
social-tribal spirit, and the liberty of women from the thrall of
sexual ownership. In these particulars my opinion differs from all
other writers who have sought to establish a theory of matriarchy. I
venture to claim that the position of the mother-age has been
strengthened, and, as I hope, built up on surer foundations.

Let us cast a brief glance backward over the way that we have
travelled.

Our most primitive ancestors, half-men, half-brutes, lived in small,
solitary and hostile family groups, held together by a common
subjection to the strongest male, who was the father and the owner of
all the women, and their children. There was no promiscuity, for there
could be no possible union in peace. Here was the most primitive form
of jealous ownership by the male, as he killed or drove off his
rivals; his fights were the brutal precursors of all sexual
restrictions for women. These customs of brute ownership are still in
great measure preserved among the least developed races. This explains
how there are many rude peoples that exhibit no traces at all of the
system of mother-descent. In the lowest nomad bands of savages of the
deserts and forests we find still these rough paternal groups, who
know no social bonds, but are ruled alone by brute strength and
jealous ownership. With them development has been very slow; they have
not yet advanced to the social organisation of the maternal clan.

From these first solitary families, grouped submissively around one
tyrant-ruler, we reach a second stage out of which order and
organisation sprang. In this second stage the family expanded into the
larger group of the communal clan. The upward direction of this
transformation is evident; the change was from the most selfish
individualism to a communism more or less complete--from the
primordial patriarchate to a free social organisation, all the members
of which are bound together by a strict solidarity of interests. The
progress was necessarily slow from the beginning to this first phase
of social life. Yet the change came. With the fierce struggle for
existence, association was the only possible way, not only to further
progress, but to prevent extermination.

It has been shown that the earliest movements towards peace came
through the influence of the women, for it was in their interest to
consolidate the family, and, by means of union, to establish their own
power. Collective motives were more considered by women, not at all
because of any higher standard of feminine moral virtue, but because
of the peculiar advantages arising to themselves and to their
children--advantages of freedom which could not exist in a society
inspired by individual inclination. And for this reason the clan
system may be considered as a feminine creation, which had special
relation to motherhood. Under this influence, the marital rights of
the male members were restricted and confined. A system of taboos was
established, which as time advanced was greatly strengthened by the
sacred totem marks, and became of inexorable strictness. In this way
association between the jealous fighting males was made possible.

Here, then, are the reasons that led to the formation of the maternal
family and the communal clan. It was a movement that had nothing about
it that was exceptional; it was a perfectly natural arrangement--the
practical outgrowth of the practical needs of primitive peoples. The
strong and certain claim for the acceptance for the mother-age, with
its privileged position for women, rests on this foundation.

Let us be quite clear as to the real question involved, for it is a
crucial one. I refer to the complete disturbance arising through this
change in the family organisation in the relationships between the two
sexes. A wife was no longer the husband’s property. Her position was
unchanged by marriage, for her rights were safeguarded by her kindred,
whose own interests could be protected only through her freedom.

If we turn next to the status of men--of the husband and father--in
the maternal kindred group, we find their power and influence at first
gradually, and then rapidly, decreasing. It was under these conditions
of family communism that the rights of the husband and father were
restricted on every side. Not only does he not stand out as a
principal person from the background of the familial clan; he has not
even any recognised social existence in the family group. This
restriction of the husband and father was clearly dependent on the
form of marriage. We have seen that the individual relationships
between the sexes began with the reception of temporary lovers by the
woman in her own home. But a relationship thus formed would tend under
favourable circumstances to be continued, and, in some cases,
perpetuated. The lover became the husband; he left the home of his
mother to reside with his wife among her kin; he was still without
property or any recognised rights in her clan, with no--or very
little--control over the woman and none over her children, occupying,
indeed, the position of a more or less permanent guest in her hut or
tent. The wife’s position and that of her children was assured, and in
the case of a separation it was the man who departed, leaving her in
possession.

Under such an organisation the family and social customs were in most
cases--and always, I believe, in their complete maternal
form--favourable to women. Kinship was reckoned through the mother,
since in this way alone could the undivided family be maintained. The
continuity of the clan thus depending on the women, they were placed
in a very special position of importance, the mother was at least the
nominal head of the household, shaping the destiny of the clan through
the aid of her clan-kindred. Her closest male relation was not her
husband, but her brother and her son; she was the conduit by which
property passed to and from them. Often women established their own
claims and all property was held by them; which under favourable
circumstances developed into what may literally be called a
matriarchate. In all cases the child’s position was dependent entirely
on the mother and not on the father. Such a system of inheritance may
be briefly summarised as “mother-right.”

There is another matter to notice. Every possible experiment in sexual
association has been tried, and is still practised among various
barbarous races, with very little reference to those moral ideas to
which we are accustomed. It is, however, very necessary to remember
that monogamy is frequent and indeed usual under the maternal system.
We have seen many examples where, with complete freedom of separation
held by the wife, lasting and most happy marriages are the rule. When
the husband lives with his wife in a dependent position to her family
he can do so only in the case of one woman. For this reason polygamy
is much less deeply rooted under the conditions in which the communal
life is developed than in patriarchal communities. In the complete
maternal family it is never common, and is even prohibited.[247]

    [247] It is significant that in Sumatra polygamy occurs with
    the _djudur_ marriages, where the wife is bought and lives
    with her husband, while it is unknown in the maternal
    marriages. It is frequent in Africa and elsewhere, when the
    marriage is not the maternal form.

As we might expect, the case is quite opposite with polyandry. This
form of marriage has evident advantages for women when compared with
polygamy; it is also a form that requires a certain degree of social
civilisation. It clearly involves the limitation of the individual
marital rights of the husband. Polyandry in the joint family group was
not due to a licentious view of marriage; far otherwise, it was an
expression of the communism which is characteristic of this
organisation. This fact has been forgotten by many writers, who have
regarded this form of the sexual relationships as a very primitive
development, connected with group-marriage and promiscuous ownership
of women. It is very necessary to be clear on this point. Under the
maternal conditions, nothing is more certain than the equality of
women with men in all questions of sexual morality. In proof of this
it is necessary only to recall the facts we have noted. We find little
or no importance attached to virginity, which in itself indicates the
absence of any conception of the woman as property. Thus no
bride-price is claimed from the husband, who renders service in proof
of his fitness as a lover, not to gain possession of the bride. The
girl is frequently the wooer, and, in certain cases, she or her mother
imposes the conditions of the marriage. After marriage the free
provision for divorce (often more favourable to the wife than to the
husband) is perhaps of even greater significance. There can, I think,
be no doubt that this freedom in love was dependent on the wife’s
position of security under the maternal form of marriage.

I hold that the facts brought forward entitle us to claim that the
maternal communal clan was an organisation in which there was a freer
community of interest, far more fellowship in labour and partnership
in property, with a resulting liberty for woman, than we find in any
patriarchal society. For this reason, shall we, then, look back to
this maternal stage as to a golden period, wherein was realised a free
social organisation, carrying with it privileges for women, which even
to-day among ourselves have never been established, and only of late
claimed? It is a question very difficult to answer, and we must not in
any haste rush into mistakes. We found that the mother-age was a
transitional stage in the history of the evolution of society, and we
have indicated the stages of its gradual decline. It is thus proved to
have been a less stable social system than the patriarchate which
again succeeded it, or it would not have perished in the struggle with
it. Must we conclude from this that the one form of the family is
higher than the other--that the superior advantage rests with the
patriarchal system? Not at all: rather it proves how difficult is the
struggle to socialise. Human nature tends so readily towards
individualism; it yields itself up to the joy of possession whenever
it is possible.

The impulse to dominate by virtue of strength or property possession
has manifested itself in every age. It cannot be a matter of surprise,
therefore, that at this period of social development a rebellion arose
against the customs of maternal communism. Within the large and
undivided family of the clan the restricted family became gradually
re-established by a reassertion of individual interests. In proportion
as the family gained in importance (which would arise as the struggle
for existence lessened and the need of association was less
imperative) the interest of the individual members would become
separated from the group to which they belonged. Each one would
endeavour to get himself as large a share as possible of what was
formerly held in common. As society advanced property would increase
in value, and the social and political significance of its possession
would also increase. Afterwards, when personal property was acquired,
each man would aim at gaining a more exclusive right over his wife and
children; he would not willingly submit to the bondage of the maternal
form of marriage.

In the earlier days the clan spirit was too strong, now men had shaken
off, to a degree sufficient for their purpose, the female yoke, which
bound the clan together. We have seen the husband and father moving
towards the position of a fully acknowledged legal parent by a system
of buying off his wife and her children from their clan-group. The
movement arose in the first instance through a property value being
connected with women themselves. As soon as the women’s kindred found
in their women the possibility of gaining worldly goods for
themselves, they began to claim service and presents from their
lovers. It was in this way for economic reasons, and for no moral
considerations that the maternal marriage fell into disfavour. The
payment of a bride-price was claimed, and an act of purchase was
accounted essential. As we have seen, it was regarded as a condition,
not so much of the marriage itself, but of the transference of the
wife to the home of the husband and of the children to his kindred.
The change was, of course, effected slowly; and often we find the two
forms of marriage--the maternal and the purchase-marriage--occurring
side by side. What, however, is certain is that the purchase-marriage
in the struggle was the one that prevailed.

This reversal in the form of the marriage brought about a
corresponding reversal in the status of women. This is so plain. The
women of the family do not now inherit property, but are themselves
property, passing from the hands of their father to that of a husband.
As purchased wives they are compelled to reside in the husband’s house
and among his kin, who have no rights or duties in regard to them, and
where they are strangers. In a word, the wife occupies the same
position of disadvantage as the man had done in the maternal marriage.
And her children kept her bound to this alien home in a much closer
way than the husband could ever have been bound to her home. The
protection of her own kindred was the source of the woman’s power and
strength. This was now lost. The change was not brought about without
a struggle, and for long the old customs contended with the new. But
as the patriarchate developed, and men began to gain individual
possession of their children by the purchase of their mothers, the
father became the dominant power in the family. Little by little
individual interests prevailed. Moral limits were set up. Women’s
freedom was threatened on every side as the jealous ownership, which
always arises wherever women are regarded as property, asserted
itself. Mother-right passed away, remaining only as a tradition, or
preserved in isolated cases among primitive peoples. The patriarchal
age, which still endures, succeeded.

Yet in this connection it is very necessary to remember that the
reassertion of the patriarchate was as necessary a stage in human
development as the maternal stage. Whatever may have been the
advantages arising to women from the clan organisation (and that the
advantages were great I claim to have proved) such conditions could
not remain fixed for ever. For society is not stable; it cannot be, as
the need for adjustment is always arising, and at certain stages of
development different tendencies are active. No one cause can be
isolated, and, therefore, it is necessary in estimating any change to
take a synthetic view of many facts that are contemporaneous and
interacting. Yet, it would seem that the social and domestic habits of
a people are decided largely by the degree of dominance held either by
women or men; and almost everything else depends on the accurate
adjustment of the rights of the two sexes.

The social clan organised around the mothers carried mankind a long
way--a way the length of which we are only beginning to realise. But
it could not carry mankind to that family organisation from which so
much was afterwards to develop. It was no more possible for society to
be built up on mother-right alone than it is possible for it to remain
permanently based on father-right.

But there is another aspect of this question that I must briefly touch
upon. The opinion that the reversal in the position of authority of
the mother and the father arose from male mastery, or was due to any
unfair domination on the part of the husband must be set aside. To me
the history of the mother-age does not teach this. I believe that the
change to the individual family must have been regarded favourably by
the women themselves, for such a change could not have arisen, at all
events it would not have persisted, if women, with the power they then
enjoyed, had not desired it. Nor need this bring any surprise. An
arrangement that would give a closer relationship in marriage and the
protection of a husband for herself and her children may well have
come to be preferred by the wife. Nor do I think it unlikely that she,
quite as strongly as the man, may have desired to live apart from her
mother and her kindred in her husband’s home. Individual interests are
not confined to men.

With all the evils father-right has brought to women, we have got to
remember that the woman owes the individual relation of the man to
herself and her children to the patriarchal system. The father’s
right in his children (which, unlike the right of the mother, was not
founded upon kinship, but rested on the quite different and insecure
basis of property) had to be re-established. Without this being done,
the family in its complete development was impossible. The survival
value of the patriarchal age consists in the additional gain to the
children of the father’s to the mother’s care. I do not think this
gain will ever be lost. We women need to remember this lest bitterness
stains our sense of justice. It may be that progress could not have
been accomplished otherwise; that the cost of love’s development has
been the enslavement of women. If so, then women will not, in the long
account of Nature, have lost in the payment of the price. They may be
(when they come again to understand their power) better fitted for
their refound freedom.

Such is the history of the past, what is the promise of the future?

We have traced three stages in the past evolution of the family--two
individual and patriarchal, one communal and maternal. Is the
patriarchal stage, then, the final stage? Has the upward growth, ever
yet continuous, been arrested here? The social ideal of the mother-age
was a transition and a dream--but as a moment of peace in the records
of struggle, following the bloody opening drama in man’s history, and
then passing into a forgetfulness so complete that its existence by
many has been denied. Yet the feet of the race were in the way,
though men and women let it pass, blindly unknowing.

Our age is working for scarcely yet formulated changes in the
ownership of property and in the status of women. The patriarchal view
of woman’s subjection to man is being questioned in every direction.
What do these movements indicate? If, as seems probable, the
individual evolution, already for so long continued, is perishing,
what is to take its place? What form will the family take in the
future? These are questions to which it is not possible for me here
even to attempt to find the answer.[248]

    [248] I hope to do so in a future book on _Motherhood_.

Let us look for a moment in this new direction, the direction of the
future, because it is there that the past becomes so important. In our
contemporary society there is a deep-lying dissatisfaction with
existing conditions, a yearning and restless need for change. We stand
in the first rush of a great movement. It is the day of experiments,
when again the old customs are in struggle with the new. We are
questioning where before we have accepted, and are seeking out new
ways in which mankind will go--will go because it must.

Social institutions alter very slowly as a rule; for long a change may
pass unnoticed, until one day it is discovered that a step forward has
been taken. Those changes that appear so new and are bringing fear to
many to-day, are but the last consequences of causes that for long
have been operating slowly. The extraordinary enthusiasm now sweeping
through womanhood reveals behind its immediate feverish expression a
great power of emotional and spiritual initiative. Wide and radically
sweeping are the changes in women’s outlook. So much stronger is the
promise of a vital force when they have refound their emancipation. To
this end women must gain economic security, and the freedom for the
full expression of their womanhood. The ultimate goal I conceive--at
least I hope--is the right to be women, not the right to become like
men. There can be no gain for women except this. To be mothers were
women created and to be fathers men. This rightly considered is the
deepest of all truths.

What is needed at present is that women should be allowed to
rediscover for themselves what is their woman’s work, rather than that
they should continue to accept perforce the rôle which men (rightly or
wrongly) have at various times allowed to them throughout the
patriarchal ages. This necessity is as much a necessity for men as it
is for women.

I do not think that women will fail (even if for a time they stumble a
little) in finding the way. The vital germinal spot of each forward
step in women’s position must be sought with the women who are the
conscious mothers of the race. The great women reformers are not those
who would have women act just like men in all externals, but those who
are conscious that all men are born of women. In this lies women’s
strength in the past and in this must be their strength in that glad
future that is to be. But only if motherhood is regarded as an
intrinsic glory, and children are born in freedom. Think what this
means. The birth of a child, in so far as its mother has not received
the sanction of a man, is subject to the fire and brimstone of public
scorn. And this scorn is the most pitiful result in all the
patriarchal record. A woman’s natural right is her right to be a
mother, and it is the most inglorious page in the history of woman
that too often she has allowed herself to be deprived of that right.
Women have this lesson first to learn. We, and not men, must fix the
standard in sex, for we have to play the chief part in the racial
life. Let us, then, reacquire our proud instinctive consciousness,
which we are fully justified in having, of being the mothers of
humanity; and having that consciousness, once more we shall be
invincible.




INDEX


A

Absorption by the male of female ideas, 75

Advance of the family to the clan and tribe, 36, 67-91, 170, 256 _et seq._

Africa, 174-176, 204-205

Agriculture and women, 60 _et seq._, 116, 158, 194-208

Ahitas of Philippines, 152

Alladians of Gold Coast, 185

Allison, Mrs., 198

Amazons, 34, 36, 38, 228, 245-246

Amazons, revolt of, 31, 32, 36, 38

_Ambel-anak_ marriage, 147, 182

American aborigines, 27, 95-131, 148, 198, 206

Andamanese, women’s work among, 197

Andombies, women’s work among, 201

Apes, anthropoid, 72, 80, 81

Arabia, 178, 206

Arabs, 179-180, 189

Architects, women as primitive, 117, 203

Arruwimi tribe, 201

Aryans, mother-descent among, 230 _et seq._

Athens, 216, 220

Atkinson, Mr., 24, 47, 51, 52, 56, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80,
               81, 82, 84, 85, 86

Australia, 102, 167-170, 178

Australia, work of women in, 197, 200, 210


B

Babylon, position of women in ancient, 214-215

Bacchanalian festivals, 38, 241, 243

Bachofen, 26 _et seq._, 40, 97, 154, 165, 216, 240, 245

Bachofen’s theory of matriarchy, 26-44

Bancroft, 116, 119, 124, 125, 184

Bandelier, 207

Banyai tribe, 183

Barton, 178

Basques, 229

Batu tribe, 175

Bavili tribe, 185

_Beena_ marriage, 178, 182, 183, 223, 248

Benefits of marriage law for women, 32

Beni-Amer of Africa, 211

Berbers, 222-227

Bonwick, 195

Brewers, women as, 203

Bride-price, 159, 184, 190, 260, 263

Brute-force of male, 44.
  _See_ Father as tyrant.

Buckley, 197, 198


C

Californian Redskins, 124

Campbell, 183

Capture of wives, 51, 64, 74, 80, 83, 169, 181

Celts, 233, 234

Ceylon, 173, 182

Charleroix, 114

Chavanne, 160, 161

Chivalry, 162

Choice in love, the right of the female, 64, 113, 151-153, 177, 260

Clan, primitive, 18, 103, 166, 167, 176, 190, 209, 257 _et seq._

Communal living, 75, 88, 103 _et seq._, 116, 117 _et seq._, 148
                 _et seq._, 154, 166, 174, 231, 256 _et seq._

Contrast between the work of women and men, 195 _et seq._

Conventional morality, 36

Courtship, 45, 120 _et seq._, 151-153.
  _See_ Choice in love.

Couvade, 206, 228

Crawley, 47, 77, 82, 95, 96, 209

Creek Indians, 118-119

Crete, matriarchy in ancient, 216, 217-218, 220

Criticism of mother-right, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 35, 40, 42, 48,
                           95-96, 170, 192, 210, 253

Curr, 128

Cushing, 117, 237


D

D’Allosso, Prof., 246

Dalton, 133, 152

Dances, 100

Dargun, 230, 231

Darwin, 45

_Deega_ marriage, 182

De Mailla, 150

Deniker, 198

Dennett, 185

Dependence of the human child, 58

Descent through the mother, 17, 26, 33, 88, 119, 160, 162 _et seq._,
                            163-165, 213-214, 220 _et seq._, 224, 227, 230,
                            232-233, 249 _et seq._, 257, 258 _et seq._

Diodorus, 211, 212

Divinities, women as, 136 _et seq._, 154, 214, 217, 219, 229, 231, 240

Divorce, 113, 121, 141-143, 157, 179, 206, 260

_Djudur_ marriage, 182, 259

Doctors, women as, 203

Domestication of animals, 203

Duveyrier, 160, 161, 162


E

Economic matriarchy, 159 _et seq._

Egypt, position of women in ancient, 162, 211-214, 227

Ellis, Havelock, 153, 192, 199, 201, 203, 205, 215

Euripedes, 239

Exogamy, 76-77, 87, 119, 123, 135, 141, 154

Expansion of the family into the clan, 67 _et seq._, 79 _et seq._,
                                       86-87, 97, 256 _et seq._


F

Fairy stories, their evidence for mother-right, 246-252

Family, primitive, 41, 48 _et seq._, 54-55, 68 _et seq._,
                   168-169, 256 _et seq._

Fanti of Gold Coast, 175

Father as tyrant, 34, 44, 48, 50, 54, 57, 63, 68, 70, 72, 74,
                  81, 83, 168, 255

Father the true parent, 38, 39, 239

Father-right dependent on purchase, 182 _et seq._, 185-186, 188,
                                    190, 262-263

Female dominance, 35, 111, 133, 156, 159.
  _See_ Gynæcocracy.

Ferrass, Max Henry, 80

Fison, 193, 200, 206

Folk-lore as evidence of mother-right, 233, 234, 236 _et seq._, 249, 251

Food and women, 59 _et seq._
  _See_ Industry and women.

Forbes, 183

Formosans, 150-151

Frazer, 133, 179, 187, 215, 220, 233

Fuegians, 203


G

Garos, 151-152

Germans, mother-descent among, 230-231

Giraud-Teulon, 28, 176, 216

Greece, ancient, traces of mother-right in, 216-222

Grimm, 231

Grote, 216

Guinea, 181

Gurdon, P. R., 132, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143

Gynæcocracy, 27, 30, 34, 38, 97, 112, 133, 156, 159-162, 176


H

Haddon, 153, 196

Haidis, 187

Hale, Horatio, 205

Hall, J. R., 217, 218

Hammurabi, Code of, 214

Hartland, 114, 123, 125, 172, 177, 186

Hassanyah Arabs, 179-180

Haydes, 198

Hearne, 178

Hebrew patriarchs, 13, 222 _et seq._

Heriot, 110, 113, 120

Herodotus, 211, 217, 221

Herrera, 117

Hodgson, 159, 177

Hoffman, 208

Home, woman’s connection with the, 34-35, 36, 59, 84, 150,
                                   193 _et seq._, 263

Homer, 219

Hooker, Sir J., 133

Hopis, 122-123

Hospitality, American-Indian, 108, 230

Howitt, 193, 200

Husband as “consort guest,” 15.
  _See_ Maternal marriage.

Husband visiting the wife by night, 81, 83, 140-141, 220, 258


I

Iberians, mother-right among, 226-227

Ibn Batua, 178

Illegitimacy, 122, 184, 185, 189

Im Thurn, 196, 200

Importance of mother-descent, 17, 20, 21, 27, 32-33, 88-89, 99,
                              100, 119, 121, 133, 139, 143, 149
                              _et seq._, 153, 155, 156, 166, 170,
                              173, 175, 258-259, 261

Incest, paternal, 79, 176-178

India, 102.
  _See_ Khasis.

Indians of Guiana, 195, 200

Industry and women, 60-62, 102, 116, 117, 134, 135, 150, 175, 192-208


J

Jealousy, 45 _et seq._, 51-53, 54, 60, 62, 65, 67, 68, 73, 86, 90, 104,
                        157, 170, 191, 253

Johnstone, H. H., 201

Joint tenement houses, 106, 117, 148-149, 230

Joyce.
  _See_ Torday.

Justin, 228


K

Kaffirs, 203

Kamilaroi and Kurnai tribes, 193, 201

Kamtschatdals, 203

Khasis, 132-146, 177, 218

Kingsley, Miss, 175

Kinship through women.
  _See_ Descent through mother.

Koochs, 176-177

Kubary, 155-156

Kurds, 204


L

Laing, 176

Lang, Andrew, 24, 47, 51, 56, 95

Legends, 33, 101, 137, 217, 219, 232, 236-240, 243-246

Letourneau, 162, 172, 176, 215, 233, 239

Liburni tribes, 188, 231

Limboltz, 152

Limboo tribe, 183

Lippert, 176

Livingstone, 183

Logan, J. R., 133

Lyell, Sir Chas., 132, 137


M

Macdonald, 183, 200

McGee, 16, 27, 117, 126, 133, 149, 152, 201

McLennan, 26, 27, 33, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52, 76, 105, 155, 181,
          183, 185, 187, 220, 229, 244, 245

McLennan, theory of mother-right, 40 _et seq._

Madagascar, 189, 226

Maine, Sir H., 18, 223

Malay States, 147 _et seq._

Malwlo tribe, 185

Mang’anja tribe, 188

Manyuema tribe, 201

Maoris, 186

Marsden, 182

Marvana Islanders, 180

Mason, O., 197, 200, 202

Maternal love, 69, 70 _et seq._, 263

Maternal marriage, 15, 17, 41, 85, 86, 87, 100, 112 _et seq._, 114,
                   119, 123, 127, 147, 149, 158, 166, 176, 177, 183,
                   223, 232, 233, 247 _et seq._, 258

Matriarchal theory, mistakes in, 15, 16, 19, 39 _et seq._, 90-91, 97, 98.
  _See_ Criticism of mother-right.

Matriarchate. _See_ Gynæcocracy.

Meave, Queen of Ireland, 252

Menomini Indians, 207

Monogamy, 119, 122, 123, 125, 149, 259

Monopolist desire of male, 186-187.
  _See_ Unsocial conduct of males.

Moore, 152

Moral prohibition, primitive, 119.
  _See_ Taboos.

Morgan, 27, 40, 103, 104, 105, 109, 111, 117, 118

Müller, 216

Musical faculty of women, 161


N

Naïrs of Malabar, 171-174

Newbold, 243

New Caledonia, women’s work in, 197

New Guinea, 152-153

New theory of mother-right, 35, 43-44, 48 _et seq._, 72, 90-91, 96, 97,
                            170, 212, 254, 257

Nicaraguans, 125


O

Origin of the human family, 21, 24, 25, 41-42, 50 _et seq._, 77,
                            90, 255 _et seq._

Origin of the maternal system, 16, 41, 43, 88-89, 166, 257 _et seq._

Owen, 115, 197

Ownership of children, 115, 141, 183 _et seq._, 187


P

Pakpatan, 189

Pani Kotches, 158-159

Papuans of New Guinea, 201

Paraguay, 152

Parenthood, 37, 268-269

Parke, 201

Passivity of female in love, 153

Patriarchal authority of father, 19, 35, 48, 51, 63, 68, 72, 74, 81.
  _See_ Father as tyrant.

Patriarchal family, 35, 45, 91, 215, 222, 255 _et seq._

Patriarchal theory, 24, 26, 35, 45 _et seq._, 254

Pearson, K., 231, 240, 241, 243, 248, 250, 251

Pecuniary matriarchy, 159

Pedangs of Sumatra, 148-150

Pelew Islanders, 152-159, 207-208

Petherick, 180

Picts, mother-descent among, 232

Pike, W., 198

Plato, 239

Plutarch, 216, 220

Polyandry, 42, 51, 112, 125, 136, 173, 260

Polygamous males, 49, 50, 52

Polygamy, 112, 125, 157, 259

Polynesians, 203

Position of the father, 13, 15, 17, 21, 58 _et seq._, 141, 143, 149,
                        165, 170, 173, 191, 225, 238, 242, 257

Position of the mother, 13, 15, 17, 21, 58 _et seq._, 111, 165, 176,
                        191, 225, 238, 257

Position of women, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 106, 143, 152, 158, 192, 204, 238

Powell, 114, 116

Power, 202, 224

Pre-matriarchal period, 35, 169, 255

Present social and economic condition, 14, 267-269

Prevalence of mother-descent, 17, 128-129, 209-210, 233

Primal law, 24, 47, 52, 73, 74, 75, 77

Promiscuity, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 40 _et seq._, 43, 45 _et seq._, 76, 97,
             99, 168, 209-210, 255

Property ownership, its importance for women, 43, 45 _et seq._, 77, 97,
                                              99, 168, 209-210, 255

Pueblos, 116 _et seq._, 200, 207

Purchase marriage, 124, 177, 182, 233

Puritan spirit, 36, 96, 255


Q

Quissama women, 203


R

Race, responsibility to, 37, 268-269

Ratzel, 206

Religions, position of women in primitive, 29, 37, 238, 241.
  _See_ Divinities, women as.

Religious festivals, 241, 242-243

Religious myths, 29-30, 33, 236-238

Revolt of women, 31, 34, 35, 44, 267

Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, 233

Riedel, 183

Rome, ancient, traces of mother-right in, 215-216


S

Sai tribe, 123-124

Salish tribe, 127

Samoa, 187

Santals, 177

Schellong, 201

School craft, 110, 112, 116

Semper, 157

Senecas. _See_ Iroquois.

Seri Indians, 126-128

Service marriage, 147-150, 184, 222-223

Sex antagonism, 36, 55, 264 _et seq._

Sexual egoism of male, 61, 67.
  _See_ Unsocial conduct of males.

Sexual freedom for women, 120, 127, 171, 173, 178, 179-180, 260

Sexual subjection of female, 53, 63, 68, 189, 191, 265-266

Similarity of sexes, 129-131, 218

Similkameen Indians, 198

Slavs, the clan among the, 231

Social conduct of women, 31, 34, 55 _et seq._, 59-65, 68, 70, 72, 75,
                         81, 90, 107, 193, 256 _et seq._

Social habits, primitive, 23, 49, 58 _et seq._, 67, 81, 107 _et seq._, 170.
  _See_ Maternal marriage.

Soulima women, 176

Spain, position of women in, 227-230

Sparta, 220, 222

Spencer, H., 180

Spiritual quality in women, 31, 56, 68

Stages in the development of the family, 17, 23, 97, 168, 174, 194,
                                         254 _et seq._


T

Taboos, primitive sexual, 73, 77-78, 107, 168, 170, 257

Tacitus, 230

Tarrahumari Indians, 152

Tasmanian women, 195

Thebans, 220

Thibet, 173

Thomas, C., 129

Thomas, I. T., 181, 202

Thomas, N. W., 95

Torday and Joice, 184

Torres Straits, women’s work in, 196

Totem names, 77,87, 119, 168, 257

Touaregs of the Saraha, 159-162, 227

Transition period, 12, 23, 151, 169, 184 _et seq._, 187, 235, 261

Tribal ancestresses, 135, 155, 226, 231, 233, 234

Turner, 188, 197

Tylor, 25, 98, 104, 117, 152


U

Uncertainty of paternity, 27, 41, 42, 99, 141, 254

Unsocial conduct of males, 55 _et seq._, 61-64, 68, 71, 72, 75, 90,
                           193, 256


V

Visiting wife in secret, 140-141, 147, 220, 222-223, 258

Volti, 123


W

Wade, 189

Waitz-Gerland, 181

Wamoimia, 175

War and women, 115-116, 197-198, 246

Watubela tribe, 183

Wayao tribe, 183

Wells, Mr. H. G., 24, 52, 192

Werner, Alice, 175, 204

Westermarck, 18, 35, 42, 47, 76, 95, 99, 125, 152, 168, 209

Wheeler, J. M., 152

Wilkin, 188, 189

Woman as food-giver, 60, 202 _et seq._

Woman’s movement, 11 _et seq._, 267-268

Women, primitive, not ill-treated by men, 200 _et seq._

Women, spiritual superiority, 30

Wright, Asher, Rev., 111

Wyandots. _See_ Iroquois.


Y

Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego, 198

Yaos of Africa, 175

Ymer, 157

Yokia women of California, 202


Z

Zuñi Indians, 117-118, 120-122

_Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, London and Bungay._




_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_

THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN

By C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY

(Mrs. Walter Gallichan)

_Fourth Edition 7s. 6d. net_

_SOME PRESS OPINIONS_

“_The best written and the most profitable of the many recent books
upon the woman’s movement._ It is distinguished alike by the scope of
its learning, the skilful way in which evidence is marshalled, and,
above all, by the independence of thought and temper brought to the
interpretation of the modern issues.... The discussion of sex
differences and of the social problems which spring therefrom shows
not only wide and deep personal acquaintance with modern men and
women, but a singular freedom from some of the squeamishness of
thought and feeling which hampers most discussion ... _an exceedingly
important contribution to the most difficult problem of our and every
other time_.”--J. A. HOBSON in _The Manchester Guardian_.

“_The book shows a fearless intellectual honesty and a deep sympathy
and tolerance; it is the work of a serious student and of a woman who
knows life as well as libraries...._ The chapter on ‘Sexual
Differences in Mind’ is absorbingly interesting, and based on the
latest research. She writes finely and truly on the absurd and
indecent cruelty of penalising divorce; on the cherished superstition
of feminine passivity in love, and the origin of the chastity taboo on
women with its waste of life and love. She even has a sane and humane
chapter on prostitution, recognising the complexity of its causes, and
the kindness and generosity of these scapegoat women to one another,
as well as their erotic insensibility. _The book should be read by all
educated men and women._ It will probably be greeted with screams of
denunciation from those persons whose hostility forms a hall-mark of
mental honesty and social value.”--_The English Review._

“We very heartily commend this remarkable book.... Every chapter
abounds in challenges to thought, and we must thank a woman who has
dared and cared to think and dared to say.”--_The Pall Mall Gazette._

“One of the most thoughtful books about women I have yet read.... The
book is certainly of an advanced feminism, yet the author is found
most strongly on the side of marriage, of love, of women’s femininity
as their strength; in fact, of all the things which shallow observers
suppose the woman movement is actively denying.”--_Truth._

“Sane, sound, and well reasoned ... she has more capacity than any
other woman writer of the kind we have yet come across for regarding
all questions of sex from the man’s point of view.”--_Glasgow Herald._

EVELEIGH NASH, 36 King Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.