The Position of Woman in Primitive Society Part 13

"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 acc.u.mulation 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 s.e.x in all formulas of address: "G.o.ddesses and G.o.ds;" "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 circ.u.mscribed; 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 s.e.x_, Vol. VI, p. 393.

Let us now turn our attention to the Graeco-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] Muller 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 ????? 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 p.r.o.nounced, 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 gynaecocratic 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 G.o.ddess, 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 G.o.ddesses are placed before G.o.ds. 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 a.s.sociation 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 s.e.xes 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 s.e.xes 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 s.e.xes 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 n.o.bler 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 G.o.ds" are shaped by human beings in their own image, and the status of women on earth is reflected in the status of a G.o.ddess. Five out of the eight divinities of immemorial Greek worship were female, Hera, Demeter, Persephone, Athene and Aphrodite. In addition there were numerous lesser G.o.ddesses. 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 a.s.sistance from the aeginetans as their nearest kin, _recollecting that Thebe and aeginia 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 pa.s.s 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 Lacedaemonians_, 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 pa.s.sed 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 ill.u.s.trations 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 inst.i.tuted 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. x.x.x, 18-30; x.x.xi, 14, 41.

[202] Gen. x.x.xi, 43.

[203] Gen. xxiv, 5, 53.

[204] Judges xv, 1.

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