{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60219/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60219","id":"gutenberg_60219","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60219","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Sex","Women -- History","Women -- Social conditions"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations\nin hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other\nspelling and punctuation remains unchanged.\n\nThe precise location of footnote 256 is speculative since it is not\nindicated in the original.\n\nItalics are represented thus _italic_.\n\n\n\n\n                         The Sexes in Science\n                                  and\n                                History\n\n                 An Inquiry into the Dogma of Woman\u2019s\n                          Inferiority to Man\n\n                                  By\n\n                           Eliza Burt Gamble\n\n            _A revised edition of \u201cThe Evolution of Woman\u201d_\n\n\n                          G.\u202fP. Putnam\u2019s Sons\n                          New York and London\n                        The Knickerbocker Press\n                                 1916\n\n\n\n\n                            COPYRIGHT, 1893\n             Under the title _The Evolution of Woman_, by\n                          G.\u202fP. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n\n                            COPYRIGHT, 1916\n                      for the revised edition, by\n                          G.\u202fP. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n\n                   The Knickerbocker Press, New York\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO NEW EDITION\n\n\nThis volume is a revised edition of _The Evolution of Woman_ published\nby G.\u202fP. Putnam\u2019s Sons in 1894.\n\nIn this later work much added evidence appears going to prove the\ncorrectness of the theory advanced in the former work. In it the\nsubject of sex-development has been brought down to the present time\nand in this later investigation it is found that each and every fact\nconnected with the biological and sociological development of the last\ntwenty years is in strict accord not only with the facts set forth in\n_The Evolution of Woman_ but with the conclusions therein arrived at.\n\nIn the concluding chapters of this volume the results of the separate\ndevelopment of the two diverging lines of sex demarcation are set\nforth. I have endeavoured to show that present conditions are the\nlegitimate outcome of the ascendency gained during the later ages of\nhuman history by the egoistic or destructive agencies over the higher\nor constructive forces developed in human nature.\n\n  E.\u202fB.\u202fG.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO FIRST EDITION\n\n\nAfter a somewhat careful study of written history, and after an\ninvestigation extending over several years of all the accessible facts\nrelative to extant tribes representing the various stages of human\ndevelopment, I had reached the conclusion, as early as the year 1882,\nthat the female organism is in no wise inferior to that of the male.\nFor some time, however, I was unable to find any detailed proof that\ncould consistently be employed to substantiate the correctness of this\nhypothesis.\n\nIn the year 1885, with no special object in view other than a desire\nfor information, I began a systematized investigation of the facts\nwhich at that time had been established by naturalists relative to the\ndevelopment of mankind from lower orders of life. It was not, however,\nuntil the year 1886, after a careful reading of _The Descent of Man_,\nby Mr. Darwin, that I first became impressed with the belief that\nthe theory of evolution, as enunciated by scientists, furnishes much\nevidence going to show that the female among all the orders of life,\nman included, represents a higher stage of development than the male.\nAlthough at the time indicated, the belief that man has descended from\nlower orders in the scale of being had been accepted by the leading\nminds both in Europe and America, for reasons which have not been\nexplained, scientists, generally, seemed inclined to ignore certain\nfacts connected with this theory which tend to prove the superiority of\nthe female organism.\n\nScarcely considering at the outset whether my task would eventually\ntake the form of a magazine article, or whether it would be extended to\nthe dimensions of a book, I set myself to work to show that some of the\nconclusions of the savants regarding the subject of sex-development are\nnot in accord with their premises.\n\nWhile writing the first part of this volume, and while reasoning on the\nfacts established by scientists in connection with the observations\nwhich have been made in these later years relative to the growth of\nhuman society and the development of human institutions, it seemed\nclear to me that the history of life on the earth presents an unbroken\nchain of evidence going to prove the importance of the female; and,\nso struck was I by the manner in which the facts of science and those\nof history harmonize, that I decided to embrace within my work some\nof the results of my former research. I therefore set about the task\nof tracing, in a brief manner, the growth of the primary characters\nobserved in the two diverging sex-columns, according to the facts and\nprinciples enunciated in the theory of natural development.\n\nIt is not perhaps singular, during an age dominated by theological\ndogmatism, and in which no definite knowledge relative to the\ndevelopment of life on the earth had been gained, that man should\nhave regarded himself as an infinitely superior being. Neither is it\nremarkable that woman, who was supposed to have appeared later on the\nscene of action than did her male mate, and who owed her existence to\na surgical operation performed upon him, should have been regarded\nsimply as an appendage, a creature brought forth in response to the\nrequirements of the masculine nature.\n\nThe above doctrines when enunciated by theologians need cause little\nsurprise, but with the dawn of a scientific age it might have been\nexpected that the prejudices resulting from those doctrines might\ndisappear. When, however, we turn to the most advanced scientific\nwritings of the present century, we find that the prejudices which\nthroughout thousands of years have been gathering strength are by no\nmeans eradicated, and any discussion of the sex question is still\nrare in which the effects of these prejudices may not be traced. Even\nMr. Darwin, notwithstanding his great breadth of mental vision and\nthe important work which he accomplished in the direction of original\ninquiry, whenever he had occasion to touch on the mental capacities\nof women, or more particularly on the relative capacities of the\nsexes, manifested the same spirit which characterizes the efforts\nof an earlier age; and throughout his entire investigation of the\nhuman species, his ability to ignore certain facts which he himself\nadduced, and which all along the line of development tend to prove the\nsuperiority of the female, is truly remarkable.\n\nWe usually judge of a man\u2019s fitness to assume the r\u00f4le of an original\ninvestigator in any branch of human knowledge, by noting his powers\nof observation and generalization, and by observing his capacity to\nperceive connections between closely related facts; also, by tracing\nthe various processes by which he arrives at his conclusions. The\nability, however, to collect facts, and the power to generalize and\ndraw conclusions from them, avail little, when brought into direct\nopposition to deeply rooted prejudices.\n\nThe indications are strong that the time has at length arrived when\nthe current opinions concerning sex capacity and endowment demand a\nrevision, and when nothing short of scientific deductions, untainted by\nthe prejudices and dogmatic assumptions of the past, will be accepted.\n\nAs has been stated, the object of this volume is to set forth the\nprincipal data brought forward by naturalists bearing on the subject\nof the origin and development of the two lines of sexual demarcation,\nand by means of the facts observed by explorers among peoples in the\nvarious stages of development, to trace, so far as possible, the\neffect of such differentiation upon the individual, and upon the\nsubsequent growth of human society.\n\n  E.\u202fB.\u202fG.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION                                          iii\n\n  PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION                                             v\n\n\n                                PART I\n\n                       _THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION_\n\n  CHAPTER\n\n  I.\u2014DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANISM                                       3\n\n  II.\u2014THE ORIGIN OF SEX DIFFERENCES                                   14\n\n  III.\u2014MALE ORGANIC DEFECTS                                           35\n\n  IV.\u2014THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL INSTINCTS AND THE MORAL SENSE     63\n\n  V.\u2014THE SUPREMACY OF THE MALE                                        74\n\n\n                                PART II\n\n                         _PREHISTORIC SOCIETY_\n\n  I.\u2014METHOD OF INVESTIGATION                                          95\n\n  II.\u2014THE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES AMONG EARLY MANKIND                 104\n\n  III.\u2014THE GENS WOMEN UNDER GENTILE INSTITUTIONS                     123\n\n  IV.\u2014THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE                                         159\n\n  V.\u2014THE MOTHER-RIGHT                                                203\n\n  VI.\u2014THEORIES TO EXPLAIN WIFE-CAPTURE                               215\n\n\n                               PART III\n\n                       _EARLY HISTORIC SOCIETY_\n\n  I.\u2014EARLY HISTORIC SOCIETY FOUNDED ON THE GENS                      243\n\n  II.\u2014WOMEN IN EARLY HISTORIC TIMES                                  269\n\n  III.\u2014ANCIENT SPARTA                                                285\n\n  IV.\u2014ATHENIAN WOMEN                                                 318\n\n  V.\u2014ROMAN LAW, ROMAN WOMEN, AND CHRISTIANITY                        347\n\n  VI.\u2014THE RENAISSANCE                                                367\n\n  VII.\u2014CONCLUSION                                                    380\n\n  INDEX                                                              403\n\n\n\n\n                   The Sexes in Science and History\n\n\n\n\n                                PART I\n\n                        The Theory of Evolution\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANISM\n\n\nSex is not only the basic fact underlying physical life but it is also\nthe fundamental principle involved in the origin and development of\nreligion. Throughout the history of mankind, the God-idea has ever\nbeen, male or female, according to the relative importance of the two\nsex principles in human affairs.\n\nScientists declare that they are now able to trace the development\nof the two diverging lines of sex-demarcation from the time of their\nseparation, or from the time when these principles were confined within\none and the same individual. In order to understand the origin of sex,\nit becomes necessary to recall, briefly, the theory of the development\nof life on the earth as set forth by the savants.\n\nAs science deals only with matter, a mechanical theory of the universe\nis inevitable. As science is wholly materialistic, it is perfectly\nconsistent in its declaration that the senses and the intellect\nconstitute the only means whereby truth may be discovered. Modern\nphilosophy, on the other hand, which deals less with matter itself\nthan with the causes which underlie the development of matter, affirms\nthat a character has been developed in human beings which in its\ncapacity to discern truth, far transcends the intellect. That character\nis intuition. But as we are dealing only with scientific observations,\nphilosophical speculations do not here concern us.\n\n The fundamental idea, which must necessarily lie at the bottom of all\n natural theories of development, is that of a gradual development of\n all (even the most perfect) organisms out of a single, or out of a\n very few, quite simple, and quite imperfect original beings, which\n came into existence, not by supernatural creation, but by spontaneous\n generation.[1]\n\n[1] Haeckel, _History of Creation_, 1884, vol. i., p. 75.\n\nAccording to the theory of evolution as elaborated by scientists, the\nhistory of man begins with small animated particles, or Monera, which\nappeared in the primeval sea. These marine specks were albuminous\ncompounds of carbon, generated by the sun\u2019s heat, which made their\nappearance as soon as the mists which enveloped the earth were\nsufficiently cleared away to permit the rays of the sun to penetrate\nthem and reach the surface of the globe. Concerning the origin of\nthe principle of life which these particles contained, or regarding\nthe development of organic bodies from inorganic substances, the\nmore timid among naturalists declare that in the present state of\nhuman knowledge it is impossible to know anything, while others of\nthem, more bold, or more confident of the latent powers of the human\nintellect, after having elaborated a natural or mechanical explanation\nfor the development of all organic forms, are not disposed to accept\na supernatural theory for the beginning of life. For example, since\norganic structures represent the development of matter according to\nlaws governing the chemical, molecular, and physical forces inherent\nin it, it is believed that the gulf separating organic and inorganic\nsubstances is not so difficult to span as has hitherto been supposed.\nAmong those who hold this view may be ranked the celebrated naturalist,\nErnst Haeckel.\n\nRegarding the phenomena of life this writer observes: \u201cWe can\ndemonstrate the infinitely manifold and complicated physical and\nchemical properties of the albuminous bodies to be the real cause\nof organic or vital phenomena.\u201d[2] Indeed, in whatever manner the\nvital force within them originated, naturalists agree that from these\nparticles have been derived all the forms, both animal and vegetable,\nwhich have ever existed upon the earth.\n\n[2] _History of Creation_, vol. i., p. 331.\n\nAs speculations concerning the origin of matter lie without the\ndomain of natural or scientific inquiry, they form no part of the\ninvestigations of the naturalist. So far as is known, matter is\neternal, and all that may be learned concerning it must be gleaned\nby observing the changes, chemical and molecular, through which it\nis manifested. By those who have observed the laws which govern the\nmanifold changes in matter, the fact is declared that the various\nmanifestations in form and substance constitute the only creation\nof which we may have any knowledge; and, moreover, that the genesis\nof existence is going on as actively in our time as at any previous\nperiod in the history of matter. So far as human knowledge extends, no\nparticle of matter has ever been created and none ever destroyed. This\ncontinuous process of transmutation of substance and change of form, in\nother words the phenomena designated Life, may have been in operation\nduring all the past, and may continue forever.\n\nAs all speculations concerning the origin of matter have been\nunavailing, so all attempts to solve the problem of the origin of\nlife have proved futile. The experiments recently carried on in\nthe Rockefeller Institute, in which by means of chemical processes\ndetached organs from the bodies of animals have been made to perform\ntheir normal functions, are interesting and instructive, but these\nexperiments furnish no clue to the origin of the force which animates\nliving organic matter. Why the nucleated cells which we call a heart\nshould pulsate whilst those which we call a liver should secrete bile,\nnobody knows.\n\nThat all life on the earth has been derived from one, or at most from a\nfew original forms, is said to be proved by ontogeny, or the history\nof the germ, which in its development passes through a number of the\nforms which mark the ascending scale of life.\n\nThrough the study of comparative anatomy, the fact has been discovered\nthat the individuals composing the various orders of the great\nvertebrate series are all moulded \u201con the same general plan\u201d; that up\nto a certain stage in the development of the several germs\u2014for instance\nthose of the man, the ape, the horse, the dog, etc.,\u2014they are not\ndistinguishable the one from the other, and that it is only at a later\nstage of development that they take on the peculiarities belonging to\ntheir own special kind. The number and variety of forms which appear\nin the animal and vegetable world make it difficult to conceive of the\nidea that all have sprung from one, or at most from a few original\ntypes, yet the chain of evidence in support of this theory seems quite\ncomplete.\n\nNatural Selection, by which it is demonstrated that organized matter\nmust move forward simply through the chemical and physical forces\ninherent in it, furnishes a key to all the phenomena of life, both\nanimal and vegetable, which have ever appeared on the earth. Natural\nSelection, we are told, depends for its operation on the interaction of\ntwo processes or agencies, namely, Inheritance and Adaptation. Through\nInheritance germs receive from their parents a plastic form which, as\nall development is a function of external physical conditions, is\nitself nothing more than a \u201cmanifestation of the remains of antecedent\nphysical impressions.\u201d This inherited form causes them to go forward\nin a predestined course, while through Adaptation there is a constant\ntendency to change that predestined form imposed upon them by their\nparents to one better suited to their changing physical conditions.\n\nAccording to the theory of Natural Selection, organic structures vary\nto meet the requirements of changed conditions; or, when existing\ncircumstances are such that they are forced into new and unusual modes\nof life, they branch off into different directions; thus new varieties\nare formed, or possibly new species. Such portions of a group, however,\nas remain sheltered from conditions unsuited to their present line\nof development, retain their ancient forms. This change of structure\nby which organisms or portions of organic bodies are modified so as\nto perform more complicated functions, or those better suited to\ntheir environment, is denominated differentiation; hence the degree\nof differentiation attained by a structure determines the stage of\ndevelopment which it has reached.\n\nBut to return to our single-celled animal\u2014the simplest form of life\non the earth. Except that by the action of the surrounding forces its\nsurface has become somewhat hardened, this little animal is the same\nthroughout, in other words, it is homogeneous. The hardening of the\nouter portion constitutes the first process of differentiation, and\ntherefore the first step in the order of progress.\n\nComparing the simplest form of life, the little carbon-sac found in the\nsea, with the germ from which animals and plants are derived, Haeckel\nsays:\n\n Originally every organic cell is only a single globule of mucus, like\n a Moneron, but differing from it in the fact that the homogeneous\n albuminous substance has separated itself into two different parts, a\n firmer albuminous body, the cell-kernel (nucleus), and an external,\n softer albuminous body, the cell-substance or body (protoplasma).[3]\n\n[3] _History of Creation_, 1884, vol. i., p. 187.\n\nFrom its body, which, when at rest, is nearly spherical, it is almost\nconstantly casting forth certain \u201cfinger-like processes\u201d which are\nas quickly withdrawn, only to reappear on some other portion of its\nsurface. The small particles of albuminous matter with which it\ncomes in contact adhere to it, or are drawn into its semi-fluid body\nby displacement of the several albuminous particles of which it is\ncomposed, and are there digested, being \u201cabsorbed by simple diffusion.\u201d\nIts only activity consists in supplying itself with nourishment, and\neven during this process it is said to display a negative or passive\nquality rather than real action. The particles absorbed that are not\nassimilated, are expelled through the surface of the body in the same\nmanner as they are taken into it.\n\nAt first, we are told, our animal is only a simple cell, in fact that\nit is not a perfect cell, for as yet the cell-kernel or nucleus has\nnot been separated from the cell-substance or protoplasm. When its\nlimit of size has been reached it multiplies by self-division, or by\nsimply breaking into parts, each part performing the same functions\nof nutrition and propagation as its predecessor. Later, however, when\na parent cell bursts, the newly developed cells no longer separate\nfrom it, but, by cohering to it and to each other, form a cluster of\nnucleated cells, while around this aggregation of units is formed a\nwall. Still its food is absorbed. Subsequently, however, a mouth and\nprehensile organs for seizing its food are developed, and the divisions\nbetween the cells are converted into channels or pipes through which\nnourishment is conveyed to every part of the body. In process of time,\nlimbs for locomotion appear, together with bones for levers, and\nmuscles for moving them. Finally, a brain and a heart are evolved, and\nalthough at first the heart appears as only a simple pulsating vessel,\nlater this animal finds itself the possessor of a perfect system of\ndigestion, circulation, and excretion, by which food, after having been\nchanged into blood and a\u00ebrated or purified by processes carried on in\nthe system, is pumped to every part of the body. With the formation\nof different chemical combinations, and the development, through\nincreasing specialization of the various kinds of tissues, and finally\nof the various organs, that intimate relationship observed between\nthe parts in homogeneous and less differentiated structures no longer\nexists; hence, in response to the demand for communication between\nthe various organs, numberless threads or fibres begin to stretch\nthemselves through the muscles, and collecting in knots or centres in\nthe brain and spine, establish instantaneous communication between the\ndifferent parts, and convey sensation and feeling throughout the entire\norganism.\n\nA division of labour has now been established, and each organ, being\nin working order and fashioned for its own special use, performs its\nseparate functions independently, although its activity is co-ordinated\nwith that of all other organs in the structure.\n\nThis far in the history of life on the earth sex has not been\ndeveloped, or, more correctly stated, as the two sexes have not been\nseparated, our animal is still androgynous or hermaphrodite\u2014the\nreproductive functions being confined in one and the same individual.\nWithin this little primeval animal, the progenitor of the human race,\nlay not only all the possibilities which have thus far been realized by\nmankind, but within it were embodied also the \u201cpromise and potency\u201d of\nall that progress which is yet to come, and of which man himself, in\nhis present undeveloped state, may have only a dim foreshadowing.\n\nFrom the time of the appearance of life on the earth to that of the\nseparation of the sexes, myriads of centuries may have intervened.\nOnly when through a division of labour these elements became detached,\nand the special functions of each were confided to two distinct and\nseparate individuals, did the independent history of the female and\nmale sexes begin.\n\nNo fact is more patent, at the present time, than that sex constitutes\nthe underlying principle throughout nature. Although it may not be\nsaid of the simplest forms of life that sexual difference has been\nestablished, yet we are assured that among the ciliated Infusorians\n\u201cmale and female nuclear elements have been distinguished.\u201d This\nprimitive condition, however, is supposed to be rather a state\nantecedent to sex than a union of sexes in one organism. Among all the\nhigher orders of life, whether animal or vegetable, the sex elements,\nfemale and male, are recognized as the two great factors in creation.\n\nAs, among all the animals in which there has been a separation of\nsexes, there has been established a division of labour, the consequent\nspecialization of organs and the differentiation of parts form the\ntrue line of demarcation in the march of the two diverging columns.\nDoubtless in the future, when our knowledge of the history of life on\nthe earth has become more extended, it will be found that it is only\nby tracing the processes of differentiation throughout the two entire\nlines of development that we may hope to unravel all the mysteries\nbound up in the problem of sex, or to understand the fundamental\ndifferences in character and constitution caused by this early division\nof labour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF SEX DIFFERENCES\n\n\nWe have observed that, according to naturalists, the earliest forms of\nlife which appeared on the earth were androgynous or hermaphrodite,\nthat the two elements necessary for reproduction were originally\nconfined within one and the same individual within which were carried\non all the functions of reproduction. Later, however, a division of\nlabour arose, and these two original functions became detached, after\nwhich time the reproductive processes were carried on only through the\ncommingling of elements prepared by, or developed within, two separate\nand distinct individuals.\n\nAs the belief is entertained by our guides in this matter that\ngreater differentiation, or specialization of parts, denotes higher\norganization, it is believed that the division of labour by which the\ngerm is prepared by one individual and the sperm by another individual,\nas is the case at the present time with all the higher orders of life,\nconstitutes an important step in the line of progress. Here this line\nof argument ceases, and, until very recent times, concerning the\ncourse of development followed by each sex little has been heard. This\nsilence on a subject of such vital importance to the student of biology\nis not perhaps difficult to understand; the conclusion, however,\nis unavoidable that the individual which must nourish and protect\nthe germ, and by processes carried on within her own body provide\nnourishment for the young during its prenatal existence, and sometimes\nfor years after birth, must have the more highly specialized organism,\nand must, therefore, represent the higher stage of development. Indeed,\nit is admitted by scientists that the advance from the egg-layers to\nthe milk-givers indicates one of the most important steps in the entire\nline of development; and yet the peculiar specialization of structure\nnecessary for its accomplishment was for the most part carried on\nwithin the female organism.\n\nConcerning the origin of sex in the individual organism little seems\nto be known; as a result, however, of observations on the development\nof the reproductive organs in the higher vertebrates, and especially\nin birds, it is believed that there exists a \u201cstrict parallelism\nbetween the individual and the racial history,\u201d\u2014that the three main\nstages in the development of the chick, viz.: (1) germi-parity, (2)\nhermaphroditism, and (3) differentiated unisexuality, correspond to the\nthree great steps of historic evolution.\n\nBy a careful investigation of the facts connected with the development\nof unisexual forms, we are enabled to discover the early beginnings of\nthe characteristics which distinguish the two sexes throughout their\nentire course. We are told that with animals which have their sexes\nseparate, in addition to strictly sexual difference\n\n the male possesses certain organs of sense or locomotion, of which the\n female is quite destitute, or has them more highly developed, in order\n that he may readily find or reach her; or again the male has special\n organs of prehension for holding her securely. These latter organs, of\n infinitely diversified kinds, graduate into those which are commonly\n ranked as primary.[4]\n\n[4] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 207.\n\nThe female, on the other hand, in addition to those sexual characters\nwhich are strictly primary, has \u201corgans for the nourishment or\nprotection of her young, such as the mammary glands of mammals, and\nthe abdominal sacks of the marsupials.\u201d In addition to these she is\nfrequently provided with organs for the defence of the community;\nfor instance, \u201cthe females of most bees are provided with a special\napparatus for collecting and carrying pollen, and their ovipositor is\nmodified into a sting for the defence of the larv\u00e6 and the community.\u201d\nWe are assured by Mr. Darwin that many similar cases could be given.[5]\n\n[5] _Ibid._, p. 208.\n\nHere, then, with almost the first or primary step toward sexual\ndifferentiation, may be observed the establishment of that peculiar\nbias which upon investigation will be seen to extend all along the two\nlines of sexual demarcation, and which (to anticipate the conclusions\nof our argument), as soon as mankind is reached, appears in the male as\nextreme egoism or selfishness, and in the female as altruism or care\nfor other individuals outside of self.\n\nWe are assured, however, that it is not alone to the reproductive\norgans and their functions that we are to look for the chief\ndifferences in the constitution and character of the sexes. Neither is\nit entirely to Natural Selection that we are to seek for the causes\nwhich underlie the specialization peculiar to the two diverging lines\nof sexual demarcation; in addition to primary sexual divergences, there\nare also \u201csecondary sexual characters\u201d which are of great importance to\ntheir possessor. Indeed, from the prominence given to Sexual Selection\nby Mr. Darwin, it would seem that it played a part in the development\nof males quite equal to that of Natural Selection itself.\n\nNow the difference between Natural Selection and Sexual Selection is\nthat, whereas, in the former, characters are developed and preserved\nwhich are of use to the individual in overcoming the unfavourable\nconditions of environment, by the latter, only those characters are\nacquired and preserved which assist the individual in overcoming the\nobstacles to reproduction; or, to use Mr. Darwin\u2019s own language:\n\n [Sexual Selection] depends on the advantage which certain individuals\n have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of\n reproduction.... [Where] the males have acquired their present\n structure, not from being better fitted to survive in the struggle\n of existence, but from having gained an advantage over other males,\n and from having transmitted this advantage to their male offspring\n alone, sexual selection must here have come into action.... A slight\n degree of variability leading to some advantage, however slight,\n in reiterated deadly contests would suffice for the work of sexual\n selection; and it is certain that secondary sexual characters are\n eminently variable. Just as man can give beauty, according to his\n standard of taste, to his male poultry, or more strictly can modify\n the beauty originally acquired by the parent species, can give to\n the Sebright bantam a new and elegant plumage, an erect and peculiar\n carriage\u2014so it appears the female birds in a state of nature, have by\n a long selection of the more attractive males, added to their beauty\n or other attractive qualities.[6]\n\n[6] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, pp. 209-211.\n\nThus, according to Mr. Darwin, it is through a long selection by\nfemales of the more attractive males that the present structure of the\nlatter has been acquired. If, in a short time, a man can give elegant\ncarriage and beauty to his bantams, according to his standard of\nbeauty, he can see no reason to doubt that female birds, by selecting\nduring thousands of generations the most melodious or beautiful males,\naccording to their standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect.\nHe says:\n\n To sum up on the means through which, as far as we can judge, sexual\n selection has led to the development of secondary sexual characters.\n It has been shown that the largest number of vigorous offspring will\n be reared from the pairing of the strongest and best armed males,\n victorious in contests over other males, with the most vigorous and\n best-nourished females, which are the first to breed in the spring. If\n such females select the more attractive, and at the same time vigorous\n males, they will rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded\n females, which must pair with the less vigorous and less attractive\n males.... The advantage thus gained by the more vigorous pairs in\n rearing a larger number of offspring has apparently sufficed to render\n sexual selection efficient.[7]\n\n[7] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 220.\n\nAlthough the belief is common among naturalists that the appearance of\nsecondary sexual characters belonging to males is greatly influenced\nby female choice, a majority of writers upon this subject are not\nin sympathy with Mr. Darwin\u2019s theory concerning the origin of these\nvariations. It is believed by them that Sexual Selection \u201cmay account\nfor the perfecting, but not for the origin, of these characters.\u201d\n\nIt is useless, however, to rehearse the opinions of the various writers\nwho have dealt with this subject. It is perhaps sufficient to state\nthat the great beauty of males has usually been accepted as evidence\nof their superiority over the females.\n\nIn his chapter, \u201cThe Male generally more Modified than the Female,\u201d\nMr. Darwin remarks: \u201cAppearances would indicate that not the male\nwhich is most attractive to the female is chosen, but the one which\nis least distasteful.\u201d He says that the aversion of female birds for\ncertain males renders the season of courtship one of great anxiety and\ndiscomfiture, not only to many of the more poorly endowed aspirants,\nbut to those also which are more magnificently attired\u2014that the pairing\nground becomes a field of battle, upon which, while parading their\ncharms to the best advantage, is sacrificed much of the gorgeous\nplumage of the contestants. On the wooing ground are displayed\nfor the admiration and approval of the females, all the physical\nattractions of the males, as well as the mental characters correlated\nwith them, namely, courage, and pugnacity or perseverance. According\nto Mr. Darwin, with the exception of vanity, no other quality is in\nany considerable degree manifested by male birds, but to such an\nextent has love of display been developed in many of them, notably\nthe pea-fowl, that, \u201cin the absence of females of his own species,\nhe will show off his finery before poultry and even pigs.\u201d We are\nassured that the higher we ascend in the animal kingdom the more\nfrequent and more violent become two desires in the male: \u201cthe desire\nof appearing beautiful, and that of driving away rivals.\u201d According\nto Mr. Darwin\u2019s theory of development, because of the indifference\nof the female among the lower orders of life to the processes of\ncourtship, it has been necessary for the male to expend much energy\nor vital force in searching for her\u2014in contending with his rivals for\npossession of her person, and in performing various acts to please\nher and secure her favours. While excessive eagerness in courtship is\nthe one all-absorbing character of male fishes, birds, and mammals,\nwe are assured that with the females, pairing is not only a matter of\nindifference, but that courtship is actually distasteful to them, and,\ntherefore, that the former must resort to the various means referred to\nin order to induce the latter to submit to their advances.\n\nWe are informed that the female is sometimes charmed through the power\nof song; that at other times she is captivated by the diversified\nmeans which have been acquired by male insects and birds for producing\nvarious sounds resembling those proceeding from certain kinds of\nmusical instruments; and not unfrequently she is won by means of\nantics or love dances performed on the ground or in the air. On the\npairing-ground, combs, wattles, elongated plumes, top-knots, and\nfancy-coloured feathers are paraded for the admiration and approval of\nthe females. Led by the all-absorbing instinct of desire,\n\n the males display their charms with elaborate care and to the best\n effect; and this is done in the presence of the females.... To suppose\n that the females do not appreciate the beauty of the males, is to\n admit that their splendid decorations, and all their pomp and display,\n are useless; and this is incredible.[8]\n\n[8] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 496.\n\nTopknots, gaudy feathers, elongated plumes among birds, huge tusks,\nhorns, etc., among mammals, the mane of the lion, and the beard of\nman, may be noticed among the many characters which have been acquired\nthrough Sexual Selection.\n\nAlthough the immense teeth, tusks, horns, and various other weapons or\nappendages which ornament the males of many species of mammals, have\nall been developed through Sexual Selection for contending with their\nrivals for the favours of the females, it is observed that the \u201cmost\npugnacious and best armed males seldom depend for success on their\nability to drive away or kill their rivals,\u201d but that their special aim\nis to \u201ccharm the female.\u201d Mr. Darwin quotes from a \u201cgood observer,\u201d who\nbelieves that the battles of male birds \u201care all a sham, performed to\nshow themselves to the greatest advantage before the admiring females\nwho assemble around.\u201d[9]\n\n[9] _Ibid._, p. 367.\n\nIn _The Descent of Man_ is quoted the following from Mr. Belt, who,\nafter describing the beauty of the _Florisuga mellivora_, says:\n\n I have seen the female sitting on a branch, and two males displaying\n their charms in front of her. One would shoot up like a rocket, then\n suddenly expanding the snow-white tail, like an inverted parachute,\n slowly descend in front of her, turning round gradually to show off\n back and front.... The expanded white tail covered more space than\n all the rest of the bird, and was evidently the grand feature in the\n performance. Whilst one male was descending, the other would shoot up\n and come slowly down expanded. The entertainment would end in a fight\n between the two performers; but whether the most beautiful or the most\n pugnacious was the accepted suitor, I know not.[10]\n\n[10] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 443.\n\nAudubon, who spent a long life in observing birds, has no doubt that\nthe female deliberately chooses her mate. Of the woodpecker he says\nthe hen is followed by half a dozen suitors, who continue performing\nstrange antics \u201cuntil a marked preference is shown for one.\u201d Of the\nred-winged starling it is said that she is pursued by several males\n\u201cuntil, becoming fatigued, she alights, receives their addresses, and\nsoon makes a choice.\u201d[11] Mr. Darwin quotes further from Audubon, who\nsays that among the Virginia goat-suckers, no sooner has the female\n\u201cmade her choice than her approved gives chase to all intruders, and\ndrives them beyond his dominions.\u201d\n\n[11] _Ibid._, p. 416.\n\nIt is said that among mammals the male depends almost entirely upon\nhis strength and courage to \u201ccharm the female.\u201d With reference to the\nstruggles between animals for the possession of the females, Mr. Darwin\nsays:\n\n This fact is so notorious that it would be superfluous to give\n instances. Hence the females have the opportunity of selecting one\n out of several males, on the supposition that their mental capacity\n suffices for the exertion of a choice.[12]\n\n[12] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 212.\n\nWe are assured that among nearly all the lower orders of life the\nfemale exhibits a marked preference for certain individuals, and that\nan equal degree of repugnance is manifested towards others, but that\nthe male, whose predominant character is desire, \u201cis ready to pair\nwith any female.\u201d On this subject Mr. Darwin remarks: \u201cThe general\nimpression seems to be that the male accepts any female.\u201d He says it\nfrequently occurs that while two males are fighting together to win\nthe favours of a female, she goes away with a third for whom she has\na preference. Mr. Darwin quotes from Captain Bryant, who says of a\ncertain species of seals:\n\n Many of the females on their arrival at the island where they breed,\n appear desirous of returning to some particular male, and frequently\n climb the outlying rock to overlook the rookeries, calling out and\n listening as if for a familiar voice. Then changing to another place\n they do the same again.[13]\n\n[13] _Ibid._, p. 523.\n\nLittle seems to be known of the courtship of animals in a state of\nnature. Among domesticated species, however, many observations have\nbeen made by breeders going to prove that the female exerts a choice\nin pairing. Concerning dogs, Mr. Darwin quotes from Mr. Mayhew, who\nsays: \u201cThe females are able to bestow their affections; and tender\nrecollections are as potent over them as they are known to be in other\ncases where higher animals are concerned.\u201d Of the affection of female\ndogs for certain males the same writer says it \u201cbecomes of more than\nromantic endurance,\u201d that they manifest a \u201cdevotion which no time can\nafterwards subdue.\u201d\n\nOn concluding his chapter on choice in pairing among quadrupeds, Mr.\nDarwin remarks:\n\n It is improbable that the unions of quadrupeds in a state of nature\n should be left to mere chance. It is much more probable that the\n females are allured or excited by particular males, who possess\n certain characters in a higher degree than other males.[14]\n\n[14] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 525.\n\nAs the female among birds selects her partner, he thinks it would be a\nstrange anomaly if among quadrupeds, which stand higher in the scale\nand have higher mental powers, she did not also exert a choice.[15]\n\n[15] It should be noted, in passing, that, according to this reasoning,\nthe female of the human species would also be likely to exercise her\nwill power in the selection of a mate. Evidences are indeed at hand\ngoing to prove that until a comparatively recent time in the history\nof the human race women controlled the sexual relation. As will be\nshown in Part II., during the primitive ages of human existence the\nposition of woman was much higher than was that occupied by man. During\nthe earlier ages, and under more natural conditions, women selected\ntheir mates, and among the human species, as among the lower orders, it\nbecame necessary for the male to please the female if he would win her\nfavours; hence, through Sexual Selection, it is believed, was acquired\nthe greater size of man.\n\nBecause of the indifference of the female to the attentions of the\nmale, in order to carry on the processes of reproduction, it was\nnecessary among the lower orders that the male become eager in his\npursuit of her, and as a result of this eagerness excessive passion\nwas developed in him. As the most eager would be the most successful\nin propagating, they would leave the greatest number of offspring\nto inherit their characters\u2014namely, in males, passion and pugnacity\ncorrelated with the physical qualities acquired through Sexual\nSelection.\n\nOn the subject of the acquirement of secondary sexual characters, Mr.\nDarwin says: \u201cThe great eagerness of the males has thus indirectly led\nto their much more frequently developing secondary sexual characters.\u201d\nIndeed, by all naturalists, the fact is recognized that the appearance\nof these characters is closely connected with the reproductive function.\n\nLater experiments have confirmed the observations of Mr. Darwin\nconcerning the intelligence of the female among the lower orders of\nlife. Among these experiments are those recently made by Professor\nHarper, of the Department of Biology, in the Northwestern University.\nProfessor Harper announces that in all the experiments conducted by\nhim, the female animal showed a greater degree of perception, or\nintelligence, than the male. He says: \u201cIn all my experiments, I found\nthat the female displayed a remarkable quickness in grasping ideas\nwhich the male after numerous sluggish efforts finally accomplished.\u201d\nProfessor Harper declared that these facts regarding animals apply with\nequal force to human beings.\n\nRegarding the power of the female to appreciate the beauty of the\nmales, Mr. Darwin says:\n\n No doubt this implies powers of discrimination and taste on the part\n of the female which will at first appear extremely improbable; but by\n the facts to be adduced hereafter, I hope to be able to show that the\n females actually have these powers.[16]\n\n[16] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 211.\n\nIn commenting on the fact that the female Argus pheasant appreciates\nthe exquisite shading of the ball-and-socket ornaments, and the elegant\npatterns on the wing-feathers of the male, Mr. Darwin writes:\n\n He who thinks that the male was created as he now exists, must admit\n that the great plumes which prevent the wings from being used for\n flight, and which are displayed at courtship and at no other time,\n in a manner quite peculiar to this species, were given to him as\n ornaments. If so he must likewise admit that the female was created\n and endowed with the capacity for appreciating such ornaments. Every\n one who admits the principle of evolution, and yet feels great\n difficulty in believing the high taste implied by the beauty of the\n males, and which generally coincides with our own standard, should\n reflect that the nerve cells of the brain in the highest as in the\n lowest members of the vertebrate series are derived from those of the\n common progenitor of this great kingdom.\n\nIn referring to the remarkable patterns displayed on the male Argus\npheasant, designs which have been developed through Sexual Selection,\nMr. Darwin says:\n\n Many will declare that it is utterly incredible that a female bird\n should be able to appreciate fine shading and exquisite patterns. It\n is undoubtedly a marvellous fact that she should possess this almost\n human degree of taste. He who thinks that he can safely gauge the\n discrimination and taste of the lower animals may deny that the female\n Argus pheasant can appreciate such refined beauty; but he will then\n be compelled to admit that the extraordinary attitudes assumed by the\n male during the act of courtship, by which the wonderful beauty of his\n plumage is fully displayed, are purposeless; and this is a conclusion\n which I, for one, will never admit.[17]\n\n[17] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 400.\n\nHere, then, in the female bird we see developed in a remarkable degree\nthe power of discrimination, the exercise of taste, a sense of beauty,\nand the ability to choose\u2014qualities which the facts brought forward by\nscientists show conclusively to have been acquired by the female and by\nher transmitted to her offspring. Regarding males, outside the instinct\nfor self-preservation, which, by the way, is often overshadowed by\ntheir great sexual eagerness, no distinguishing characters have\nbeen acquired and transmitted, other than those which have been the\nresult of passion, namely, pugnacity and perseverance. This excessive\neagerness which prompts them to parade their charms whenever such\ndisplay is likely to aid them in the gratification of their desires is\ndeveloped only in the male line.\n\nAccording to the law of heredity, those modifications of the male\nwhich have been the result of Sexual Selection appear only in the sex\nin which they originated. It will be well for us to remember that\naccording to Mr. Darwin\u2019s theory of pangenesis, sexes do not differ\nmuch in constitution before the power of reproduction is reached, but\nthat after this time the undeveloped atoms or\n\n gemmules which are cast off from each varying part in the one sex\n would be much more likely to possess the proper affinities for uniting\n with the tissues of the same sex, and thus becoming developed, than\n with those of the opposite sex.[18]\n\n[18] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 232.\n\nWe are given to understand that secondary sexual characters are\nextremely variable, also that variability denotes low organization;\nsecondary sexual characters indicate that the various organs of the\nstructure have not become specialized for the performance of their\nlegitimate functions. Highly specialized forms are not variable.\n\nTo sum up the argument thus far: It has been observed that through\nthe separation of the sexes, and the consequent division of labour,\nthere have been established two diverging lines of development. While\nthe male pheasant has been inheriting from his male progenitors\nfantastic ball-and-socket ornaments, and huge wings which are utterly\nuseless for their legitimate purpose, the female, in the meantime,\nhas been receiving as her inheritance only those peculiarities of\nstructure which tend toward uninterrupted development. Within her\nhave been stored or conserved all the gain which has been effected\nthrough Natural Selection, and as a result of greater specialization\nof parts, there have been developed certain peculiarities in her brain\nnerve-cells, by which she is enabled to exercise functions requiring a\nconsiderable degree of intelligence.\n\nAlthough this power of choice, which we are given to understand\nis exercised by the female throughout the various departments of\nthe vertebrate kingdom (evidences of it having been observed among\ncreatures even as low in the organic scale as fishes), implies a degree\nof intelligence far in advance of that manifested by males, it is\nadmitted that the qualities which bespeak this superiority, namely, the\npower to exercise taste and discrimination, constitute a \u201claw almost as\ngeneral as the eagerness of the male.\u201d[19]\n\n[19] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 222.\n\nWe are assured by Mr. Darwin that in the economy of nature those\nornaments of the male Argus pheasant which serve no other purpose\nthan to please the female and secure her favours, and which have\nbeen acquired at great expense of vital force, are of the \u201chighest\nimportance to him,\u201d and that his success in captivating the female\n\u201chas more than compensated him for his greatly impeded power of\nflight and his lessened capacity for running.\u201d Yet it is plain that\nhis compensation for this immense expenditure of vital force has not\nlain in the direction of higher specialization, but that while by the\nacquirement of these characters the processes of reproduction have\ndoubtless been aided, the injury to the male constitution has been deep\nand lasting.\n\nUpon this subject Mr. Darwin himself says:\n\n The development, however, of certain structures\u2014of the horns, for\n instance, in certain stags\u2014has been carried to a wonderful extreme;\n and in some cases to an extreme which, as far as the general\n conditions of life are concerned, must be slightly injurious to the\n male.[20]\n\n[20] _Ibid._, p. 227.\n\nHe thinks, however, that\n\n Natural Selection will determine that such characters shall not be\n acquired by the victorious males if they would be highly injurious,\n either by expending too much of their vital powers or by exposing them\n to any great danger.\n\nAccording to Mr. Darwin, as these characters enable them to leave a\nmore numerous progeny, their advantages are in the long run greater\nthan those derived from more perfect adaptation to their conditions of\nlife. It is plain, however, that this advantage, although it enables\nthem to gratify their desires, and at the same time to perpetuate their\nspecies, does not imply higher development for the male organism.\n\nWe have been assured by our guides in these matters that in the\nprocesses of evolution there is no continuous or unbroken chain of\nprogress, that growth or change does not necessarily imply development,\nbut, on the contrary, only as a structure becomes better fitted for\nits conditions, and only as its organs become more highly specialized\nfor the performance of all the duties involved in its environment, may\nit be said to be in the line of progress. If this be true, particular\nattention should be directed to the fact that as secondary sexual\ncharacters do not assist their possessor in overcoming the unfavourable\nconditions of his environment, they are not within the line of true\ndevelopment, but, on the contrary, as their growth requires a great\nexpenditure of vital force, and, as is the case among birds, they often\nhinder the free use of the legs in running and walking, and entirely\ndestroy the use of the wings for flight, they must be detrimental to\nthe entire structure. For the reason that females have managed to do\nwithout them, the plea that the great tusks, horns, teeth, etc., of\nmammals have been acquired for self-defence, is scarcely tenable.\n\nOn the subject of the relative expenditure of vital force in the two\nlines of sexual demarcation, Mr. Darwin remarks:\n\n The female has to expend much organic matter in the formation of her\n ova, whereas the male expends much force in fierce contests with his\n rivals, in wandering about in search of the female, in exerting his\n voice, pouring out odoriferous secretions, etc.... In mankind, and\n even as low down in the organic scale as in the Lepidoptera, the\n temperature of the body is higher in the male than in the female,\n accompanied in the case of man by a slower pulse.[21]\n\nYet he concludes: \u201cOn the whole the expenditure of matter and force\nby the two sexes is probably nearly equal, though effected in very\ndifferent ways and at different rates.\u201d[21]\n\n[21] _The Descent of Man_, p. 224.\n\nHowever, as has been observed, the force expended by the male in fierce\ncontests with his rivals, in wandering about in search of the female,\nand in his exertions to please her when found, does not constitute\nthe only outlay of vitality to which he is subjected; but in addition\nto all this, there still remains to be considered that force which has\nbeen expended in the acquirement of characters which, so far as his own\ndevelopment is concerned, are useless and worse than useless; namely,\nin birds, combs, wattles, elongated plumes, great wings, etc., and in\nmammals great horns, tusks, and teeth\u2014appendages which lie outside\nthe line of true development, and, as we have seen, are of no avail\nexcept to aid in the processes of reproduction and to assist him in the\ngratification of his desires; in fact, as these excrescences hinder\nhim in the performance of the ordinary functions of life, they may be\nregarded in the light of actual hindrances to higher development.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nMALE ORGANIC DEFECTS\n\n\nWe have observed that through the great sexual ardour developed at\npuberty within the male of the lower species, numberless variations\nof structure have been acquired, characters which, as they are the\nresult of undeveloped atoms cast off from the varying parts in his\nprogenitors, denote low organization. We have seen also that these\ncharacters require for their growth an immense amount of vital force,\nwhich, had the development of the male been normal, would have been\nexpended in perfecting the organism, or would have been utilized in\nfitting it to overcome the adverse conditions of his environment.\nSecondary sexual characters, being so far as males are concerned,\nwholly the result of eagerness in courtship, cannot appear before\nthe time for reproduction arrives, and as it is a law of heredity\nthat peculiarities of structure which are developed late in life,\nwhen transmitted to offspring, appear only in the sex in which they\noriginated, these variations of structure are confined to males.\n\nAccording to Mr. Darwin\u2019s theory little difference exists between the\nsexes until the age of reproduction arrives. It is at this time, the\ntime when the secondary sexual characters begin to assert themselves,\nthat the preponderating superiority of the male begins to manifest\nitself.\n\nAlthough, according to Mr. Darwin, variability denotes low organization\nand shows that the various organs of the body have not become\nspecialized to perform properly their legitimate functions, it is to\ncharacters correlated with and dependent upon these varying parts\nthat the male has ultimately become superior to the female. If these\ncharacters, namely, pugnacity, perseverance, and courage have been\nsuch important factors in establishing male superiority, too much care\nmay not be exercised in analyzing them and in tracing their origin and\nsubsequent development.\n\nSexual Selection resembles artificial selection save that the female\ntakes the part of the human breeder. She represents the intelligent\nfactor or cause in the operations involved. If this be true, if it is\nthrough her will, or through some agency or tendency latent in her\nconstitution that Sexual Selection comes into play, then she is the\nprimary cause of the very characters through which man\u2019s superiority\nover woman has been gained. As a stream may not rise higher than its\nsource, or as the creature may not surpass its creator in excellence,\nit is difficult to understand the processes by which man, through\nSexual Selection, has become superior to woman.\n\n He who admits the principle of Sexual Selection will be led to the\n remarkable conclusion that the nervous system not only regulates most\n of the existing functions of the body, but has indirectly influenced\n the progressive development of various bodily structures and certain\n mental qualities. Courage, pugnacity, perseverance, strength and\n size of body, weapons of all kinds, musical organs, both vocal and\n instrumental, bright colours, and ornamental appendages have all been\n indirectly gained by the one sex or the other, through the exertion of\n choice, the influence of love and jealousy, and the appreciation of\n the beautiful in sound, colour, or form; and these powers of the mind\n manifestly depend on the development of the brain.[22]\n\n[22] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 617.\n\nWhile the female has been performing the higher functions in the\nprocesses of reproduction, through her force of will, or through her\npower of choice, she has also been the directing and controlling agency\nin the development of those characters in the male through which, when\nthe human species was reached, he was enabled to attain a limited\ndegree of progress.\n\nSince the origin of secondary sexual characters is so clearly manifest,\nperhaps it will be well for us at this point to examine also their\nactual significance, that we may be enabled to note the foundation upon\nwhich the dogma of male superiority rests.\n\nAlthough the gay colouring of male birds and fishes has usually\nbeen regarded as an indication of their superiority over their\nsombre-coloured mates, later investigations are proving that these\npigments represent simply unspecialized material, and an effort of\nthe system to cast out the waste products which have accumulated as a\nresult of excessive ardour in courtship. The same is true of combs,\nwattles, and other skin excrescences; they show a feverish condition of\nthe skin in the over-excited males, whose temperature is usually much\nhigher than is that of females. We are assured that the skin eruptions\nof male fishes at the spawning season \u201cseem more pathological than\ndecorative.\u201d[23] In the processes of reproduction, the undeveloped\natoms given off from each varying part are reproduced only in the male\nline.\n\n[23] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 24.\n\nThe beautiful colouring of male birds and fishes, and the various\nappendages acquired by males throughout the various orders below\nman, and which, so far as they themselves are concerned, serve no\nother useful purpose than to aid them in securing the favours of the\nfemales, have by the latter been turned to account in the processes of\nreproduction. The female made the male beautiful that she might endure\nhis caresses.\n\nFrom the facts elaborated by our guides in this matter, it would seem\nthat the female is the primary unit of creation, and that the male\nfunctions are simply supplemental or complementary. Parthenogenesis\namong many of the lower forms of life would seem to favour this view.\nWe are given to understand that under conditions favouring katabolism,\nthe males among Rotifera wear themselves out, under which conditions\nthe females become katabolic enough to do without them.\n\n Among the common Rotifera, the males are almost always very different\n from the females, and much smaller. Sometimes they seem to have\n dwindled out of existence altogether, for only the females are known.\n In other cases, though present, they entirely fail to accomplish their\n proper function of fertilization, and, as parthenogenesis obtains, are\n not only minute, but useless.[24]\n\n[24] _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 20.\n\nSo long as food is plentiful, the females continue to raise\nparthenogenetic offspring, but with the advent of hard times, when\nfood is scarce or of a poor quality, the parthenogenetic series is\ninterrupted by the appearance of males. Although, unaided by the male,\nthe female of certain species is able to reproduce, he has never been\nable to propagate without her co-operation.\n\nConcerning the conditions which underlie the production of females and\nmales we have the following from _The Evolution of Sex_, by Geddes and\nThomson:\n\n Such conditions as deficient or abnormal food, high temperature,\n deficient light, moisture, and the like, are obviously such as would\n tend to induce a preponderance of waste over repair\u2014a katabolic habit\n of body,\u2014and these conditions tend to result in the production of\n males. Similarly, the opposed set of factors, such as abundant and\n rich nutrition, abundant light and moisture, favour constructive\n processes, _i.e._, make for an anabolic habit, and these conditions\n result in the production of females.[25]\n\n[25] _The Evolution of Sex_, p. 50.\n\nAmong the lower orders of animal life, notably insects, we are\nassured that an excess of females denotes an excess of formative\nforce, and that an excess of males indicates a deficiency on the\npart of the parents. In the case of bees, the queen, which is the\nhighest development, is produced only under the best circumstances of\nnutrition, while the birth of the drone, which is the lowest result of\npropagation, is preceded by extremely low conditions.\n\nThe working bee which, being an imperfect female, may not be\nimpregnated, will, however, give birth to parthenogenetic offspring,\nsuch offspring always being male. In the case of Aphides, the sex\ndepends on the conditions of nutrition. During the summer months while\nfood is plentiful and nutritious, females are parthenogenetically\nproduced, but with the return of autumn and the attendant scarcity of\nfood, together with the low temperature, only males are brought forth.\nIn seasons in which food is abundant, Cladocera and Aphides lose the\npower to copulate; they nevertheless multiply parthenogenetically at a\nmarvellous rate of increase,\n\n giving birth to generation after generation of parthenogenetic\n females, so long as the environment remains favourable, but giving\n birth, as soon as the conditions of life become less favourable, to\n males and to females which require fertilization.[26]\n\n[26] Prof. W.\u202fK. Brooks, _Pop. Science Monthly_, vol. xxvi., p. 327.\n\nIt is stated also that if caterpillars are shut up and starved before\nentering the chrysalis stage, the butterflies which make their\nappearance are males, while the highly nourished caterpillars are sure\nto come out females. In the case of moths unnutritious food produces\nonly males.\n\nExperiments show that when tadpoles are left to themselves the average\nnumber of females is about fifty-seven in the hundred, but that under\nfavourable conditions the percentage of females is greatly increased.\nThe following is the result of one series of observations by Yung.\nIn the first brood, by feeding one set with beef, the percentage of\nfemales was raised from fifty-four to seventy-eight; in the second,\nwith fish, the percentage rose from sixty-one to eighty-one, which in\nthe third set, when the nutritious flesh of frogs was supplied, only\neight males were produced to ninety-two females.[27]\n\n[27] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 42.\n\nIt is stated that although scarcity of food is an important factor\nin determining the appearance of males, temperature also plays an\nimportant part in their production. Kurg having found a few males in\nmidsummer in pools which were nearly dried up was induced to attempt\ntheir artificial production. So successful was he, that \u201che obtained\nthe males of forty species, in all of which the males had previously\nbeen unknown.\u201d He proved that\n\n any unfavourable change in the water causes the production of males,\n which appear as it dries up, as its chemical constitution changes,\n when it acquires an unfavourable temperature, or, in general, when\n there is a decrease in prosperity.\n\nFrom which observations and many others quoted from D\u00fcring, Professor\nBrooks concludes that \u201camong animals and plants, as well as in mankind,\na favourable environment causes an excess of female births, and an\nunfavourable environment an excess of male births.\u201d[28] According to\nRolph, also, the percentage of females increases with the increase of\nfavourable conditions of temperature and food.\n\n[28] _Popular Science Monthly_, vol. xxvi., p. 328.\n\nAmong insects the males appear first, thus showing that less time is\nrequired to develop them from the larval state. Of this Mr. Darwin\nsays: \u201cThroughout the great class of insects the males almost always\nare the first to emerge from the pupal state, so that they generally\nabound for a time before any female can be seen.\u201d[29]\n\n[29] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 212.\n\nRecent observations show that among the human species nutrition\nplays a significant part in determining sex. Statistics prove that in\ntowns and in well-to-do families there is a preponderance of girls,\nwhile in the country, and among the poor, more boys are born; also,\nthat immediately following epidemics, wars, and famines, there is an\nexcess of male births. On examination, it was found that in Saxony \u201cthe\nratio of boy-births rose and fell with the price of food, and that the\nvariation was most marked in the country.\u201d[30]\n\n[30] W.\u202fK. Brooks, _Popular Science Monthly_, vol. xxvi., p. 326.\n\nThat the female represents a higher development than the male is\nproved throughout all the various departments of nature. Among plants,\nstaminate flowers open before pistillate, and are much more abundant,\nand less differentiated from the leaves, showing that they are less\ndeveloped, and that slighter effort, a less expenditure of force, is\nnecessary to form the male than the female. A male flower represents\nan intermediate stage between a leaf and a perfect, or we might say, a\nfemale flower, and the germ which produces the male would, in a higher\nstage, produce the female.[31] In reference to the subject of the\nrelative positions of the female and male flowers in the Sedges, Mr.\nMeehan observes:\n\n[31] Thomas Meehan, _Native Flowers and Ferns_, vol. i., p. 47.\n\n In some cases the spike of the male flowers terminates the scape; in\n others the male flowers occupy the lower place; in others, again they\n have various places on the same spike. It will be generally noted that\n this is associated together with lines of nutrition,\u2014those evidently\n favoured by comparative abundance sustaining the female flowers.\n\nTo this Mr. Meehan adds:\n\n And this is indeed a natural consequence, for, as vitality exists so\n much longer in the female than the male flowers, which generally die\n when the pollen has matured, it is essential that they should have\n every advantage in this respect.[32]\n\n[32] _Native Flowers and Ferns_, vol. i., p. 39.\n\nThe most perfect and vigorous specimens of coniferous trees are of the\nfemale kind. In its highest and most luxuriant stage the larch bears\nonly female blossoms, but so soon as its vigour is lost male flowers\nappear, after which death soon ensues.\n\nIn _The Evolution of Sex_, by Geddes and Thomson, is the following:\n\n In phraseology which will presently become more intelligible and\n concrete, the males live at a loss, are more katabolic,\u2014disruptive\n changes tending to preponderate in the sum of changes in their living\n matter or protoplasm. The females, on the other hand, live at a\n profit, are more anabolic,\u2014constructive processes predominating in\n their life, whence indeed the capacity of bearing offspring.[33]\n\n[33] _The Evolution of Sex_, 1890, p. 26.\n\nAmong the lower orders of animals, there appears an excess of males,\nand among the higher forms of life, man included, the fact that the\nmale is the result of the cruder, less developed germ, has been clearly\nshown, not alone by the facts brought forward by Mr. Darwin, but by\nthose enunciated by all reliable writers on this subject. As a result\nof the excessive eagerness in males, and the consequent expenditure\nof vital force among the lower orders of life to find the female and\nsecure her favours, they are generally smaller in size, with a higher\nbody temperature and shorter life. Among the higher orders, the human\nspecies, for instance, although man is larger than woman, he is still\nshorter lived, has less endurance, is more predisposed to organic\ndiseases, and is more given to reversion to former types, facts which\nshow that his greater size is not the result of higher development. It\nis noted that the liability to assume characters proper to lower orders\nbelongs in a marked degree to males of all the higher species\u2014man\nincluded.\n\nDoubtless man\u2019s greater size (a modification which has been acquired\nthrough Sexual Selection) has been of considerable value to him in\nthe struggle for existence to which he has been subjected, but the\nindications are already strong that after a certain stage of progress\nhas been reached, even this modification of structure will prove\nuseless, if not an actual hindrance to him. On mechanical principles,\nevery increase of size requires more than a corresponding increase of\nstrength and endurance to balance the activities and carry on the vital\nprocesses, yet such have been the conditions of man\u2019s development, that\nhis excess of strength does not compensate for his greater size and\nweight, while his powers of endurance fall below those of women.\n\nAlthough the conditions of the past have required a vast expenditure\nof physical energy, the activities of the future will make no such\ndemand. Nature\u2019s forces directed by the human will and intellect are\nalready lessening the necessity for an excessive outlay of bodily\nstrength. It may be truly said that electricity and the innumerable\nmechanical devices now in use have well nigh supplanted the necessity\nfor great physical exertion. Even war, should it be continued, which\nis not likely, will be conducted without it. Destructive weapons based\nupon high-power explosives require little physical effort for their\nmanipulation. The pugilist represents the departing glory of male\nphysical strength.\n\nWe are informed by Mr. Darwin that by a vast number of measurements\ntaken of various parts of the human body in different races, during\nhis Novara Expedition, it was found that the men in almost every case\npresented a greater range of variations than women, and, as Mr. Wood\nhas carefully attended to the variations of the muscles of man, Mr.\nDarwin quotes from him that \u201cthe greatest number of abnormalities\nin each subject is found in males.\u201d He adduces also the testimony of\nseveral others who have practically investigated this subject, all of\nwhom agree in their statements that variations in the muscles are more\nfrequent in males than in females. These variations usually consist in\na reversion to lower types\u2014a reversion in which muscles proper to lower\nforms of life make their appearance.\n\nIn an examination of forty male subjects, there was in nineteen of them\na rudimentary muscle found which is designated as the ischio-pubic, and\nin three others of the forty was observed a ligament which represents\nthis muscle; but, in an examination by the same person of thirty female\nsubjects, in only two of them was this muscle developed on both sides,\nwhilst in three others the rudimentary ligament was present. Thus while\nwe observe that about fifty-five per cent. of the males examined were\npossessed of muscles proper to lower orders, in only about seventeen\nper cent. of the females under observation did this reversion appear.\nIn a single male subject, seven muscular variations proper to apes were\nindicated.\n\nNumberless cases might be cited in which reversions and abnormalities\nhave been developed only in the male line. Of the porcupine men of the\nLambert family who lived in London last century, Haeckel says:\n\n Edward Lambert, born in 1717, was remarkable for a most unusual and\n monstrous formation of the skin. His whole body was covered with\n a horny substance, about an inch thick, which rose in the form of\n numerous thorn-shaped and scale-like processes, more than an inch\n long. This monstrous formation on the outer skin, or epidermis, was\n transmitted by Lambert to his sons and grandsons, but not to his\n granddaughters.[34]\n\n[34] _History of Creation_, 1884, vol. i., p. 178.\n\nAccording to the testimony of those who have made a study of the\nvarious abnormalities in the human organism, the ears of men present\na greater range of variations than do those of women, and the cases\nin which supernumerary digits appear in males are as two to one,\ncompared with females presenting the same structural defect. Of one\nhundred and fifty-two cases of this kind tabulated by Burt Wilder,\neighty-six were males and thirty-nine females, the sex of the remaining\ntwenty-seven being unknown. Mr. Darwin wishes us to remember, however,\nthat \u201cwomen would more frequently endeavour to conceal a deformity of\nthis kind than men.\u201d Although it is quite natural for women to abhor\nabnormalities and deformities, it is to be doubted if they would\nsucceed for any considerable length of time in concealing the deformity\nof an organ which, like the hand, is usually uncovered, and which in\nwaking hours, is in almost constant use.\n\nOne of the principal characters which distinguishes the human animal\nfrom the lower orders is the absence of a natural covering for the\nskin. That mankind have descended from hair-covered progenitors is\nthe inevitable conclusion of all those who accept the theory of the\nevolution of species, the straggling hairs which are scattered over the\nbody of man being the rudiments of a uniform hairy coat which enveloped\nhis ancestors.\n\nWe are informed that a hairy covering for the body, pointed ears which\nwere capable of movement, and a tail provided with the proper muscles,\nwere among the undoubted characters of the antecedents of the human\nrace. In addition to these, among the males, were developed great\ncanine teeth which were used as weapons against their rivals.\n\nAs the lack of a hairy coat for the body constitutes one of the\nprincipal characteristics which distinguishes man from the lower\nanimals, it would seem that a knowledge of the order of time in which\nthe two sexes became divested of their natural covering would serve as\na hint to indicate their relative stages of development. In a paper\nread some years ago at a meeting of the Anthropological Institute\nin London, Miss Bird (Mrs. Bishop) the well-known traveller, gave a\ndescription of the Ainos, a race of people found chiefly in the island\nof Yezo, and who, it is thought probable, were the original inhabitants\nof Japan. The peculiarity of this people is, that the men are covered\nwith a thick coat of black hair. The women, we are told, \u201care not\nhairy like the men,\u201d but \u201chave soft brown skins.\u201d Upon this subject of\nhairiness, Mr. Darwin says:\n\n As the body of woman is less hairy than that of man, and as this\n character is common to all races, we may conclude that it was our\n female semi-human ancestors who were first divested of hair, and that\n this occurred at an extremely remote period before the several races\n had diverged from a common stock.\n\nAfter our female ancestors had acquired the new character, nudity, they\nmust have transmitted it to their own sex, and by continually selecting\ntheir mates from among the least hairy, in process of time males too\nwould become divested of their animal covering. Whether or not our\nsemi-human ancestors were subjected to the scorching heat of the torrid\nzone, nudity must have been better suited to their improved condition,\nnot wholly, however, because of its greater beauty and comfort, but\nbecause it was a condition better suited to cleanliness; and, as the\nhairy coat had become a useless appendage, or was not necessary to\ntheir changed conditions, it disappeared from the bodies of females,\nwhile doubtless for ages it was retained upon the bodies of males. That\nhairiness denotes a low stage of development, Mr. Darwin incautiously\nadmits, yet in dealing with this subject he is not disposed to\ncarry his admission to its legitimate conclusion by treating its\nappearance on the body of man as a test in determining the comparative\ndevelopment of the female and male organisms.\n\nIdiots, who, by the way, are more numerous among males than among\nfemales, are frequently covered with hair, and by the acquirement of\nother characters more often revert to lower animal types. Mr. Darwin\nassures us that around sores of long standing stiff hairs are liable to\nappear, thus showing that hair on the body is indicative of undeveloped\ntissues and low constitutional conditions. The same writer, however,\ndoes not neglect to inform us that the loss of man\u2019s hairy covering\nwas rather an injury to him than otherwise; but whether or not the\ndiminution in the quality of prehension in his toes, the loss of\nhis canines, and the disappearance of his tail have likewise proved\ndetrimental to him, Mr. Darwin fails to state.\n\nThe fact that throughout the vertebrate kingdom males possess\nrudiments of the various parts appertaining to the reproductive system\nwhich properly belong to females, is regarded as evidence that some\nremote progenitor of this kingdom must have been hermaphrodite, or\nandrogynous, especially as it has been ascertained that at a very early\nembryonic period both sexes possess true male and female glands. As\nhigh in the scale of life as the mammalian class, males are said to\npossess rudiments of a uterus, while at the same time mammary glands\nare plainly manifest; which fact would seem to show that in the high\nstate of development indicated by this great class, male organs have\nnot through the processes of differentiation become specialized for the\nperformance of their legitimate functions. In reference to the subject\nof atavism Mr. Darwin cites as a case of reversion to a former type, an\ninstance in which a man was the possessor of two pairs of mamm\u00e6.\n\nIt is true that instances have been observed in which characters\npeculiar to males have been developed in females. This phenomenon,\nhowever, seldom appears among individuals of the higher orders, and\namong the lower forms of life where it occurs, it is always manifested\nunder low circumstances of nutrition or in cases of old age, disease,\nor loss of vitality. Instances are cited in which hens, after they have\nbecome old or diseased, have taken on characters peculiar to males.\n\nIn all \u201cold-settled\u201d countries women are in excess of men, and this\nis true, notwithstanding the fact that more boys are born than girls.\nRegarding the excess of the male over female births, Mr. Darwin quotes\nfrom Professor Faye, who says:\n\n A still greater preponderance of males would be met with, if death\n struck both sexes in equal proportion in the womb and during birth.\n But the fact is, that for every one hundred still-born females, we\n have in several countries from 134.6 to 144.9 still-born males.[35] #/\n Statistics show that during the first four or five years of life, more\n male children die than female.\n\n[35] _The Descent of Man_, 1887, p. 243.\n\nAlthough whenever throughout Mr. Darwin\u2019s _Descent of Man_ he has been\npleased to deal with the subject of structural variations, he has\ngiven us to understand that they are injurious to the constitution,\nand although he has shown that their appearance is much more frequent\nin men than in women, yet he does not seem to realize whither his\nadmissions are leading him. He has proved by seemingly well-established\nfacts that the female organism is freer from imperfections than the\nmale, and therefore that it is less liable to derangements; also, that\nbeing more highly specialized, it is less susceptible to injury under\nunfavourable conditions; yet, in attempting to explain the reason\nwhy so many more male than female infants succumb to the exigencies\nof birth, he expresses the opinion that the size of the body and\n\u201cespecially of the head\u201d being greater in males, they would be \u201cmore\nliable to be injured during parturition.\u201d\n\nAmong the reasons urged by Mr. Darwin to account for the excess of\nwomen over men in all \u201cold-settled\u201d countries, is that of the exposure\nof grown men to various dangers, and their tendency to emigrate.\nDoubtless there is more emigration among men than among women, still\nmen do not usually emigrate to a wilderness and rarely to sparsely\nsettled countries. When men emigrate from one civilized country, they\nusually go to another civilized country; yet in all old-settled\ncountries women are in excess of men. While the dangers to which men\nare exposed because of their greater physical activity have been many,\nand the accidents liable to occur from their harder struggle for\nexistence more numerous than those to which women have been subjected,\nstill it would seem that the danger to female life, incident to the\nartificial relations of the sexes under our present semi-civilized\nconditions, is more than an offset for that to which men are liable.\n\nThe fact must be borne in mind, however, that the diseases and\nphysical disabilities of women, at the present time, although\ndangerous to health and life, are not organic, and will therefore\ndisappear as soon as through higher conditions they are allowed the\nfree expression of their own will in matters pertaining to the sexual\nrelation. As the diseases peculiar to the female constitution are not\ncaused by structural defects, but, on the contrary, are due to the\noverstimulation of the animal instincts in her male mate, or, to the\ndisparity between her stage of development and his, they have not\nmaterially injured her constitution nor shortened her average duration\nof life, neither have they lessened her capacity for improvement.\n\nWith reference to the women of Greenland, Cranz says that while they\n\n remain with their parents they are well off; but from twenty years of\n age till death, their life is one series of anxieties, wretchedness,\n and toil, yet, in spite of all their cares, toils, and vexations the\n women commonly arrive at a greater age than the men.[36]\n\n[36] _History of Greenland_, vol. i., p. 152.\n\nThat the imperfections of the male organism are already beginning\nto interpose themselves between man and many of the occupations and\nactivities of advancing civilization, is only too apparent.\n\nSight, far more than any other sense, is the most intellectual,\nyet in the development of the visual organs it has been proved\nthat men are especially deficient. Dr. Andrew Willson assures us\nthat \u201ccolour-blindness is a condition which is certainly capable\nof transmission to the progeny. In one family the males alone were\naffected through seven generations.\u201d\n\nIn an examination which was carried on some years ago under the\nsupervision of Dr. Jeffries, among the pupils of the Boston schools, in\nwhich were 14,469 boys and young men, and 13,458 girls and young women,\nit was found that about one male in every twenty-five was colour-blind,\nwhile the same defect among the girls and young women was extremely\nrare, only 0.066 per cent. of them being thus affected.[37]\n\n[37] _Pop. Science Monthly_, vol. xix., p. 567.\n\nAt a convention held in the city of Chicago for the purpose of\norganizing an association for educational reform, the teacher of\ndrawing in the St. Paul schools made a statement that \u201cfour per cent.\nof all male pupils were colour-blind, while only one-tenth of one per\ncent. of female pupils were so affected.\u201d No explanation was offered\nfor this strange fact; indeed, it was pronounced a mystery, \u201ceven\noculists and surgeons having given it up as impenetrable.\u201d\n\nThat defective vision is beginning to interfere with the activities\nof men, is shown by the fact that in many instances, in later times,\ncolour tests have been required to determine fitness of applicants for\npositions in various departments of commercial enterprise. In this\ncountry, during the last fifty years, much attention has been given\nto the subject of visual defects in seamen, railroadmen, and other\npersons occupying positions of responsibility in which unimpaired\nvision is an important qualification. In response to a request sent by\nthe German Government through its minister to the Surgeon-General of\nthe United States Army, for statistical and other information on the\nsubject of colour-blindness, Mr. Charles E. Pugh, General Manager of\nthe Pennsylvania Railroad, in September, 1884, sent to William Thomson,\nM.D., surgical expert for the same company, the following statement:\n\n  Total number examined on lines east of Erie  25,158\n  Colour-blind                                    481\n  Defective vision                                661\n\nOf this report Dr. Thomson says:\n\n The apparently small percentage of colour-blind in this table may be\n ascribed to the non-application of men who knew their deficiency,\n and to the fact that men in the service, knowing their defect, would\n leave the road before examination, and thus escape detection, and be\n enabled to gain employment on other roads where no examinations are\n required.[38]\n\n[38] _Pop. Science Monthly_, vol. xxxi., p. 796.\n\nIn several departments of the national government, attempts have been\nmade to guard against the dangers resulting from imperfect sight. In\nthe examination of recruits, the War Department at Washington, some\nyears ago, issued orders that bits of coloured pasteboard, or \u201ctest\ncards\u201d be used for determining the power of individuals to distinguish\nobjects at a distance, while worsteds of various hues were employed\nto ascertain their ability to distinguish colour. In the Treasury and\nNaval Departments were ordered similar examinations, in which the power\nto distinguish colour was a necessary qualification in the case of all\npersons seeking employment therein.\n\nIn the examinations ordered by navigation and railroad companies to\nprotect themselves and the public against disaster resulting from\nimperfect vision in their employees, tests have been made. Among\nthe requirements imposed by law, applying to engineers, brakemen,\nand firemen, in the State of Connecticut, are the following:\n\u201cUnobstructed visual field, normal visual acuteness, and freedom from\ncolour-blindness.\u201d\n\nIf Dr. Jeffries\u2019s investigation in the Boston public schools and the\nreport of the officers of the Pennsylvania Railroad are to serve\nas a criterion in judging of the extent to which impaired vision\nis developed in men, or if among them one in every twenty-five is\ndefective in the colour sense, the inference seems unavoidable that the\nproportion of them unfitted for railroad and steamboat service, for\nmilitary duty, and for various important government positions, must be\nlarge. Hence, by these tests alone may be observed something of the\nextent to which, under the higher conditions which are approaching, the\nimperfect development in men of this one organ (the eye) may cripple\ntheir energies and check those activities which, in many instances, are\nbest suited to their tastes and inclinations.\n\nNor is this defective vision developed in men a peculiarity which\nis confined within the limits of our own country. In Europe,\ninvestigations analogous to those instituted in America have been\nfollowed by the same or similar results. Until a comparatively recent\ntime this subject has received little or no attention, for the reason\nthat the processes of civilization and the various activities of life\nhave not, hitherto, demanded a correct or highly developed colour\nsense; but with the requirements of more highly civilized conditions,\nin vocations demanding more diversified and complicated physical\nand mental activities, it is plain that man, because of this organic\nimperfection, must labour under continuous disadvantages. Then add\nto defective vision his lack of physical endurance, his liability\nto various organic affections caused by structural defects, and\nhis abnormal appetites which are constantly demanding for their\ngratification the things which are injurious to his mental and physical\nconstitution, and we are enabled to judge, to some extent, of the\nobstacles against which, in the struggle for existence, the future man\nwill find himself obliged to contend.\n\nNot only is man\u2019s sense of sight less perfectly developed than is\nwoman\u2019s, but his sense of touch is less acute. The hand, directed as it\nis by the brain, is the most completely differentiated member of the\nhuman structure. It may almost be said of the hand, that it assists the\nbrain in performing its functions. The female hand, however, is capable\nof delicate distinctions which the male has no means of determining. A\ndispatch from Washington says of the women of the Treasury Department:\n\n So superior is their skill in handling paper money that they\n accomplish results that would be utterly unattainable without them. It\n has been found by long experience that a counterfeit may go through\n half the banks in the country without being detected, until it comes\n back, often torn and mutilated, into the hands of the Treasury women.\n Then it is certain of detection. They shut their eyes and feel of a\n note if they suspect it. If it feels wrong, in half a minute they\n point out the incongruities of the counterfeit.\n\nAlthough throughout the ascending scale of life, the female has\nbeen expending all her energy in the performance of her legitimate\nfunctions\u2014functions which, as we have seen, are of a higher order than\nthose performed by the male, through causes which will be discussed\nfarther on in these pages, within the later centuries of human\nexistence\u2014she has been temporarily overcome by the destructive forces\ndeveloped in the opposite sex, forces which are without the line of\ntrue development, and which through overstimulation and encouragement\nhave overleaped the bounds of normal activity, and have therefore\nbecome disruptive and injurious.\n\nDuring the past five thousand years, woman\u2019s reproductive functions\nhave been turned into means of subsistence, and under the peculiar\ncircumstances of her environment, her \u201cstruggle for existence\u201d has\ninvolved physical processes far more disastrous to life and health\nthan are those to which man has been subjected. Owing to the peculiar\ncondition of woman\u2019s environment, there has been developed within her\nmore delicate and sensitive organism an alarming degree of functional\nnervousness; yet, with the gradual broadening of her sphere of\nactivity, and the greater exercise of personal rights, this tendency\nto nervous derangement is gradually becoming lessened. That there is\nreserve force in woman sufficient to overcome the evil results of the\nsupremacy of the animal instincts during the last five thousand or six\nthousand years of human existence, from present indications seems more\nthan likely.\n\nCommenting on the subject of nervousness, and the degree in which it\nis manifested in civilized countries, and especially among civilized\nwomen, Dr. Beard says:\n\n Women, with all their nervousness\u2014and, in civilized lands, women are\n more nervous, immeasurably, than men, and suffer more from general\n and special nervous diseases\u2014yet live quite as long as men, if not\n somewhat longer; their greater nervousness and far greater liability\n to functional diseases of the nervous system being compensated for\n by their smaller liability to acute and inflammatory disorders, and\n various organic nervous diseases, likewise, such as the general\n paralysis of insanity.[39]\n\n[39] _American Nervousness_, p. 207.\n\nAccording to Maudsley women \u201cseldom suffer from general paralysis.\u201d\nThis disease is frequently inherited, and is sometimes the result of\nalcoholic and other excesses.[40]\n\n[40] Maudsley, _Physiology and Pathology of the Mind_, p. 360.\n\nRegarding the dangers to which women are exposed by excessive and\nuseless maternity, Dr. Beard remarks:\n\n The large number of cases of laceration at childbirth and the\n prolonged and sometimes even life-enduring illness resulting\n from them, are good reasons for the terror which the processes of\n parturition inspires in the minds of American women today.\n\nHowever, that the dangers incident to parturition, and the excessive\nnervousness which characterizes civilized women, are not necessary\nadjuncts of civilization, but, on the contrary, are a result of the\nunchecked disruptive forces developed in man, and the consequent drain\non the vital energies of woman, will be seen, so soon as through the\ncultivation of the higher faculties developed in and transmitted\nthrough females, the lower nature of males has finally been brought\nwithin its legitimate bounds.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL INSTINCTS AND THE MORAL SENSE\n\n\nMan is pre-eminently a social animal. He seeks companionship and\ndepends largely upon his fellows for security and happiness. Nor is\nthis dependence upon others confined to the human species. Association,\nor combination of interests, is manifested throughout the entire\norganic scale.\n\nFrom Mr. Darwin\u2019s reasoning it is evident that he regards association\nas the basic principle underlying progress. He also thinks that\ncombination is impossible without sympathy or a desire for the welfare\nof others outside of self. He is certain that associated animals have a\nfeeling of affection for the group and that \u201cthey sympathize with one\nanother in times of distress and danger.\u201d[41]\n\n[41] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 102.\n\nThis writer thinks that an animal like the gorilla, which possessing\ngreat size and strength is able to defend itself against all its\nenemies, would not become social and therefore would be unable to\nadvance. And this too, notwithstanding the fact that such an animal has\nalready developed pugnacity, courage, and perseverance, the characters\nwhich are regarded as the source of the remarkable mental endowment of\nman.\n\nWe have seen that the greater size of the male is the result of Sexual\nSelection and is therefore a secondary sexual character. \u201cAll the\nsecondary sexual characters of man are highly variable.\u201d[42] In dealing\nwith this subject we must not lose sight of the fact that variability\ndenotes low organization. It shows that the organs of the body have not\nbecome specialized to perform their legitimate functions.\n\n[42] _The Descent of Man_, 1877, p. 559.\n\nAmong monogamous animals difference in size between the sexes is\nslight, but among polygamous species the male is considerably larger\nthan the female, this difference being correlated with numerous\nvariations of structure.\n\nAmong early races males were considerably in excess of females so it\nwas customary for the former to fight desperately to win the favour\nof the latter in much the same manner as their animal progenitors had\nfought to secure their mates. These struggles were enacted in the\npresence of the females, they always choosing the strongest and best\nendowed leaving the weaker and uglier members of the group unmated\nand therefore unable to propagate their misfortunes. This exercise of\nchoice by the female in pairing is the primary fact in the history of\nhuman progress. The appalling effects of the withdrawal from women of\nthis fundamental prerogative will be referred to later in these pages.\n\nThat pugnacity, courage, and perseverance are the result of man\u2019s\nstrong sexual nature is shown wherever this subject is touched upon in\n_The Descent of Man_. Special attention is directed to the fact that\neunuchs are deficient in these qualities.\n\nThat the greater size and strength of the male, together with courage,\npugnacity, and perseverance, have been of great value to him in\ndeciding the contests between rivals in courtship is quite true. It is\nclear, however, that these characters are in no wise responsible for\nthe origin and development of the higher faculties. Even Mr. Darwin\u2019s\npremises, when carried to their legitimate conclusions, furnish\nsufficient evidence to prove that the social instincts and the moral\nsense have been developed quite independently of these characters.\n\nAccording to the reasoning of the savants it is only through that\nspecialization of organs which has resulted in the separation of the\nsex elements, and the consequent division of functions, that the social\ninstincts have originated, and that it is to processes involved in such\nspecialization, or differentiation, that the higher faculties and the\nmoral sense have arisen. It is indeed plain from their reasoning that\nmatter, or perhaps I should say the force inherent in matter, had to be\nraised to a certain dynamic order before the peculiar quality of brain\nand nerve necessary for the development of these faculties could be\nmanifested through it.\n\n As there are different kinds of matter, so there are different modes\n of force, in the universe; and as we rise from the common physical\n matter in which physical laws hold sway up to chemical matter and\n chemical forces, and from chemical matter again up to living matter\n and its modes of force, so do we rise in the scale of life from\n the lowest kind of living matter with its corresponding force or\n energy, through different kinds of histological elements, with their\n corresponding energies or functions, up to the highest kind of living\n matter and corresponding mode of force with which we are acquainted,\n viz., nerve element and nerve force. But, when we have got to nerve\n element and nerve force, it behooves us not to rest content with the\n general idea, but to trace, with attentive discrimination, through\n the nervous system the different kinds of nervous cells, and their\n different manifestations of energy. So also shall we obtain the\n groundwork for a true conception of the relations of mind and the\n nervous system.[43]\n\n[43] Maudsley, _Physiology and Pathology of the Mind_, p. 60.\n\nWe have seen that the nervous system not only regulates most of the\nexisting functions of the body, but that it has indirectly influenced\nthe development of various bodily structures and certain mental\nqualities, and that these powers of mind depend on the development of\nthe brain.\n\nBy our guides in this matter, we are assured that the most important\ndifference observed between man and the lower animals is the\nconscience; hence, if we would understand how it has been possible for\nman to rise to his present position, we must know something of the\nprocesses involved in the development of the social instincts, through\nwhich have originated conscience and a desire for the welfare of others\noutside of self. The importance of these instincts in the development\nof conscience is thus set forth by Mr. Darwin:\n\n Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the\n parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably\n acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual\n faculties had become as well, or nearly as well, developed as in man.\n\nSympathy, we are told, is the foundation-stone of the social instincts.\nFrom facts which are everywhere presented among the forms of life\nbelow man, it is evident that sympathy was developed at an early stage\nof animal life. It is doubtless strongly manifested in our ape-like\nprogenitors, and it was probably this instinct which subsequently led\nto a community of interest and the coherence of the tribe.\n\nIn a consideration, therefore, of this question of sex development\nand the origin of the progressive principle, if, as we are assured,\nsympathy constitutes the foundation-stone of the social instincts,\nand if it is to these instincts that we are to look for the origin\nof the moral sense, or conscience\u2014 a faculty which constitutes the\nfundamental difference between the human species and the lower orders\nof life\u2014the question naturally arises: In which of the two diverging\nlines of sexual demarcation has arisen sympathy, or an interest in\nthe well-being of others? For an answer to our question we must look\ncarefully to the facts connected with the development of the sexes\nwithin one of which have been acquired characters tending toward the\nwelfare of society, or of individuals outside of self; within the\nother, characters looking only toward selfish gratification. Within the\nformer, the maternal instinct predominates; within the latter, passion.\n\nMr. Darwin admits that \u201cparental and filial affection lies at the base\nof the social instincts,\u201d and gives as his opinion that this quality is\nthe result of Natural Selection\u2014that those individuals which bestowed\nupon their offspring the greatest care and attention, would survive\nand multiply at the expense of others in which this instinct was less\ndeveloped. Therefore, in pursuing the inquiry of sex-function and\nsex-development, a question of considerable significance is at this\npoint suggested: Within which parent is observed the greater tendency\nto bestow care and attention upon offspring?\n\nWe are assured that \u201cthe animal family is especially maternal.\u201d So\nsoon as a female bird has laid her eggs, she is animated only by one\ndesire; neither the promise of abundant food nor the fear of bullets\nis able to divert her purpose. Although the males among the more highly\ndeveloped birds assist in rearing the family, amongst various species\nit is only the female which cares for the young. The male duck has\nno interest in his progeny, neither has the male eider. Of the male\nturkeys Mr. Letourneau says that they\n\n do much worse: they often devour the eggs of their females, and\n thus oblige the latter to hide them. Female turkeys join each other\n with their young ones for greater security, and thus form troops of\n from sixty to eighty individuals, led by the mothers, and carefully\n avoiding the old males, who rush on the young ones and kill them by\n violent blows on the head with their beaks.[44]\n\n[44] _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 29.\n\nThe males of various other species, jealous of the attentions of the\nmothers during the time that their efforts are directed toward the\nmaintenance of their brood, often kill their young. Regarding the\nsubject of paternal care, Mr. Letourneau observes: \u201cIt is important to\nnotice that amongst birds, the fathers devoid of affection generally\nbelong to the less intelligent, and are most often polygamous.\u201d\n\nBy observing the habits of cuckoos the fact has been ascertained\nthat among them the maternal instinct is almost entirely lacking.\nOf the cuckoo it has been remarked that it is a \u201cdiscontented,\nill-conditioned, passionate, in short, decidedly unamiable bird.\u201d Its\nnote is typical of its habits and character.\n\n The same abruptness, insatiability, eagerness, the same rage,\n are noticeable in its whole conduct. The cuckoos are notoriously\n unsociable, even in migration individualistic. They jealously guard\n their territorial \u201cpreserves,\u201d and verify in many ways the old myth\n that they are sparrow-hawks in disguise. The parasitic habit is\n consonant with their general character.\n\n The species consist predominantly of males. The preponderance is\n probably about five to one; though one observer makes it five times\n greater. In so male a species, it is not surprising to find degenerate\n maternal instincts.[45]\n\n[45] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, p. 276.\n\nRegarding spiders and the greater number of insects, we are told that\nthe males entirely neglect their young; it is\n\n in the female that the care for offspring first awakens. And this is\n natural, for the eggs have been formed in her body; she has laid them,\n and has been conscious of them; they form, in a way, an integral part\n of her individuality.... With insects maternal forethought sometimes\n amounts to a sort of divining prescience which the doctrine of\n evolution alone can explain.[46]\n\n[46] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 22.\n\nAmong the males of mammals below man the love of offspring seems to be\nalmost entirely wanting.\n\n We must here remark, that whatever the form of sexual association\n among mammals, the male has always much less affection for his young\n than the female. Even in monogamous species, when the male keeps with\n the female, he does so more as chief than as father. At times he is\n inclined to commit infanticide and to destroy the offspring, which, by\n absorbing all the attention of his female, thwart his amours. Thus,\n among the large felines, the mother is obliged to hide her young ones\n from the male during the first few days after birth, to prevent his\n devouring them.[47]\n\n[47] _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 34.\n\nThe fact is obvious that among the orders of life below man but little\npaternal affection has been developed, and with a more extended\nknowledge of the past history of the human race comes the assurance\nthat under earlier conditions of society, and in fact, until a\ncomparatively recent time, little notice was taken of the paternal\nrelation\u2014that kinship and all the rights of succession were reckoned\nthrough the mother. In other words, motherhood was the primary bond by\nwhich society was bound together.\n\nAlthough under higher conditions of civilized life, males have at\nlength come to manifest much interest in the well-being of their\noffspring, yet that paternal affection is not a primary instinct\nis shown by the fact that such interest, even at the present time,\nextends only to those individuals born in wedlock. Men are solicitous\nonly for the welfare of those who are to succeed to their names and\nfortunes; hence, although in later times the paternal instinct has been\nconsiderably re-enforced, it is plain that the interest of fathers for\ntheir offspring has in the past been largely the result of custom,\nassociation, pride, desire for self-perpetuation or duplication, or\nsome other form of self-aggrandizement.\n\nMr. Darwin says: \u201cThe feeling of pleasure from society is probably\nan extension of the parental or filial affections, since the social\ninstinct seems to be developed by the young remaining for a long time\nwith their parents.\u201d[48] Although Mr. Darwin does not admit it, from\nhis reasoning it is plain that the maternal instinct is the root\nwhence sympathy has sprung, and that it is the source whence the\ncohesive quality in the tribe originated. Regarding the importance of\nassociation or combination in early groups Mr. Darwin remarks:\n\n[48] _The Descent of Man_, p. 105.\n\n When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came\n into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe\n included a great number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful\n members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid\n and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the\n other.... Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without\n coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities\n would spread and be victorious over other tribes.... Thus the social\n and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused\n throughout the world.[49]\n\n[49] _The Descent of Man_, p. 130.\n\nSince, then, it has been proved by scientists that without an\nassociation of interests and the coherence of the tribe the social\ninstincts must have remained weak, and since it has been shown by them\nthat without concerted action the higher faculties, including the moral\nsense, could not have been developed; and since, furthermore, the\ninfluences which have led to this development are those growing out of\nthe maternal instincts, may we not conclude that all of those qualities\nwhich make man pre-eminently a social animal\u2014his love of society, his\ndesire for the good-will of his kind, his perception of right and\nwrong, and, finally, that sympathy which at last gradually extending\nbeyond the limits of race and country proclaims the brotherhood of man\nand the unity of life on the earth\u2014all these characteristics, are but\nan extension of maternal affection, an outgrowth of that early bond\nbetween mother and child, which, while affecting the entire line of\ndevelopment, still remains unchanged and unchangeable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE SUPREMACY OF THE MALE\n\n\nAn unprejudiced review of the facts relative to the differentiation\nof the two sexes, as set forth by naturalists, reveals not only the\nprimary principles involved in human progress, but shows also the\nsource whence these principles originated. These facts serve also to\nexplain that \u201cmental superiority\u201d of man over woman observed by Mr.\nDarwin and others in the present stage of human growth.\n\nNotwithstanding the superior degree of development which, according\nto the facts elaborated by scientists, must belong to the female in\nall the orders of life below mankind, Mr. Darwin would have us believe\nthat so soon as the human species appeared on the earth the processes\nwhich for untold ages had been in operation were reversed, and that\nthrough courage and perseverance, or patience, qualities which were\nthe result of extreme selfishness, or which were acquired while in\npursuit of animal gratification, man finally became superior to woman.\nThe following furnishes an example of Mr. Darwin\u2019s reasoning upon this\nsubject. He says:\n\n The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes\n is shown by man\u2019s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he\n takes up, than can woman\u2014whether requiring deep thought, reason, or\n imagination, or merely the use of the senses and the hands. If two\n lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting,\n sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance),\n history, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject,\n the two lists would not bear comparison....\n\n Now, when two men are put into competition, or a man with a woman,\n both possessed of every mental quality in equal perfection, save\n that one has higher energy, perseverance, and courage, the latter\n will generally become more eminent in every pursuit, and will gain\n the ascendency. He may be said to possess genius\u2014for genius has been\n declared by a great authority to be patience; and patience, in this\n sense, means unflinching, undaunted perseverance.[50]\n\n[50] _The Descent of Man_, p. 564.\n\nDoubtless, for the purpose of strengthening his position, Mr. Darwin\nquotes the following from John Stuart Mill: \u201cThe things in which man\nmost excels woman are those which require most plodding and long\nhammering at single thoughts.\u201d And in summing up the processes by which\nman has finally gained the ascendency over woman he concludes:\n\n Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed,\n fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both\n sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would\n have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock\n is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.[51]\n\n[51] _The Descent of Man_, p. 565.\n\nNotwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. Darwin, in view of the facts\nelaborated by himself, we cannot help thinking that it is indeed\nfortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to\nboth sexes prevails with mammals, otherwise it is probable that man\nwould never have had any higher ambition than the gratification of his\nanimal instincts, and would never have risen above those conditions in\nwhich he struggled desperately for the possession of the female. All\nthe facts which have been observed relative to the acquirement of the\nsocial instincts and the moral sense prove them to have originated in\nthe female constitution, and as progress is not possible without these\ncharacters, it is not difficult to determine within which of the sexes\nthe progressive principle first arose. Even courage, perseverance,\nand energy, characters which are denominated as thoroughly masculine,\nsince they are the result of Sexual Selection, have been and still are\nlargely dependent on the will or choice of the female.\n\nIn his zeal to prove the superiority of man over woman, and while\nemphasizing energy, perseverance, and courage as factors in\ndevelopment, Mr. Darwin seems to have overlooked the importance of\nthe distinctive characters belonging to the female organism, viz.,\nperception and intuition, combined with greater powers of endurance,\nthe first two of which, under the low conditions occasioned by the\nsupremacy of the animal instincts, have thus far had little opportunity\nto manifest themselves. A fairer statement relative to the capacities\nof the two sexes and their ability to succeed might have been set forth\nas follows:\n\nWhen a man and a woman are put in competition, both possessed of\nevery mental quality in equal perfection, save that one has higher\nenergy, more patience, and a somewhat greater degree of physical\ncourage, while the other has superior powers of intuition, finer and\nmore rapid perceptions, and a greater degree of endurance (the result\nof an organism freer from imperfections), the chances of the latter\nfor gaining the ascendency will doubtless be equal to those of the\nformer as soon as the animal conditions of life are outgrown, and the\ncharacters peculiar to the female constitution are allowed expression.\nMr. Darwin\u2019s quotation from J. Stuart Mill, that the things in which\nman excels woman are those which require most plodding and long\nhammering at single thoughts, is evidently true, and corresponds with\nthe fundamental premises in the theory of development as set forth\nby all naturalists. The female organism is not a plodding machine,\nneither is the telephone nor the telegraph, yet these latter devices\naccomplish the work formerly done by the stagecoach much more rapidly,\nand in a manner better suited to civilized conditions. So soon as women\nare freed from the unnatural restrictions placed upon them through the\ntemporary predominance of the animal instincts in man, their greater\npowers of endurance, together with a keener insight and an organism\ncomparatively free from imperfections, will doubtless give them a\ndecided advantage in the struggle for existence. While patience is\ndoubtless a virtue, and while during the past ages of human experience\nit has been of incalculable value to man, it will not, under higher\nconditions, be required in competing for the prizes of life.\n\nWoman\u2019s rapid perceptions, and her intuitions which in many instances\namount almost to second sight, indicate undeveloped genius, and\npartake largely of the nature of deductive reasoning; it is reasonable\nto suppose therefore that as soon as she is free, and has for a few\ngenerations enjoyed the advantages of more natural methods of education\nand training, and those better suited to the female constitution, she\nwill be able to trace the various processes of induction by which she\nreaches her conclusions. She will then be able to reason inductively up\nto her deductive conceptions.\n\nThe worthlessness of Mr. Darwin\u2019s comparison between men and women in\nperforming the various activities of life is already clearly apparent.\nAlthough less than half a century has elapsed since _The Descent\nof Man_ was written women are already successfully competing with\nmen in nearly all the walks of life both high and low, and this too\nnotwithstanding the fact that these occupations have heretofore been\nregarded as belonging exclusively to men. We have seen that Mr. Darwin\nmentions music as a vocation in which man\u2019s superiority over woman is\nmanifested, yet already in the United States, there is not one male\nmusician who would be willing to match his skill against that of any\none of the four best woman performers.\n\nIt is a well understood fact that neither individuals nor classes\nwhich upon every hand have been thwarted and restrained, either by\nunjust and oppressive laws, or by the tyranny of custom, prejudice, or\nphysical force, have ever made any considerable progress in the actual\nacquirement of knowledge or in the arts of life. Mr. Darwin\u2019s capacity\nfor collecting and formulating facts seems not to have materially aided\nhim in discerning the close connection existing at this stage of human\nprogress between the masculinized conditions of human society and the\nnecessary opportunities to succeed in the higher walks of life; in\nfact, he seems to have forgotten that all the avenues to success have\nfor thousands of years been controlled and wholly manipulated by men,\nwhile the activities of women have been distorted and repressed in\norder that the \u201cnecessities\u201d of the male nature might be provided for.\nBesides, it seems never to have occurred to him that as man has still\nnot outgrown the animal in his nature, and as the intellectual and\nmoral age is only just beginning to dawn, the time is not yet ripe for\nthe direct expression of the more refined instincts and ideas peculiar\nto the female organism, and, as thus far, only that advancement\nhas been made which is compatible with the supremacy of the lower\ninstincts, woman\u2019s time has not yet come.\n\nAlthough women are still in possession of their natural inheritance, a\nfiner and more complex organism comparatively free from imperfections,\nand although, as a result of this inheritance, their intuitions\nare still quicker, their perceptions keener, and their endurance\ngreater, the drain on their physical energies, caused by the abnormal\ndevelopment of the reproductive energies in the opposite sex, has,\nduring the ages of man\u2019s dominion over her, been sufficient to preclude\nthe idea of success in competing with men for the prizes of life.\nAlthough an era of progress has begun, ages will doubtless be required\nto eradicate abuses which are the result of constitutional defects, and\nespecially so as the prejudices and feelings of mankind are for the\nmost part in harmony with such abuses.\n\nIf we examine the subject of female apparel, at the present time, we\nshall observe how difficult it is to uproot long-established prejudices\nwhich are deeply rooted in sensuality and superstition; and this is\ntrue notwithstanding the fact that such prejudices may involve the\ncomfort and even the health of half the people, and seriously affect\nthe welfare of unborn generations. An examination of the influences\nwhich have determined the course of modern fashions in woman\u2019s clothing\nwill show the truth of this observation.\n\nOf all the senses which have been developed, that of sight is\nundoubtedly the most refined, and when in the human species it is\ncultivated to a degree which enables its possessor to appreciate the\nbeautiful in Nature and in Art, we are perhaps justified in designating\nit as the intellectual sense. In point of refinement, the sense of\nhearing comes next in order, yet among creatures as low in the scale of\nbeing as birds, we find that females not only appreciate the beautiful,\nbut that they are charmed by pleasing and harmonious sounds, and that\nif males would win their favour it must be accomplished by appeals\nthrough these senses to the higher qualities developed within them.\n\nAlthough the female of the human species, like the female among the\nlower orders of life, is capable of appreciating fine colouring, and\nto a considerable extent the beautiful in form, the style of dress\nadopted by women is not an expression of their natural ideas of taste\nand harmony. On the contrary, it is to Sexual Selection that we must\nlook for an explanation of the incongruities and absurdities presented\nby the so-called female fashions of the past and present. The processes\nof Sexual Selection, which, so long as the female was the controlling\nagency in courtship, worked on the male, have in these later ages been\nreversed. For the reason that the female of the human species has so\nlong been under subjection to the male, the styles of female dress and\nadornment which have been adopted, and which are still in vogue, are\nlargely the result of masculine taste. Woman\u2019s business in life has\nbeen to marry, or, at least, it has been necessary for her, in order\nto gain her support, to win the favour of the opposite sex. She must,\ntherefore, by her charms, captivate the male.\n\nWith the progress of civilization and since women as economic and\nsexual slaves have become dependent upon men for their support, no male\nbiped has been too stupid, too ugly, or too vicious to take to himself\na mate and perpetuate his imperfections. This unchecked freedom of the\nmale to multiply his defects is responsible for present conditions.\n\nAs for thousands of years women have been dependent on men not only\nfor food and clothing but for the luxuries of life as well, it is\nnot singular that in the struggle for life to which they have been\nsubjected they should have adopted the styles of dress which would\nbe likely to secure to them the greatest amount of success. When we\nremember that the present ideas of becomingness or propriety in woman\u2019s\napparel are the result of ages of sensuality and servitude, it is not\nremarkable that they are difficult to uproot, and especially so as many\nof the most pernicious and health-destroying styles involve questions\nof female decorum as understood by a sensualized age.\n\nMr. Darwin calls attention to the fact that women \u201call over the world\u201d\nadorn themselves with the gay feathers of male birds. Since the\nbeautiful plumage of male birds has been produced according to female\nstandards of taste, and since it is wholly the result of innate female\nideas of harmony in colour and design, it is not perhaps remarkable\nthat women, recognizing the original female standards of beauty, should\ndesire to utilize those effects which have been obtained at so great\nan expenditure of vital force to the opposite sex, especially as men\nare pleased with such display, and, as under present conditions of male\nsupremacy, the female of the human species is obliged to captivate the\nmale in order to secure her support.\n\nEver since the dominion of man over woman began a strict censorship\nover her dress has been maintained. Although in very recent times women\nare beginning to exercise a slight degree of independence in the matter\nof clothes, still, because of existing prejudices and customs they have\nnot yet been able to adopt a style of dress which admits of the free\nand unrestricted use of the body and limbs. It is believed that woman,\nthe natural tempter of man, if left to her own sinful devices, would\nagain as of old attempt to destroy that inherent purity of heart and\ncleanliness of life which characterize the male constitution. Woman\u2019s\nankles and throat seem to be the most formidable foes against which\ninnocent man has to contend, so the concealment of these offending\nmembers is deemed absolutely necessary for his protection and safety.\nEcclesiastics, a class whose duty it has ever been to regulate and\ncontrol the movements of women, seem to think that the ankles and\nthroats of women were intended not for the use and convenience of their\npossessors but as snares to entrap holy men.\n\nIt would thus appear that the present fashions for female apparel have\na deeper significance than we have been in the habit of ascribing\nto them. We are still living under conditions peculiar to a sensual\nage, and have not yet outgrown the requirements which condemn women\nto a style of dress which hinders the free movements of the body and\nwhich checks all the activities of life. In one way the woman of the\npresent time may be said to resemble the male Argus pheasant, whose\ndecorations, although they serve to please his mate, greatly hinder his\npower of motion and the free use of his body and limbs.\n\nWhen we consider that apparel is but one, and a minor one, of the\nstrictures under which women have laboured during the later era of\nhuman existence and when we consider all the ignoble and degrading uses\nto which womanhood has been subjected, the wonder is not that women\nhave failed in the past to distinguish themselves in the various fields\nof intellectual labour in which men have achieved a limited degree of\nsuccess, but that they have had sufficient energy and courage left to\nenable them even to attempt anything so far outside the boundary of\ntheir prescribed \u201csphere,\u201d or that they have been able to transmit to\ntheir male offspring those powers through which they have gained their\npresent stage of progress.\n\nWith regard to Mr. Darwin\u2019s comparison of the intellectual powers of\nthe two sexes, and his assertion that man attains to a higher eminence\nin whatever he takes up than woman\u2014that, for instance, he surpasses her\nin the production of poetry, music, philosophy, etc., the facts at hand\nsuggest that if within mankind no higher motives and tastes had been\ndeveloped than those derived from selfishness and passion, there would\nnever have arisen a desire for poetry, music, philosophy, or science,\nor, in fact, for any of the achievements which have been the result of\nthe more exalted activities of the human intellect. However, because\nof the subjection of the higher faculties developed in mankind, the\npoetry, music, and painting of the past betray their sensuous origin\nand plainly reveal the stage of advancement which has been reached,\nwhile history, philosophy, and even science, judging from Mr. Darwin\u2019s\nmethods, have not yet wholly emerged from the murky atmosphere of a\nsensuous age.\n\nIt will be well for us to remember that the doctrine of the Survival\nof the Fittest does not imply that the best endowed, physically or\notherwise, have always succeeded in the struggle for existence.\nBy the term Survival of the Fittest we are to understand a natural\nlaw by means of which those best able to overcome the unfavourable\nconditions of their environment survive and are able to propagate their\nsuccessful qualities. We must bear in mind that neither the growth of\nthe individual nor that of society has proceeded in an unbroken or\nuninterrupted line; on the contrary, during a certain portion of human\nexistence on the earth, the forces which tend toward degeneration have\nbeen stronger than whose which lie along the line of true development.\n\nWe are assured that the principles of construction and destruction are\nmutually employed in the reproductive processes, that continuous death\nmeans continuous life,\u2014the katabolic or disruptive tendencies of the\nmale being necessary to the anabolic or constructive habits of the\nfemale. As it is in reproduction, so has it been through the entire\ncourse of development. Side by side, all along the line, these two\ntendencies have been in operation; the grinding, rending, and devouring\nprocesses which we denominate Natural Selection, alongside those which\nunite, assimilate, and protect. As a result of the separation of the\nsexes there have been developed on the one side extreme egoism, or\nthe desire for selfish gratification; on the other, altruism, or a\ndesire for the welfare of others outside of self. Hence, throughout\nthe later ages of human existence, since the egoistic principles\nhave gained the ascendency, may be observed the unequal struggle for\nliberty and justice, against tyranny, and the oppressors of the masses\nof the human race. From present appearances it would seem, that the\ndisruptive or devouring forces have always been in the ascendency.\nThe philosophy of history however, teaches the contrary. With a\nbroader view of the origin and development of the human race, and the\nunexpected light which within the last few years has been thrown upon\nprehistoric society and the grandeur of past achievement, a close\nstudent of the past is able to discern a faint glimmering of a more\nnatural age of human existence, and is able to observe in the present\nintense struggles for freedom and equality, an attempt to return to\nthe earlier and more natural principles of justice and liberty, and so\nto advance to a stage of society in which selfishness, sensuality, and\nsuperstition no longer reign supreme.\n\nThe status of women always furnishes an index to the true condition\nof society, one or two superficial writers to the contrary\nnotwithstanding. For this phenomenon there is a scientific reason,\nnamely: society advances just in proportion as women are able to\nconvey to their offspring the progressive tendencies transmissible\nonly through the female organism. It is plain, therefore, that mankind\nwill never advance to a higher plane of thinking and living until the\nrestrictions upon the liberties of women have been entirely removed,\nand until within every department of human activity, their natural\ninstincts, and the methods of thought peculiar to them be allowed\nfree expression. The following is from Mr. Buckle\u2019s lecture on \u201cThe\nInfluence of Women on the Progress of Knowledge\u201d:\n\n I believe and I hope before we separate to convince you, that so far\n from women exercising little or no influence over the progress of\n knowledge, they are capable of exercising, and have actually exercised\n an enormous influence; that this influence, is, in fact, so great that\n it is hardly possible to assign limits to it; and that great as it is,\n it may with advantage be still further increased. I hope, moreover,\n to convince you that this influence has been exhibited not merely\n from time to time in rare, sudden, and transitory ebullitions, but\n that it acts by virtue of certain laws inherent in human nature; and\n that, although it works as an undercurrent below the surface, and is\n therefore invisible to hasty observers, it has already produced the\n most important results, and has affected the shape, the character, and\n the amount of our knowledge.\n\nThrough the processes involved in the differentiation of sex and the\nconsequent division of functions, it has been possible during the past\nsix thousand or seven thousand years (a mere tithe of the time spent\nby mankind upon the earth) for women to become enslaved, or subjected\nto the lower impulses of the male nature. Through the capture of women\nfor wives, through the exigencies of warfare, the individual ownership\nof land, and the various changes incident to a certain stage of human\nexistence, the finer sensibilities which characterize women have been\novershadowed, and the higher forces which originated within them\nand which are transmitted in the female line, have been temporarily\nsubdued by the great sexual ardour inherent in the opposite sex; it is\nnot, therefore, singular that the degree of progress attained should\nappear to be wholly the result of male activity and acumen. Yet,\nnotwithstanding the degradation to which women in the position assigned\nthem by physical force have been obliged to submit, their capacity for\nimprovement has suffered less from the influences and circumstances of\ntheir environment than has that of men. As the higher faculties are\ntransmitted through women equally to both sexes, in the impoverishment\nof their inheritance on the female side, men have suffered equally\nwith women, while, through their male progenitors, they have inherited\nappetites and habits (the result of a ruder and less developed\nstructure) which weaken and degrade the entire constitution.\n\nDoubtless, so soon as women have gained sufficient strength to enable\nthem to maintain their independence, and after the higher faculties\nrather than the animal propensities rule supreme, men, through the\nimperfections in their organism, and the appetites acquired through\nthese imperfections, will, for a considerable length of time, find\nthemselves weighted in the struggle for supremacy, and this, too, by\nthe very characters which under lower conditions are now believed to\nhave determined their success.\n\nIt is not unlikely, however, that through Sexual Selection the\ncharacters or qualities unfavourable to the higher development of man\nwill in time be eliminated. The mother is the natural guardian and\nprotector of offspring; therefore, so soon as women are free they will\ndoubtless select for husbands only those men who, by their mental,\nmoral, and physical endowments are fitted to become the fathers of\ntheir children. Only those women will become mothers who hope to secure\nto their offspring immunity from the giant evils with which society\nis afflicted. In this way, and this way only, may these evils be\neradicated.\n\nUnder purer conditions of life, when by the higher powers developed\nin the race the animal propensities have become somewhat subdued by\nman, we may reasonably hope that the \u201cstruggle for existence,\u201d which\nis still so relentlessly waged, will cease, that man will no longer\nstruggle with man for place or power, and that the bounties of earth\nwill no longer be hoarded by the few, while the many are suffering for\nthe necessities of life; for are we not all members of one family, and\ndependent for all that we have on the same beneficent parent\u2014Nature?\n\nAlthough the two principles, the constructive and destructive, are\nclosely allied, the higher faculties have been acquired only through\nthe former\u2014the highest degree of progress is possible only through\nunion or co-operation, or, through the uniting and binding force,\nmaternal love from which has been developed, first, sympathy among\nrelated groups, and later an interest which is capable of extending\nitself not only to all members of the human race, but to every sentient\ncreature. There is, therefore, little wonder that for thousands of\nyears of human existence, the female principle was worshipped over the\nentire habitable globe as the source of all light and life\u2014the Creator\nand Preserver of the Universe.\n\nWe are only on the threshold of civilization. Mankind may as yet have\nno just conception of their possibilities, but so soon as, through\nthe agencies now in operation for the advancement of the race, the\n\u201cnecessities\u201d of the male nature no longer demand and secure the\nsubjection of women and the consequent drain on the very fountain\nwhence spring the higher faculties, a great and unexpected impetus will\nbe given to progress.\n\nThe fact that a majority of women have not yet gained that freedom of\naction necessary to the absolute control of their own persons, nor\nacquired a sufficient degree of independence to enable them to adopt\na course of action in their daily life which they know to be right,\nshows the extent to which selfishness, twin brother to sensuality,\nhas clouded the conscience and warped the judgment in all matters\npertaining to human justice. So closely has women\u2019s environment been\nguarded that in addition to all the restrictions placed upon their\nliberties, a majority of them are still dependent for food and clothing\non pleasing the men, who still hold the purse-strings. Yet Mr. Darwin,\nthe apostle of original scientific investigation, concludes:\n\n\u201cIf men are capable of decided prominence over women in many subjects,\nthe average mental powers in men must be above those of women.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                PART II\n\n                          Prehistoric Society\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nMETHOD OF INVESTIGATION\n\n\nIf the theory of the development of the human race, or more\nparticularly that of the two diverging lines of sex demarcation as set\nforth in the foregoing chapters be correct, it is plain that by it a\nnew foundation is laid for the study of mankind.\n\nIf, contrary to the generally accepted idea, within the female organism\nhave been developed those elements which form the basis of human\nprogress, or, if the higher faculties are transmitted through the\nmother, henceforth all examinations into primitive conditions and all\nresearch into the causes which underlie existing institutions must\nbe carried on with reference to this particular fact. Only through\na thorough understanding of the principles or forces which govern\nhuman development, and a just appreciation of the source whence these\nprinciples have sprung, may we hope to gain a clear understanding\nof the past history of the race, or to perceive the true course to\nbe pursued toward further development. Through the investigation of\nfacts revealed in the records of Geology, and through the study of\ncomparative Embryology and Anatomy, or through an understanding of\nZo\u00f6logy and Anthropology, man has well-nigh solved the problem of his\norigin, or has almost proved his connection with and development from\nthe lower orders of life, but of the countless ages which intervened\nbetween the era of our ape-like progenitors and the dawn of organized\nsociety, little may be known without a correct knowledge of the\ninheritance received by mankind from creatures lower in the scale of\nbeing. Only by a careful study of the constitutional bias acquired\nthroughout the entire line of development, are we enabled to note the\nmotives or forces by which primitive society was controlled, or to form\na just conclusion relative to the early conditions of human society and\nits subsequent progress.\n\nThrough the attention which in these later years has been directed\ntoward surviving tribes in the so-called middle and later stages of\nsavagery, and in the three successive periods of barbarism, have\ndoubtless been revealed many of the processes by which mankind have\nreached their present condition. Much of the information, however,\nwhich has been obtained by these inquiries still lacks that accuracy in\ndetail demanded by exact science; but, so soon as the array of facts\nwhich the last half-century has brought to bear upon this subject shall\nhave been correctly interpreted, logically arranged, intelligently\nclassified, and without prejudice brought into line with the truths\ninvolved in the theory of natural development, there will doubtless\nbe approximated a system of truth which will furnish a safe and\ntrustworthy foundation for a more thorough research into the history of\nthe human race.\n\nAlthough the facts relative to existing undeveloped races, which\nhave been laid before the reading public through the patience and\nindustry of investigators in this particular branch of inquiry, have\nbeen of incalculable value as furnishing a foundation for a correct\nunderstanding of the origin of the customs, manners, ceremonies,\ngovernments, languages, and systems of consanguinity and affinity of\na primitive race, and although without these efforts little knowledge\nof the early history of mankind could be obtained, yet, as a majority\nof the theories built upon these observations have been based on\nlong-established prejudices relative to the earliest conditions\nsurrounding human society and the forces by which it was controlled,\nmany false conclusions have been the inevitable result.\n\nWe have seen that owing to the ascendency which the masculine element\nin human society gained during the period designated as the Latter\nStatus of barbarism, the popular ideas evolved since that time\nconcerning the origin and development of government, social usages,\nreligion, and law, have been in accordance with the then established\nassumption that within the male organism lies not only the active,\naggressive element, but the progressive principle as well. It is\nnot, therefore, singular that at the present time all the lines of\ninvestigation which are being directed toward man in a primitive state,\nor which are being conducted for the avowed purpose of ascertaining the\nsuccessive steps by which our social, civil, and religious institutions\nhave been reared, should continue to be carried on under the _a priori_\nassumption that the male organism is by nature superior to that of the\nfemale.\n\nAs in all the theories relative to the development of species the\nmale is the principal factor, so in the theories brought forward to\nexplain the development of human institutions the female has played\nonly an insignificant part; but, as all later facts bearing upon this\nsubject furnish indisputable evidence of the early importance of the\nfemale element, not only among the lower orders of life but under\nearlier human conditions as well, we may reasonably expect from these\ndata the establishment, in the not distant future, of a complete chain\nof evidence in support of a more rational and consistent theory of\ndevelopment than has yet been put forth, not only of the origin of the\nhigher faculties, but of the organization of human society and the\ngrowth of its various institutions.\n\nAs, hitherto, all the theories advanced relative to the evolution of\nthe human race and the establishment of society on a political and\nterritorial basis have been founded on preconceived notions of the\nsuperiority of the characters peculiar to the male, it is believed, or\nat least assumed, that the ascendency gained by man over woman during\nthe Latter Status of barbarism constitutes a regular, orderly, and\nnecessary step in the direct line of progress; and, as under masculine\nsupremacy, a certain degree of advancement has been possible, it is\nassumed that the nobler animal, man, having gained the ascendency over\nthe weaker animal, woman, his progress in the future is to increase\nin a sort of geometrical ratio, while she, still bound by physical\ndisabilities and weighted by the baneful effects of past limitations\nand restrictions, must continue far in the rear of her better endowed\nand more thoroughly equipped male mate. However, in this conception of\nthe facts of biology, woman is not left without a crumb of comfort;\nfor, in the forlorn and helpless condition to which it condemns her,\nshe is given to understand that if for many successive generations\ngirls be constantly trained in masculine methods, they may eventually\nbe able to admire, and possibly in a measure to comprehend, some of the\nless stupendous mental achievements of their brothers; but, according\nto the savants, any attempt on the part of women to compete with men in\nthe higher walks of life must result in increased physical weakness, in\nthe immediate degeneration of the female sex, and in disaster and ruin\nto the entire race.\n\nWhen we remember that investigations into the conditions surrounding\nprimitive society have for the most part been conducted under the\ninfluence of prejudices similar to those which have prompted the\nabove assumptions, it is not singular that in a majority of cases in\nwhich the early status of women has been discussed, and in which the\norganization of society, the fundamental principles of government, the\norigin of the institution of marriage, the monogamic family, and the\ngrowth of the god-idea, have been the topics under discussion, the\nconclusions arrived at have been not wholly warranted by the facts at\nhand.\n\nIn an investigation of the subject of human development, we must\nbear in mind the fact that all the principal existing institutions\nhave sprung from germs of thought which originated under primitive\nconditions of the race. Government, language, marriage, the modern\nfamily, and our present system of the accumulation and distribution\nof wealth, have all been evolved from the necessities of early human\nexistence, or from primitive ideas conceived according to the peculiar\nbias which had been given to the female and male organisms prior to\nthe appearance of mankind upon the earth, and which have since been\ndeveloped in accordance with the laws which govern human growth.\n\nWith their reasoning faculties still undeveloped, and, according to our\nguides, wholly destitute of a moral sense, human beings at the outset\nof their career could have had no guiding principle other than those\ninstincts which they inherited from their mute progenitors. Therefore,\nin order fully to understand the status of the human race as it emerged\nfrom its animal conditions, we must bear in mind the nature of the\ninheritance which it had received during its passage from a formless\nlump of carbon, or an infinitesimal jelly dot in the primeval sea, to a\ncreature endowed with sympathy, affection, courage, and perseverance.\nWe must not lose sight of the fact that passion, the all-absorbing\nquality developed in males belonging to the orders lower in the scale\nof being, must have been conveyed without diminution or material change\nto man. Neither must we forget that those qualities in the female which\nhad been developed for the protection of the germ, and by which she\nwas enabled to hold in check the abnormally developed appetites of the\nmale, were still in operation.\n\nThat Nature disdains arbitrary rules, and that she pays little heed to\nthe proprieties established by man, are facts everywhere to be observed\namong the lower orders of life. She nevertheless jealously guards the\ngerm and the young of the species. The mother is the natural guardian\nof prenatal and infant life, and as such, under natural conditions, is\nusually able to control the sexual relation.\n\nFailing to note the fact that among the orders of life below mankind\nthe female chooses her mate, and failing also to observe that through\nthe natural adjustment of the sexual relations his instincts are\nchecked by her will, nearly if not all the writers upon this subject\nhave declared that women and men at the outset of the human career\nlived in a state of \u201clawlessness\u201d or \u201cpromiscuity,\u201d similar no doubt to\nthat which at the present time would prevail in a community in which\nwomen were utterly devoid of influence, and in which there were no laws\nregulating the intercourse of the sexes.\n\nBy the most trustworthy writers on the subject of the primitive\nconditions of the human race, it is believed that the most archaic\norganization of society was that founded on the basis of sex, but, as\nin the infancy of the race, prior to the inauguration of the system\nbased on sex, and during the long ages which were spent merely in\ngaining a subsistence, no organized form of society existed, it is held\nthat the order which is observed among creatures lower in the scale\nof life was suspended, and that the universal law which had hitherto\nregulated the relations of the sexes, and which throughout the ages of\nlife on the earth had held in check the lower instincts of the male,\nbecame immediately inoperative.\n\nHere the common ground of belief ceases, and each writer branches off\nupon his own peculiar line of argument, appropriating and arranging the\nfacts observed by explorers and investigators in the various lines of\ninquiry according to his own preconceived notions, or as best suits the\nparticular scheme of development which he essays to establish.\n\nIn the following pages the attempt will be made to show that the facts\nwhich in these later years have been brought to light concerning the\ndevelopment of the human race are in strict accord with the facts as\nenunciated by scientists relative to the development of the orders\nof life below man, and that together they form a connected chain of\nevidence going to prove not only that the higher faculties had their\norigin in the female but that the progressive principle has also been\nconfided to her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES AMONG EARLY MANKIND\n\n\nWe have seen that an investigation of the instincts and habits of\ncreatures lower in the scale is necessary to an understanding of the\nrelations which must have existed between the sexes among primitive\nraces.\n\n Among birds and mammals, the greater differentiation of the nervous\n system and the higher pitch of the whole life is associated with\n the development of what pedantry alone can refuse to call love. Not\n only is there often partnership, co-operation, and evident affection\n beyond the limits of the breeding period, but there are abundant\n illustrations of a high standard of morality, of all the familiar\n sexual crimes of mankind, and every shade of flirtation, courtship,\n jealousy, and the like. There is no doubt that in the two highest\n classes of animals at least, the physical sympathies of sexuality have\n been enhanced by the emotional, if not also intellectual, sympathies\n of love.[52]\n\n[52] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of Sex_, p. 266.\n\nIt has been observed that among the orders of life below mankind,\nexcept among polygamous species, the female chooses the individual\nwhich is best endowed\u2014the one whose beauty appeals to her \u00e6sthetic\ntaste, or which through his stronger development is best fitted to\nassist her in the office of reproduction.\n\nAmong the more intelligent species of birds, genuine affection has been\nobserved, strict monogamy and life-long unions having been established\nbetween mated pairs. Among others, although the conjugal bond is not\nlife-lasting, so long as the mother-bird is caring for her brood,\nconstancy to one another is the undeviating rule. We are assured that\nwith the female Illinois parrot, \u201cwidowhood and death are synonymous,\u201d\nand that \u201cwhen a wheatear dies, his companion survives him scarcely a\nmonth.\u201d[53]\n\n[53] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 27.\n\nAll eagles are monogamous. Golden eagles live in couples and remain\nattached to one another for a hundred or more years, without even\nchanging their domicile.[54] The conjugal unions of bald-headed eagles,\nalthough they are under no \u201clegal restrictions,\u201d last until the death\nof one of the partners. Among birds, although incubation rests with\nthe mother, the father usually assists his companion. He not only\ntakes her place if she desires to leave the nest for a moment, but\nalso provides her with food.[55] So perfect is the bird family life\nthat Brehm declares that \u201creal genuine marriage can only be found\namong birds.\u201d[56] Upon this subject we are informed that \u201cexamples\nof wandering fancy are for the most part rare among the birds, the\nmajority of whom are monogamous, and even superior to most men in the\nmatter of conjugal fidelity.\u201d[57]\n\n[54] J.\u202fG. Wood, _Natural History_, p. 262.\n\n[55] Westermarck, _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 11.\n\n[56] Brehm, _Bird-Life_.\n\n[57] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 27.\n\nConcerning mammals, it is observed that although polygamy is frequent\n\u201cit is far from being the conjugal regime universally adopted; monogamy\nis common, and is sometimes accompanied by so much devotion that it\nwould serve as an example to human monogamists.\u201d[58] Bears, weasels,\nwhales, and many other animals choose their mates and go in pairs.\nSeveral kinds of monkeys are strictly monogamous.[59] Chimpanzees are\nsometimes polygamous and sometimes monogamous. It is stated what when a\nstrong male has succeeded in driving away the other males of the group,\nthe females, although in a position to subjugate him, are nevertheless\nkind and even tender toward him. They are doubtless too much occupied\nwith their legitimate functions to rebel, but so soon as the young\nof the horde are grown, the usurper is driven from their midst. A\nlittle observation will show us that even among polygamous species,\nit is affection rather than strength which keeps the members of a\ngroup together. Although among most of the lower orders the female\nexercises a choice in the selection of her mate, still among animals of\npolygamous habits the female is said to manifest genuine affection for\nthe father of her offspring.\n\n[58] _Ibid._, p. 35.\n\n[59] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, p. 590.\n\n The polygamic regime of animals is far from extinguishing affectionate\n sentiments in the females towards their husband and master. The\n females of the guanaco lamas, for example, are very faithful to\n their male. If the latter happens to be wounded or killed, instead\n of running away, they hasten to his side, bleating and offering\n themselves to the shots of the hunter in order to shield him, while,\n on the contrary, if a female is killed, the male makes off with all\n his troop; he only thinks of himself.[60]\n\n[60] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage and the Family_, p. 32.\n\nAlthough among animals a stray male will sometimes drive away or kill\nall the other males of the group, and himself become the common mate of\nall the females, they peaceably accepting the situation, so far as I\ncan find, female insects, birds, and mammals, although they generally\ncontrol the sexual relation, have never been given to polyandry; the\nreason for this can be explained only through a careful analysis of\nthe fundamental bias of the female constitution. We must bear in mind\nthat although among the orders of life below mankind the male is ready\nto pair with any female, she, on the other hand, when free to choose,\ncan be induced to accept the attentions only of the one which by his\ncourage, bravery, or personal beauty has won her favours. We have noted\nthe fact that in the earliest ages of the human race this choice was\nexercised by women, but we have no reason to believe that anything\nresembling \u201cpromiscuity\u201d ever prevailed among primitive races. It is\ntrue that under earlier conditions the institution of marriage as it\nexists at the present time had not appeared; yet the law which had\nbeen impressed on the higher organism of the female, until overcome by\nmales through means which will be treated of later in these pages, had\nsufficed to keep the animal instincts under subjection, or at least on\na level with those of the lower species which structurally had been\nleft behind.\n\nFrom facts to be gathered, not alone from among the lower orders, but\nfrom observations among human beings as well, it would seem that any\ndegree of affection for more than one individual at the same time is\ncontrary to the female nature. A female insect, or bird, which feels a\npreference for a particular mate will pair with no other, hence, among\norders where the female instincts control the relations between the\nsexes, \u201clawlessness\u201d or promiscuity would not prevail.\n\nA little observation and reflection, I think, will show us that the\naffection of the female is a character differing widely from the sex\ninstinct of the male\u2014that, while selfishness constitutes the underlying\nprinciple of the latter, the former involves not only care for the\nyoung and the unity of the group, but, when human conditions are\nreached, it involves also country, civilization, and the ultimate\nbrotherhood of mankind.\n\nIf we bear in mind the conditions surrounding the orders of life from\nwhich the human race has sprung, and if we remember the nature of\nthe characters inherited by mankind from these orders, together with\nthe important fact that the lower instincts among them were under\nsubjection to the higher faculties, we shall be enabled to see that\nthe more degraded of the extant savage tribes cannot represent the\nprimitive race as it emerged from the animal type.\n\nMr. Tylor must have been mindful of the altruistic character of early\nraces when he remarked: \u201cWithout some control beyond the mere right\nof the stronger, the tribe would break up in a week, whereas in fact\nsavage tribes last on for ages.\u201d[61]\n\n[61] _Anthropology_, p. 405.\n\nConcerning the relations of the sexes under unorganized society nothing\nmay be known from actual observation, as, at the present time, no tribe\nor race is to be found under absolutely primitive conditions. Perhaps\nfrom no extant people is there so little information in reference to\nthe earliest human state to be gleaned as from the lowest existing\nraces. Among many of these tribes the rules which it has been necessary\nto establish for the regulation of the relations between the sexes\nare rigorously enforced, while among others a laxity prevails which\nwould seem to indicate an almost total lack of those higher instincts\nwhich are observed among nearly all the lower orders of beings. The\nfollowing fact, however, in regard to these races, has been observed:\nthe more primitive they are, or the less they have come in contact with\ncivilization, the more strictly do they observe the rules which have\nbeen established for the governance of the sexual relation. On this\nsubject Mr. Parkyns says:\n\n I don\u2019t believe that there exists a nation, however high in the scale\n of civilization, that can pick a hole in the character of the lowest,\n without being in danger of finding one nearly, if not quite, as big\n in its own. The vices of the savage are, like his person, very much\n exposed to view. Our own nakedness is not less unseemly than his,\n but is carefully concealed under the convenient cloak which we call\n \u201ccivilization,\u201d but which I fear he, in his ignorance, poor fellow,\n might, on some occasions, be led to look upon as hypocrisy.[62]\n\n[62] _Life in Abyssinia_, vol. ii., p. 152.\n\nIn the West Indian Islands where Columbus landed, lived tribes which\nare represented as having been \u201cthe most gentle and benevolent of the\nhuman race.\u201d Regarding these Mr. Tylor remarks:\n\n Schomburgk, the traveller, who knew the warlike Caribs well in their\n home life, draws a paradise-like picture of their ways, where they\n have not been corrupted by the vices of the white men; he saw among\n them peace and cheerfulness and simple family affection, unvarnished\n friendship, and gratitude not less true for not being spoken in\n sounding words; the civilized world, he says, has not to teach them\n morality, for, though they do not talk about it, they live in it.[63]\n\n[63] Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 406.\n\nThe men who with Captain Cook first visited the Sandwich Islands\nreported the natives as modest and chaste in their habits; but, later,\nafter coming in contact with the influences of civilization, modesty\nand chastity among them were virtues almost entirely unknown. The same\nis true of the people of Patagonia.\n\nBarrow says of the Kaffir woman that she is \u201cchaste and extremely\nmodest,\u201d and we are told that among this people banishment is the\npenalty for incontinence for both women and men. Of the reports which\nfrom time to time come from the aborigines of certain portions of\nAustralia relative to the lewdness of the women, Mr. Brough Smyth says\nthat they are irreconcilable with the severe penalties imposed for\nunchastity in former times amongst the natives of Victoria.[64] This\nwriter is of the opinion that the lewd practices reported are modern,\nand that they are the result of communication with the poor whites. We\nare assured that the women of Nubia are virtuous, that public women\nare not tolerated in the country.[65] Also that in Fiji adultery is one\nof the crimes generally punished with death.[66]\n\n[64] Quoted by Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 61.\n\n[65] Burckhardt\u2019s _Travels in Nubia_, p. 146.\n\n[66] Seeman, _A Mission to Viti_, p. 191.\n\nMarsden observes that in Sumatra \u201cthe old women are very attentive to\nthe conduct of the girls, and the male relations are highly jealous\nof any insults that may be shown them.\u201d[67] The same writer says that\nprostitution for hire is unknown in the country; adultery is punishable\nby fine, but the crime is rare. Regarding the conduct of men toward\nwomen he remarks: \u201cThey preserve a degree of delicacy and respect\ntoward the sex which might justify their retorting on many of the\npolished nations of antiquity the epithet of barbarism.\u201d[68]\n\n[67] _History of Sumatra_, p. 230.\n\n[68] _Ibid._, p. 226.\n\nCrantz says that among the Greenlanders single persons have rarely\nany connection.[69] According to the testimony of St. Boniface, the\npunishment for unchastity among the early Germans was death to the man,\nwhile the woman was driven naked through the streets.[70]\n\n[69] _History of Greenland_, vol. i., p. 145.\n\n[70] _Epistle of St. Boniface to Ethelbald._\n\nAmong the Central Asian Turks we are assured that a fallen girl is\nunknown. Mr. Westermarck, quoting from Klemm, states that although\namong the Kalmucks and gypsies the girls take pride in having gallant\naffairs, they are \u201cdishonoured if they have children previous to\nmarriage.\u201d The same writer quotes also from Winwood Reade, who says\nthat among the Equatorial Africans \u201ca girl who disgraces her family by\nwantonness is banished from her clan; and, in cases of seduction, the\nman is severely flogged.\u201d[71]\n\n[71] _History of Human Marriage_, p. 62.\n\nMr. Westermarck adduces much testimony going to show that the\n\u201clawlessness\u201d of lower races is due not to inherent vicious tendencies,\nbut to the evil associations of civilized peoples. He is of the opinion\nthat the licentiousness among many of the South Sea Islanders owes its\norigin to the intercourse of the natives with Europeans; and of the\ntribes who once inhabited the Adelaide Plains, quoting from Mr. Edward\nStephens who went to Australia half a century ago, he says:\n\n Those who speak of the natives as a naturally degraded race, either do\n not speak from experience, or they judge them by what they have become\n when the abuse of intoxicants and contact with the most wicked of the\n white race have begun their deadly work. As a rule, to which there\n are no exceptions, if a tribe of blacks is found away from the white\n settlement, the more vicious of the white men are most anxious to make\n the acquaintance of the natives, and that, too, solely for purposes of\n immorality.... I saw the natives and was much with them before those\n deadly immoralities were well known ... and I say it fearlessly, that\n nearly all their evils they owed to the white man\u2019s immorality and to\n the white man\u2019s drink.[72]\n\n[72] _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 68.\n\nWe are informed that wherever certain vices prevail among the lower\nraces in America, Africa, or Asia, they have been carried to them by\nthe whites. Were it necessary to do so, scores of examples could be\nadduced going to show that among primitive tribes, until corrupted by\nour later civilization, chastity is the universal rule.\n\nAlthough many of the writers who have dealt with this subject have\ndiscoursed freely on the laxity of the conjugal bond among so-called\nprimitive tribes, and the lawlessness which characterizes lower races\nin their sexual relations, they have failed to account satisfactorily\nfor some of the customs and usages which appear connected with many\nof the early forms of marriage,\u2014forms which would seem to indicate a\ndegree of modest reserve on the part of these peoples which fail to\ncomport with the popular theory concerning their lawlessness and innate\nindecency.\n\nWe have seen that although among the orders of life below mankind there\nare no arbitrary laws governing the relations of the sexes, there\nnevertheless exists a system of natural marriage which in no wise\nresembles promiscuity. Now it was under this natural system controlled\nby the higher instincts developed within the female organism, that the\nextreme \u201clawlessness\u201d indicated by the savants prevailed\u2014lawlessness\nseeming to denote that state of female independence in which women were\npersonally free, or in which they were not held in actual bondage as\ncaptive wives. In the reasoning of many of our guides in this matter it\nis implied, if not actually asserted, that the freedom of women which\nis now known to have prevailed in earlier times denotes a state of\nlaxity in morals, a condition of society directly contrary to the facts\nwhich they themselves have recorded relative to existing tribes under\nless advanced conditions of life, and which would seem to argue for\nthese peoples a sense of decency which among the masses in civilized\ncountries is almost entirely wanting. At the dawn of human existence,\nhad no higher instincts been developed than passion, or the desire for\nselfish gratification, whence could have arisen this reserve, and these\nideas of chastity and modesty which are observed among many of the less\ndeveloped peoples, notably those which have not come in contact with\nthe higher races? Upon this subject Mr. Tylor remarks: \u201cYet even among\nthe rudest clans of men, unless depraved by vice or misery and falling\nto pieces, a standard of family morals is known and lived by.\u201d[73]\n\n[73] _Anthropology_, chap, xvi., p. 405.\n\nObserving the habits of the lower animals, Mr. Darwin cannot believe\nthat promiscuous intercourse prevailed among the early races of\nmankind.\n\n At a very early period, before man attained to his present rank in the\n scale, many of his conditions would be different from what now obtains\n amongst savages. Judging from the analogy of the lower animals he\n would then either live with a single female, or be a polygamist.[74]\n\n[74] _The Descent of Man_, p. 594.\n\nWe have much evidence going to prove that the marriage contracts among\nthe lower races are well kept. According to Cook, in Tahiti, although\nnothing more is necessary for the consummation of a valid marriage than\nan agreement between the parties, these contracts are usually well\nkept. In case of the disaffection of either party, a divorce is easily\nobtained. We are assured, however, that although the Tahiti women have\nthe undisputed right to dissolve the marriage contract at will, they\nare nevertheless \u201cas faithful to their husbands as in any part of the\nworld.\u201d The Veddahs, who are ranked among the most primitive races, are\na strictly monogamous people.[75] Of the extreme modesty of married\npairs among many of the lower races we have much proof. Among the\nFijians, husbands and wives do not usually spend the night together,\nexcept as it were by stealth, and it is said to be contrary to their\nideas of delicacy that they should sleep under the same roof.[76]\nWholly from a sense of reserve or modesty, the Arab wife remains for\nmonths, possibly for a whole year, with her mother before taking up\nher abode in her husband\u2019s tent. The extreme delicacy of the customs\nregulating the behaviour of married pairs in ancient Sparta are well\nunderstood. According to Xenophon and Strabo, it was the custom, not\nonly among the Spartans but among the Cretans also, for married pairs\nto meet clandestinely. The same custom prevailed in ancient Lycia.\nLafitau says that among the North American Indians the husband visits\nhis wife only by stealth.[77]\n\n[75] _Ibid._, p. 591.\n\n[76] Seeman, _A Mission to Viti_, p. 191.\n\n[77] Quoted by Sir John Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 82.\n\nIt is stated by trustworthy authorities that among various tribes,\nduring the period of gestation and lactation, the person of the wife\nis sacred; that the rule of chastity, or continence, between married\npairs, during this season, is absolutely inviolate. In Fiji, women\nfurnish natural nourishment to their children for three or four years,\nduring which time their persons are respected.\n\n The relatives of the women take it as a public insult if any child\n should be born before the customary three or four years have elapsed,\n and they consider themselves in duty bound to avenge it in an equally\n public manner.\n\nMr. Seeman says:\n\n I heard of a white man, who, being asked how many brothers and sisters\n he had, frankly replied, \u201cten.\u201d \u201cBut that could not be,\u201d was the\n rejoinder of the natives, \u201cone mother could scarcely have so many\n children.\u201d\n\nWhen told that these children were born at annual intervals, and that\nsuch occurrences were common in Europe, they were very much shocked,\nand thought it explained sufficiently why so many white people were\n\u201cmere shrimps.\u201d After childbirth, among the Fijians, husband and\nwife separate and live apart for three and even four years, \u201cso that\nno other baby may interfere with the time considered necessary for\nsuckling the children, in order to make them strong and healthy.\u201d[78]\n\n[78] Seeman, _A Mission to Viti_, p. 191.\n\nThrough such wise regulations as these, governing the sexual relations,\nthe drain on the vital forces observed among the women of civilized\ncountries is avoided, and it was doubtless to these rules and others\nof a similar character that women, throughout untold ages of human\nexistence, were enabled to maintain a position of independence and\nsupremacy. We are informed that among the Fijians the birth of a child\nis cause for a perfect jubilee; that parental and filial affection\nis among the manifest virtues of this people. After referring to the\ntruthfulness and honesty of the Dyaks of Borneo, Mr. Wallace says that\n\u201cin several matters of morality they rank above most uncivilized, and\neven above many civilized, nations. They are temperate in food and\ndrink, and the gross sensuality of the Chinese and Malays is unknown\namong them.\u201d[79] Although the usual checks to population are absent\namong the Dyaks\u2014namely, starvation, disease, war, infanticide, and\nvice,\u2014still the women in the Dyak tribe rarely had more than three or\nfour children. In a village in which there were one hundred and fifty\nfamilies, in only one of them were there six children, and only six\nwith five children.\n\n[79] _The Malay Archipelago._\n\nIn whatever direction we turn, evidences are abundant going to prove\nthat under simpler and more natural conditions, and before corrupted by\nour later civilization, mankind were governed largely by the instincts\ndeveloped within the female constitution, and that long after her\nsupremacy over the male was lost, the effects of these purer conditions\nwere manifest in the customs, forms, and usages of the people.\n\nFrom the evidence at hand it seems more than likely that many of the\nextant tribes have at some remote period been civilized, and that\nthrough some natural catastrophe, the unfavourable conditions of\nclimate and soil, or some other equally disadvantageous cause, they\nhave again sunk to a low plane of existence from which they have been\nunable to rise. From available facts one is almost led to believe\nthat at a period in the remote past, and while living under purer\nconditions, a high stage of civilization was reached, a civilization\nwhich in many respects was equal if not superior to that of the\npresent. Be this as it may, whenever the environment of a people is\nsuch that after having reached a certain stage it is unable to advance,\nit does not remain stationary, but on the contrary follows a line of\nretrogression; or, whenever the conditions of a race or tribe are such\nthat the higher faculties which tend towards progress lie dormant,\nthe lower forces which incline toward retrogression and which are\npeculiarly active in low organisms still continue in operation.\n\nAlthough the social arrangement of the native Australians seems to be\nfounded on classes based on sex\u2014the earliest form of society\u2014still we\nfind them practising polygamy and monogamy side by side, at the same\ntime securing their wives by capture in exactly the same fashion as did\nthe early Greeks and Romans. It is apparent, therefore, that although\nthis people have not been able to advance in the arts of life, as far\nas the relations of the sexes are concerned they have taken about\nthe same course as have all the other tribes and races in which the\nsupremacy of the male has been gained. For unknown reasons, during\nthousands of years, the developing agencies have been quiescent, hence\nno check to the animal instincts has been interposed; the Australians\nhave therefore departed widely from the conditions which surrounded\nearly human society\u2014conditions under which the maternal instincts\ndeveloped in the lower orders of life were still sufficiently strong\nto guard the constructive processes and to continue the chain of\nuninterrupted progress.\n\nAs among the lowest existing tribes\u2014peoples which during countless\nages have been unable to advance\u2014only the ruder elements in the human\ncomposition have been developed, it is plain that from these tribes\nlittle if any information concerning an earlier or more natural age,\nwhen the animal instincts were controlled by the higher characters\ndeveloped in human nature, may be obtained; but from those peoples\nwithin the several successive stages of development whose environment\nhas been such as to admit of some degree of improvement in the arts of\nlife, and in whom therefore the higher characters developed in their\nmute progenitors have not been in a state of retrogression, may be\nobtained a clue to many of the processes by which our present social\nfabric has been raised. Among such peoples will be retained certain\nsymbols, habits, and traditions representing former modes of life,\nfrom which may be reconstructed much of the previous history of the\nrace. For instance, by means of the symbol of wife-capture, a form\nof marriage which is universal among tribes in a certain stage of\ndevelopment, has been furnished much trustworthy information relative\nto the institution of marriage and the development of the modern\nfamily. It matters not that the origin of these symbols is so remote\nthat their true significance is lost by the peoples who practise them,\nthey nevertheless repeat with unerring fidelity the past experiences\nof the race and reveal the origin of later institutions.\n\nAs the various tribes and races of mankind have probably sprung from a\ncommon progenitor, and as the \u201cnerve cells in the brain of all classes\nand orders have had the same origin,\u201d their development, although not\nidentical as to time and manner of detail, has been similar in outline\nand in general results; so it is thought that a correct knowledge of\nthe development of any tribe or race from savagery to civilization must\nnecessarily involve the general history of all the tribes and races of\nmankind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE GENS\u2014WOMEN UNDER GENTILE INSTITUTIONS\n\n\nThe earliest form of organized society was that into classes founded\non the basis of sex,[80] under which the right of individuals to\nintermarry was restricted to one-fourth of the group. This division\nof the early race, and the regulations prohibiting conjugal relations\nwith three-fourths the members of the related community, is thought\nto represent the first coercive abridgment or formal restriction of\nthe then existing conjugal rights, and was inaugurated for the purpose\nof averting the evil effects arising from intercourse between near\nrelations. Of this early form of society, however, and of the ages\nduring which no organized form existed, little may be known except that\nwhich is suggested by the instincts and habits of the highest animals,\nand that which may be inferred from an investigation of the next\nhigher organization, that into gentes on the basis of kin. Although\nuntold ages intervened between the ancient division of society into\nclasses founded on the basis of sex, and the higher and more important\norganization into gentes on the basis of kin, this last-named plan for\nthe further development of mankind became universal at a comparatively\nearly stage of human history.\n\n[80] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 52.\n\nBy an investigation of the fundamental principles of the gens, we\nshall be enabled to observe the similarity existing between the\ninstincts which governed early human action and those which controlled\nthe highest orders of life below mankind. All facts bearing on the\nprimitive conditions of the human race, which in these later times\nhave been brought to light through the investigations directed\ntoward peoples in the various stages of development, only serve to\nemphasize the importance of the altruistic principle in the formation\nof organized society and in the establishment of human institutions.\nAlthough the gens is the earliest form of organized society of which we\nhave any accurate knowledge, still as within it were encysted the germs\nof all the principles of justice and equality which our better human\nnature is beginning again to recognize, and which must characterize a\nhigher stage of progress, a knowledge of its underlying principles is\nnecessary to a correct understanding, not only of the past development\nof the race and all the existing human institutions, but of the course\nto be pursued toward the future advancement of mankind. Of the gens,\nMr. Morgan says:\n\n The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and most widely\n prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished the nearly universal\n plan of government of ancient society, Asiatic, European, African,\n American, and Australian. It was the instrumentality by means of which\n society was organized and held together. Commencing in savagery, and\n continuing through the three sub-periods of barbarism, it remained\n until the establishment of political society, which did not occur\n until after civilization had commenced. The Grecian gens, phratry,\n and tribe, the Roman gens, _curia_, and tribe find their analogues\n in the gens, phratry, and tribe of the American aborigines. In like\n manner, the Irish _sept_, the Scottish _clan_, the _phrara_ of the\n Albanians, and the Sanskrit _ganas_, without extending the comparison\n further are the same as the American-Indian gens, which has usually\n been called a clan. As far as our knowledge extends, this organization\n runs through the entire ancient world upon all the continents, and it\n was brought down to the historical period by such tribes as attained\n to civilization.... Gentile society wherever found is the same in\n structural organization and in principles of action; but changing from\n lower to higher forms with the progressive advancement of the people.\n These changes give the history of the development of the same original\n conceptions.[81]\n\n[81] _Ancient Society_, pp. 62, 63.\n\nEarly society, as observed under gentile institutions, was established\non purely personal and social relations, or, on the basis of the\nrelations of the individual to the rest of the community, a community\nin which each member could trace her or his origin back to the head of\nthe gens who was a woman. Under gentile institutions, or until the\nlatter stage of barbarism was reached, each individual, female and\nmale, constituted a unit in an aggregation or community whose interests\nwere identical, and as such, to a certain extent, was held responsible\nfor the safety and general welfare of every member composing the group.\n\nExtreme egoism, as it is the outgrowth of a later age, was unknown;\nand sympathy, the chief promoter of the well-being of mankind, a\nsprout from the well-established root, maternal affection, was the\npredominant characteristic of these primitive groups and the bond\nwhich held society together. Although the manner of reckoning descent\nhad been changed from the female to the male line, the purely social\norganization of the gens, on the basis of kin, was, as has been\nobserved, in operation at the beginning of our present civilization, at\nwhich time political society supervened, and individuals were no longer\nrecognized through their relations to a gens or tribe, but through\ntheir relations to the state, county, township, or deme, to which\ninstitutions they must henceforward look for protection and for the\nredress of injuries done either to person or property.\n\nAlthough, until a comparatively recent time, the writers who have dealt\nwith the subject of primitive society have been of the opinion that the\ntribe constituted the earliest organization of society, and that the\ngens and the family followed, later investigations show conclusively\nthat the gens, next to the remote and obscure division into classes,\nrepresents the oldest and most widely spread form of organized society,\nand that it was through segmentation or division of this archaic group\nthat the tribe was formed.\n\n The natural way in which a tribe is formed is from a family or group,\n which in time increases and divides into many households, still\n recognizing one another as kindred, and this kinship is so thoroughly\n felt to be the tie of the whole tribe, that even when there has been\n a mixture of tribes, a common ancestor is often invented to make an\n imaginary bond of union.[82]\n\n[82] Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 405.\n\nThe gens, until a comparatively recent time in the history of the human\nrace, was composed of a female ancestor, all her children and all the\nchildren of her daughters, but not of her sons. The sons\u2019 children and\ntheir descendants belonged to the gens of their respective mothers. The\nfamily, as it appears at the present time, was unknown. The gens was\nfounded on thoroughly democratic principles, each individual composing\nthe group, both female and male, having a voice in the regulation and\nmanagement of all matters pertaining to the general government of the\ncommunity. Any injury done to a gentilis was a wrong committed against\nthe entire gens of which she or he was a member, hence to her or his\nkinsmen each individual looked for protection and for redress of\npersonal wrongs.\n\nThe fundamental doctrine of tribal life is unity of blood. Although the\nearly groups, under the system of female descent, were united by the\nactual bond of kinship as traced through mothers, later, when descent\ncame to be traced through fathers, kinship was to a considerable extent\nfeigned. Kinship, under the system of male descent, meant not that\nthe blood of the great father actually flowed in the veins of all the\nmembers of the group, but that under a pretence of unity of blood, they\nwere bound together by common duties and responsibilities from which\nno one of them could escape. By the terms of the compact, every member\nmust stand by her or his own clan. In fact, in all their movements,\nthey must act as one individual; their interests were identical and the\nquarrel of any member of the group became the quarrel of all counted\nwithin the bond of kinship. If homicide were committed, they judged\nand punished the culprit, but if one of their number was slain by an\noutsider, the law of blood-feud, which demanded blood in return, was\nimmediately put into execution. Of the gens Mr. Morgan says:\n\n Within its membership the bond of kin was a powerful element for\n mutual support. To wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to\n support a person was to stand behind him with the entire array of this\n gentile kindred.[83]\n\n[83] _Ancient Society_, p. 76.\n\nAlthough in the later ages of gentile government, all the members of\na group were not necessarily bound by blood, from the nature of the\nrights conferred, and the obligations imposed, the bond uniting them\nwas doubtless stronger than that which now unites mere kindred. Of this\ntie uniting early groups J.\u202fG. Frazer says:\n\n All the members of a totem clan regard each other as kinsmen or\n brothers and sisters, and are bound to help and protect each other.\n The totem bond is stronger than the bond of blood or family in the\n modern sense.[84]\n\n[84] _Totemism_, p. 57.\n\nAs Arabia, at the time of Mohammed, was still under gentile\norganization, there is perhaps at the present day no country which\naffords a better opportunity for the study of several of the successive\nstages of human development. At the time indicated, the entire\nArabian peninsula was composed of a multitude of groups varying\nin civilization, which were bound together by common privileges,\nobligations, and responsibilities and by a real or pretended bond of\nkinship traced through males.\n\nIn early Arabia a group bound together by a real or feigned unity of\nblood was the type or unit of society. Sometimes a confederation of\nthese smaller groups was formed, but so strong was the bond between\nthe more closely related groups that they soon broke up into their\noriginal units. The genealogists assert that these groups which were\npatriarchal tribes founded on male descent are subdivisions of an\noriginal stock.\n\nAt the time of the Prophet the Arabians claimed to trace their descent\nfrom two brothers the sons of W\u00e2il. Prof. W. Robertson Smith informs\nus, however, that the name of one of these \u201cbrothers\u201d is a feminine\nappellation and that it is the designation of a tribe and not of a\nperson. He says: \u201cThe gender shows that the tribal name existed before\nthe mythical ancestor was invented,\u201d and adds: \u201cThe older facts down\nto the time of Al-Farazdac personify Taghlib as the daughter not the\nson of W\u00e2il. It is not unlikely that the mythical legend of Taghlib and\nBakr originated at a time when the female principle in human affairs\nand in the Deity was beginning to give place to the male.\u201d[85]\n\n[85] _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 14.\n\nWithin the traditions of the oldest races of which we have any account,\nare evidences of a desperate struggle between two races or between the\nfollowers of two opposing principles. In all parts of Arabia \u201cthese two\nraces maintained their ancestral traditions of bitter and persistent\nfeud.\u201d\n\nAlthough in Arabia, in the time of the Prophet, descent was traced in\nthe male line, the evidence is almost unlimited, going to show that\nit was not always so, but, on the contrary, that at an earlier age,\nrelationships were reckoned through women, mothers being the recognized\nheads of families and tribal groups. In his work on _Kinship and\nMarriage in Early Arabia_, Prof. W.\u202fR. Smith says:\n\n If a kinship tribe derives its origin from a great father, we may\n argue with confidence that it had the rule that children were of\n their father\u2019s tribe and kin; while on the other hand if we find, in\n a nation organized on the principle of unity of tribal blood, tribes\n which trace their origin to a great mother instead of a great father,\n we can feel sure that at some time the tribe followed the rule that\n the children belong to the mother and are of her kin. Now among the\n Arabs the doctrine of the unity of tribal blood is universal, as\n appears from the universal prevalence of the blood-feud. And yet among\n the Arab tribes we find no small number that refer their origin to a\n female eponym. Hence it follows that in many parts of Arabia kinship\n was once reckoned not in the male but in the female line.\n\nIn reply to the suggestion that the several families of polygamous\nfathers might be designated by the names of their several mothers,\nProfessor Smith observes:\n\n The point before us, however, is not the use of the mother\u2019s name by\n individuals for purposes of distinction, but the existence of kindred\n groups whose members conceive that the tie of blood which unites them\n into a tribe is derived from and limited by descent from a common\n ancestress. That the existence of such a group proves kinship through\n women to have been once the rule is as certain as that the existence\n of patronymic groups is evidence of male kinship. In most cases of the\n kind the female eponym is mythical, no doubt, and the belief in her\n existence is a mere inference from the rule of female kinship within\n the tribe, just as mythical male ancestors are inferred from a rule of\n male kinship. But even if we suppose the ancestress to be historical,\n the argument is much the same, for where the bond of maternity is so\n strong that it binds together the children of the same mother as a\n distinct kindred group against the other children of their father,\n there also we may be sure that the children of one mother by different\n fathers will hold together and not follow their father. And this is\n the principle of female kinship.[86]\n\n[86] _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, pp. 26, 27.\n\nIt is stated that the designation of tribal unity by a feminine\nappellation \u201cis not an arbitrary fiction of later facts,\u201d but that it\nis \u201cone of the old standing figures of Semitic speech.\u201d In Hebrew,\n_em_, which means mother, means also stock, race, or community.\n\nThe name for a tribal group in Arabia was _hayy_, a term which\nindicates life. It is observed that in Hebrew and Arabic _hayy_ is used\nin the same sense. \u201c_Hawwa_ is simply a phonetic variation of _hayy_\nwith a feminine termination,\u201d and \u201cEve, or _Hawwa_, is so called\nbecause she is the mother of all living, or, more literally, of every\n_hayy_.\u201d We are given to understand that, originally, there was no rule\nof reckoning kinship in Arabia except by the female line, and that the\nchange in descent from the female to the male line affected society to\nits very roots.\n\nThere seems to be little, if any, doubt that a system of reckoning\ndescent through women once prevailed throughout all the tribes and\nraces of mankind. In Greece, as late as the beginning of the historic\nperiod, traces of this early custom are to be observed, and, indeed, at\nthe present time, among many peoples, evidences of it are still extant.\nThe fact that throughout an earlier age of human existence descent\nand all the rights of succession were traced through women, is at the\npresent time so well established as to require no detailed proofs to\nsubstantiate it. Noting this custom among early races, and observing\nalso the natural conclusions to be drawn from such a state of society,\na few writers who have dealt with the subject of primitive races have\ntaken much pains to show that it does not naturally follow that under\nthese usages the influence of women was supreme; and their theories to\nexplain this (to them) no doubt singular phenomenon show the extent to\nwhich prejudice and long-established habits of thought have influenced\ntheir investigations. On this subject C. Staniland Wake remarks:\n\n There is strong reason for believing that the practice of tracing\n kinship in the female line was very widely observed from a very early\n period, but this is very different from the establishment of the\n supremacy of women. Where this was found it was due to the development\n of the gentile institution and the female kinship which accompanied\n it, on which, indeed, that institution was founded.[87]\n\n[87] _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 16.\n\nIf, however, during the earlier ages of human existence a system of\nkinship through women had been established which was able to produce\nthe gentile institution, or, if this institution, which was \u201cfounded\u201d\non female kinship and dependent upon it, was able through untold ages\nto direct all the processes of evolution, even though no other evidence\nwere at hand to prove it, then women\u2019s influence must have been\nwell-nigh supreme.\n\nSo deeply intrenched has become the idea of woman\u2019s subjection that it\nis impossible for many male writers to contemplate a state of society\nin which women are not dominated and controlled by men.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer\u2019s theory to explain the universal system of kinship\ntraced through woman involves the same idea of woman\u2019s subserviency to\nman, especially in the sexual relation, and is an illustration of the\nreasoning usually employed in dealing with this subject.\n\nAlthough \u201cthe very lowest races now existing, Fuegians, Australians,\nand Andamanese, show us that, however informally they have originated,\nsexual relations of a more or less enduring kind exist,\u201d he is certain\nthat among the earliest races a state of \u201clawlessness\u201d must have\nprevailed and that \u201cpromiscuity\u201d must have been the rule among them;\nand this too notwithstanding the fact that among the lower orders\nof life from which man has descended, and among the earliest races\nof mankind the female chooses her mate and refuses to pair with any\nindividual except the one of her choice. To account for the universal\nsystem of reckoning descent through the female, Mr. Spencer says that\nas the connection between mother and child is more \u201cobvious\u201d than\nthat existing between the father and his offspring the custom arose\nof reckoning descent through females.[88] The fact is observed that\nmaternal affection without which organized society would have been\nimpossible, and which alone can explain the system of kinship traced\nthrough women, is entirely ignored by Mr. Spencer.\n\n[88] _Sociology_ vol. i., p. 665.\n\nNoting the reasoning employed by many writers to prove that in the\nearliest ages of human existence, the maternal bond was ignored, and\nthat the child was accounted as being related only to the group, Mr.\nDarwin remarks:\n\n But it seems almost incredible that the relationship of the child\n to its mother should ever be completely ignored, especially as the\n women in most savage tribes nurse their infants for a long time, and\n as the lines of descent are traced through the mother alone, to the\n exclusion of the father.[89]\n\n[89] _Descent of Man_, p. 588.\n\nWe must bear in mind that under archaic usages not only did mothers\nnurse their infants two, three, and even four years, but that maternity\nwas the bond which held together related groups and the source whence\nproceeded all property rights and tribal honours; also, that under\nthe system of female kinship, male parentage was known but habitually\ndisregarded. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Spencer can see no reason\nfor concluding that in the most primitive groups there were no\n\u201cindividual possessions of women by men.\u201d[90]\n\n[90] _Sociology_, vol. i., p. 665.\n\nThe late Sir A. Smith, who had travelled widely in South Africa and was\nacquainted with the habits of savages there and elsewhere, expressed\nthe strongest opinion that \u201cno race exists in which woman is considered\nas the property of the community.\u201d[91] The reasoning employed by Mr.\nSpencer to disprove the early supremacy of women seems scarcely to\njustify his lofty pretensions to intellectual greatness.\n\n[91] Quoted by Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 588.\n\nIn a state of society in which women were the recognized heads of\nfamilies and eponymous groups where children took the mother\u2019s name,\nand in which all rights of succession were traced through them, it is\nreasonable to suppose that female influence was in the ascendency over\nthat of the male, and especially so as primitive human beings were\nlargely controlled by instincts inherited from the orders of life in\nwhich the female chooses her mate and controls the sex-functions.\n\nA knowledge of the customs and tribal usages of the Iroquois Indians\nthrows much light on the early position of women. When this tribe first\ncame under the observation of Europeans it was in the first stage of\nbarbarism, and as the manner and order of development of the various\nraces of mankind are said to be substantially the same, and as many of\nthe facts connected with the history of this truly interesting people\nthrough nearly three ethnical periods are accessible, it is thought\nthat by it, as well as by the Arabians, is afforded an excellent\nopportunity for the study of the general history of mankind during\nthese periods. To Mr. Morgan we are indebted for the results of a\nthorough research into the customs, manners, and laws of this people.\n\nThrough a knowledge of the rights, privileges, and obligations which\nwere conferred and imposed on the members of the Iroquois gens while\nin the second state of barbarism, we are enabled to perceive the\nprinciples of true democracy upon which gentile institutions are based;\nand this is important, for the reason that later in this work I intend\nto trace the decline of those principles of liberty and equality\nestablished under female influence and to show the reasons for the\nsubsequent rise of monarchy, aristocracy, and slavery.\n\nThe rights, privileges, and obligations of the Iroquois tribe of\nIndians, as enunciated by Mr. Morgan, are as follows:\n\n The right of electing its sachem and chiefs. The right of deposing its\n sachem and chiefs. The obligation not to marry in the gens. Mutual\n rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members. Reciprocal\n obligations of help, defence, and redress of injuries. The right of\n bestowing names upon its members. The right of adopting strangers into\n the gens. Common religious rites. A common burial place. A council of\n the gens.[92]\n\n[92] _Ancient Society_, p. 71.\n\nAs this writer truly remarks: \u201cThese functions and attributes gave\nvitality as well as individuality to the organization, and protected\nthe personal rights of its members.\u201d\n\nEligibility to the office of chief was based on personal merit, and\ncontinuance in office depended on the acknowledged fitness of the\nindividual occupying it. The qualifications required for this office\nwere personal bravery, ability to lead, and eloquence in council.\nThe chief exercised no kingly authority over the tribe by which he\nwas appointed; on the contrary, his personality was respected and\nhis counsels heeded, not because of his official prerogatives, but\non account of the qualities by which his character was dignified;\ntherefore so soon as he proved himself unworthy of the trust confided\nto him he was deposed by the same agency which had elected him. Hence\nmay be observed the truly democratic character of the gens.\n\nConcerning the position occupied by women, and the influence which\nthey exerted in the management of the clan, Ashur Wright, who was for\nmany years missionary to the Senecas, in 1873, wrote to Mr. Morgan the\nfollowing:\n\n As to their family system when occupying the old long houses, it\n is probable that some one clan predominated, the women taking in\n husbands, however, from the other clans; and sometimes, for a novelty,\n some of their sons bringing in their young wives until they felt brave\n enough to leave their mothers. Usually the female portion ruled the\n house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were in\n common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless\n to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children or\n whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be\n ordered to pick up his blanket and budge; and after such orders it\n would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey. The house would\n be too hot for him; and, unless saved by intercession of some aunt or\n grandmother, he must retreat to his own clan; or, as was often done,\n go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The women were\n the great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not\n hesitate, when occasion required, \u201cto knock off the horns,\u201d as it was\n technically called, from the head of a chief, and send him back to\n the ranks of the warriors. The original nomination of the chiefs also\n always rested with them.[93]\n\n[93] _Ancient Society_, p. 455.\n\nIn the Lower Status of barbarism we find intermarriage within the gens\nprohibited, and the obligation not to marry those accounted as kin as\nstrong as a religious duty.\n\nAlthough during the latter ages of savagery the idea of property was\nslightly developed, it is thought that it lay nascent until the latter\npart of the first period of barbarism. Indeed, until the first stage\nof barbarism was reached, the idea of personal possession had gained\nonly a slight foothold in the mental constitution of mankind. Egoism,\nselfishness, or the desire to better one\u2019s individual condition at the\nexpense of the rest of the gens was unknown. All lands were controlled\nby the group, and as the property of early society consisted for the\nmost part of personal effects and proprietary rights in communal houses\nand gardens, one of the most fruitful causes for dissensions in more\nadvanced stages of society was avoided. Under primitive conditions,\nquarrels arising over disputed ownership within the gens were unknown,\nand liberty, equality, and fraternity, the cardinal virtues and\nprinciples of early society were able to flourish undisturbed by the as\nyet unheard of vices inherent in the excessive desire for property.\n\nIn reference to some of the small uncivilized communities which he\nvisited, Mr. Wallace says that each man respects the rights of his\nfellow,\n\n and any infraction of these rights rarely or never takes place. In\n such a community all are nearly equal. There are none of those wide\n distinctions of education and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master\n and servant, which are the product of our civilization; there is none\n of that widespread division of labour, which, while it increases\n wealth, produces also conflicting interests; there is not that severe\n competition and struggle for existence or for wealth which the dense\n population of civilized countries inevitably creates.[94]\n\n[94] _The Malay Archipelago._\n\nUnder the archaic rule of the gens, at the death of a male, whether\nmarried or single, his possessions descended to his sister\u2019s children;\nwhile at the death of a female, her property, including her personal\neffects, was distributed among her sisters and her children and the\nchildren of her daughters, but the children of her sons were not\nincluded among her heirs. The sons\u2019 children belonged to the gentes\nof their respective mothers, and as descent and all the relationships\nto which rights of succession were attached were traced only in the\nfemale line, and as property until the middle of the Second Status of\nbarbarism was strictly confined to the gens in which it originated,\nchildren could receive nothing from their fathers. Wives and husbands,\nas they belonged to separate gentes, received nothing from one another.\nIn later times, when tribal honours were confined within certain\nfamilies or groups, as descent and property rights were all traced\nin the female line, each male was dependent upon his female blood\nrelations, not only for his common inherited privileges in the gens,\nbut for any civil or military distinction to which he might attain.\n\nWhere female kinship prevails, a Rajah\u2019s son may become a hodman,\ntaking the state of his mother\u2014while the son of the Rajah\u2019s sister\nmounts the throne.[95]\n\n[95] McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 103.\n\nAmong the Rocch tribe, a people among which descent is traced in the\nfemale line, a man goes on marriage to live with his wife and her\nmother, of whose family he is a subordinate member.[96]\n\n[96] C. Staniland Wake, _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 306.\n\n A Rocch man goes, on his marriage, like the _beena_ husband of Ceylon,\n to live with his wife and her mother; on his marriage, all his\n property is made over to his wife, and on her death her heirs are her\n daughters.[97]\n\n[97] _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 103.\n\nFor the same reason that wives and husbands were debarred from sharing\nin each other\u2019s property, their bodies, or more properly speaking,\ntheir bones, were separated at death, as were also the bones of father\nand child. The bones of the children always rested beside those of the\nmother. It was impious to mix the bones of unrelated persons. To such\nan extent was the Motherright recognized under archaic usages that the\nchild belonged exclusively to the mother and her relations, the father\nhaving no recognized proprietary right to his offspring. Indeed, so\nlightly was the paternal relation regarded that the father was supposed\nto have little if any interest in his own children.\n\nAlthough the bond between a man and his offspring was weak, toward his\nsister\u2019s children, as they belonged to the same gens with himself, a\nconsiderable degree of manly interest was manifested; indeed, it has\nbeen stated that about the same solicitude was evinced by him for their\nwelfare, as was shown at a later time by fathers for the members of\ntheir own household.\n\nObserving the care manifested for a sister\u2019s children among various\ntribes, certain writers have declared that the relationship existing\nbetween a child and its mother\u2019s brother is more important than any\nother\u2014that the brother is practically the head of his sister\u2019s family.\nHowever, if we bear in mind the relative positions of the sexes in\nprimitive groups, that women controlled their homes, and that all the\nrights of succession were traced through them, we shall doubtless be\nled to the conclusion that mothers themselves were the real heads\nof their own families, and that although they may have delegated to\ntheir brothers, who until marriage were permitted to reside with them,\ncertain manly offices, they nevertheless reserved to themselves the\nexclusive right to the control and management of their own households.\nAs the land belonged to the gens, and as the gentes were controlled by\nwomen, mothers were absolutely independent.\n\nEach child received a name soon after birth, but at the age of sixteen\nor eighteen this name was discarded and another adopted. Special\nrights were thus conferred and specified obligations were imposed. On\nreceipt of this name, the incumbent took upon himself all the duties\nand responsibilities devolving upon a member of the group and by it was\nentitled to all its rights and privileges. The greatest precautions\nwere taken with respect to the adoption of names. The office of naming\nthe different members belonged to the female relations and the chiefs.\nWe are informed that the mother might, if she chose, transfer her child\nto another gens. This was accomplished by simply giving it the name of\nthe gens in which she desired its adoption. It is claimed that among\nthe Shawnees and Delawares the mother claimed the right to transfer\nher child to another gens than her own.[98] It would seem from this,\nthat among certain tribes, the mother, if she desires, may transfer\nher child to the gens of its father. It is observed, however, that the\ntransference of a child from its mother\u2019s gens is a \u201cwide departure\nfrom archaic usages, and exceptional in practice.\u201d\n\n[98] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 79.\n\nIt has been shown that under early usages wealth was never transferred\nfrom the gens in which it originated; but later, when property began\nto be claimed by individuals, and wealth was amassed in the hands of\nmales, it is not unlikely that mothers, considering only the future\nwelfare of their children, in case the father was rich and powerful,\nwould occasionally take advantage of their established privileges to\nremove their children to his gens, in order that they might share in\nhis possessions.\n\nSomething of the humanity practised in early groups may be observed in\nthe custom of adoption, which, at a certain stage in their development,\nprevailed among them. In the earlier ages of gentile institutions,\nwomen and children taken prisoners in war, were usually adopted into\nsome gens. Adoption not only conferred gentile rights, but also the\nnationality of the tribe. A person adopted into a gens was treated ever\nafterwards as though born within the group. \u201cSlavery which in the Upper\nStatus of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among\ntribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period.\u201d[99]\n\n[99] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 80.\n\nAccording to Mariner:\n\n It is customary in the Tonga Islands for women to be what they call\n mothers to children or grown-up young persons who are not their own,\n for the purpose of providing them, or seeing that they are provided,\n with all the conveniences of life.[100]\n\n[100] Quoted by Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 96.\n\nAccording to Mr. E.\u202fJ. Wood, among the Kaffirs, although the men\ninherit the property, their influences being in the ascendency, every\nwoman has someone who acts as her father whether her own father be\nliving or not. Kaffir law provides for the protection of all women,\nand so long as a male relation lives a girl has a protector. It goes\neven farther than this, and protects women who have been bereft of all\ntheir male relations. For such as these provision is made for their\nadoption into other groups, in which case, although they are received\nas dependents, they are protected as daughters.[101]\n\n[101] _Uncivilized Races of the World_, vol. i., p. 78.\n\nThis practice of adoption is observed among various peoples. Among\ncertain tribes in which descent is traced through women, a woman offers\nher breast to the person she is adopting, this being the strongest\nsymbol of the unity of blood. Thus may be noted the fact that the\nfundamental idea, or principle, of tribal life is maternity, or the\nmaternal instinct\u2014that the uniting force which binds a child to its\nmother is the one which is supposed to unite the various members of a\nprimitive group. So strongly has the maternal instinct as a binding\nprinciple taken root, that among certain peoples even where the manner\nof reckoning descent and the rights of succession have been changed\nfrom the female to the male line, whenever an individual wishes to\nbe adopted into a gens he takes the hand of the leader of the group\nand sucking one of his fingers, declares himself to be his child by\nadoption; henceforth the new father is bound to assist him as far as he\ncan.[102] Adoption \u201cby the imitation of nature\u201d was practised by the\nRomans down to the time of Augustus.\n\n[102] Parkyns, _Life in Abyssinia_, vol. i., p. 174.\n\nIt has been observed that under the matriarchal system the mother was\nthe only recognized parent, hence, when the father began to assume\nthe rights and prerogatives which had hitherto belonged only to her,\nin order to make valid his claim, it was thought proper for him to go\nthrough various of the preliminaries attendant on childbirth.\n\nOf all the forms practised among lower races there is none, perhaps,\nwhich is more singular than is that of putting the father instead of\nthe mother to bed in the event of the birth of a child. Concerning this\ncustom, Mr. Tylor quotes from Klemm the following:\n\n Among the Arawaks of Surinam, for some time after the birth of his\n child the father must fell no tree, fire no gun, hunt no large game;\n he may stay near home, shoot little birds with a bow and arrow, and\n angle for little fish; but his time hanging heavy on his hands, the\n most comfortable thing he can do is to lounge in his hammock.[103]\n\n[103] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 296.\n\nMr. Tylor quotes also from the Jesuit missionary, Dobrizhoffer, who\ngives the following account of the Abipones:\n\n No sooner do you hear that the wife has borne a child, than you will\n see the Abipone husband lying in bed, huddled up with mats and skins,\n lest some ruder breath of air should touch him, fasting, kept in\n private, and for a number of days abstaining religiously from certain\n viands; you would swear it was he who had had the child.\n\nThe custom of putting the father to bed when a child is born is called\n_la couvade_, and traces of it are yet to be found in France. It is\nalso practised among the Basques, and according to C. Staniland Wake,\nwas anciently observed in Corsica, among the Iberians of Spain, and in\nthe country south of the Black Sea. It is still practised in Southern\nIndia, in Yunnan, in Borneo, in Kamchatka, and in Greenland. It is said\nalso to be in use among the various tribes in South America.[104] The\npersistency of this practice shows the importance formerly attached\nto the maternal functions, and, as has been suggested, was doubtless\ninaugurated at a time when descent was being changed from the female to\nthe male line.\n\n[104] _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 262.\n\nIt was perhaps in the latter part of the Middle Status of barbarism\nthat descent and the rights of succession began to be traced through\nmales. When, through causes which will be noticed later in this work,\nproperty began to accumulate in the hands of men, children became the\nrecognized heirs of their fathers and the foundation for the present\nform of the family was laid. However, long after descent began to\nbe reckoned through males, absolute paternity was not necessary to\nfatherhood. During the earlier ages of male supremacy, fatherhood, like\nbrotherhood, was a loose term and signified simply the head of a house,\nor the \u201clord\u201d or owner of the mother. It mattered little whether a man\nhad previously lent his wife to a friend, or whether he had shared\nher favours with several brothers, all the children \u201cborn on his bed\u201d\nbelonged to him and were of his family.\n\nLater in these pages will be observed the fact that the change in\nreckoning descent, which occurred at a comparatively late period in\nthe history of the human race, is directly connected with the means of\nsubsistence. So long as land was held in common by the members of the\ngens, and so long as women were able to manage the means of support,\ntheir independence was secure, and they were able to exercise absolute\ncontrol over their own persons, their homes, and their offspring. Under\nthese conditions men were obliged to please the women if they would win\ntheir favours.\n\nFrom facts which have been demonstrated by various writers on the\nsubject of the early conditions of the human race, it is more than\nprobable that women were the original tillers of the soil, and that,\nduring the first period of barbarism, while the hunters and warriors\nwere engaged in war and the chase, occupations best suited to their\ntaste, women first discovered the art of producing farinaceous food\nthrough cultivation, and through this discovery a hitherto exclusive\ndiet of fish and game was changed for a subsistence in part vegetable.\n\nIt is conjectured also that the first domestication of animals was\nbrought about through a probable \u201cfreak of fancy.\u201d That individuals\namong these animals were first caught by hunters, conveyed by them to\ntheir homes, and there tamed through the tenderness and sympathy of\nwomen, is considered more than likely. There are, however, so far as I\nknow, no actual facts upon which to base such a conclusion.\n\nThe increase of subsistence through horticulture and the domestication\nof animals marks an important era in the history of mankind. By this\nmeans the human race was enabled to spread itself over distant areas,\nand through the improved condition of nutrition alone, by which the\nphysical conditions were improved and the mental energies strengthened,\nthe arts of life were multiplied and the course of human activities\ndirected into higher and more important channels. Indeed, through the\nnumerous benefits derived from the one source of increased and improved\nsubsistence, the entire mode of life was changed or materially modified.\n\nThe religious idea, which subsequently comprehended a complicated\nsystem of mythology based on phallic worship, at this early age,\nconsisted simply of a recognition of the bounties of earth. The\nprincipal office connected with the religious ceremonies of the\nIroquois tribe of Indians, at the stage of development in which it was\nfirst known to Europeans, seems to have been \u201cKeeper of the Faith,\u201d\na position occupied alike by both sexes. The Keepers of the Faith\nwere chosen by the wise members of the group; they were censors of\nthe people, with power to report the evil deeds of persons to the\ncouncil. \u201cWith no official head, and none of the marks of a priesthood,\ntheir functions were equal.\u201d[105] For the most part, their religious\nservices consisted of festivals held at stated seasons to celebrate\nthe return of the bounties of Nature. A notable fact in connection\nwith this subject is, that during the earlier ages of barbarism the\nreligious idea was thoroughly monotheistic, and idolatry was unknown,\nreligious worship, for the most part, consisting of a ceremony of\nthanksgiving, with invocations to the Great Mother-Nature to continue\nto them the blessings of life. As altruism waned and egoism advanced,\nhowever, supernaturalism, or a belief in unseen forces, became more\nand more pronounced, until, in the Latter Status of barbarism, when\nthe supremacy of man had become complete, the gens became merely the\n\u201ccentre of religious influence and the source of religious development.\u201d\n\n[105] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 82.\n\nThe earlier governmental functions were administered through a council\nof chiefs elected by the gentes. The thoroughly democratic character\nof the gens may be observed in the fact that any member, female or\nmale, who desired to communicate with the council on matters of public\ninterest, might express her or his opinion either in person or through\nan orator of her or his own selection.[106] Hence, we observe that\ngovernment originated in the gens, which was a pure democracy.\n\n[106] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 117.\n\nRegarding the council of the gens, Mr. Morgan remarks:\n\n It was a democratic assembly because every adult male and female\n member had a voice upon all questions brought before it. It elected\n and deposed its sachem and chiefs, it elected Keepers of the Faith, it\n condoned or avenged the murder of a gentilis, and it adopted persons\n into the gens. It was the germ of the higher council of the tribe, and\n of that still higher of the confederacy, each of which was composed\n exclusively of chiefs as representatives of the gentes....\n\n All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they\n were bound to defend each other\u2019s freedom; they were equal in\n privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no\n superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of\n kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were\n cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material because the\n gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation\n upon which Indian society was organized.... At the epoch of European\n discovery the American Indian tribes generally were organized in\n gentes with descent in the female line. The gens was the basis of the\n phratry, of the tribe, and of the confederacy of tribes.[107]\n\n[107] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 85.\n\nFrom the foregoing it would seem that the gens\u2014the earliest\norganization of society of which we have any accurate knowledge\u2014was\nfounded on the \u201cmother-right\u201d or on the supremacy of women. We are\nassured that the gentile organization is not confined to the Latin,\nGrecian, and Sanskrit-speaking tribes, but that it has been found \u201cin\nother branches of the Aryan family of nations, in the Semitic, Uralian,\nand Turanian families, among the tribes of Africa and Australia, and of\nthe American aborigines.\u201d[108]\n\n[108] _Ibid._, p. 64.\n\nA tribe was composed of several gentes, the chiefs of which formed the\ncouncil. This council was invested with the power to declare war and to\nregulate terms of peace, to receive embassies and make alliances; it\nwas in fact authorized to perform all the governmental functions of the\ntribe. The duties performed by the council of chiefs may be regarded\nas the first attempt at representative government. In process of time,\nas the affairs of the tribe became more complicated, a need arose for\na recognized head, one who when the council was not in session could\nlead in the adjustment of matters pertaining to the general interest\nof the group. In response to this demand, one of the sachems was\ninvested with a slight degree of authority over the other chiefs. Hence\narose the military chieftain of the Latter Status of barbarism. That\nthe powers delegated to the incumbent of this office differed widely\nfrom those of a modern monarch, is shown in the fact that as he had\nbeen elected by the members of the group he could by them be deposed.\nWe have seen that the powers exercised by sachem and chief were alike\ntransmitted through women. The mother is the natural guardian of the\nfamily; so soon therefore as the actions of the leaders of the group\nwere not in accord with those principles of equality and justice which\nhad characterized society since its organization, they were deposed,\nor, as in the case of the Senecas described by Ashur Wright, they had\ntheir \u201chorns knocked off\u201d through the influence of women.\n\nAt the head of the family, or gens, producing and controlling the\nprincipal means of subsistence, and forming the line of descent and\ninheritance, women, until the closing ages of the Middle Status of\nbarbarism, were without doubt the leading spirits, and thus far the\nprogress of mankind had been in strict accord with those principles\nwhich since the separation of the sexes had governed development.\n\nIn process of time, however, the simple form of government which\nhas been described was found inadequate to meet the demands arising\nfrom the more complicated requirements of increasing numbers and\nthe general growth of society; therefore, during the opening ages\nof the Latter Status of barbarism, a form of government was evolved\nwhich was better suited to their changed conditions. When the idea\nof a coalescence of tribes, or of a combination of forces for common\ndefence had taken root, and when under such confederation the council\nof chiefs had become co-ordinated with a military leader for the\ngeneral management and defence of the community, it was thought that an\nimportant step had been taken in progressive governmental functions.\nYet, along with the higher development of the governmental idea is to\nbe observed also a growing tendency toward the usurpation of power.\nScarcely was the office of military chieftain created, than we find the\npeople inaugurating measures with which to protect themselves against\nencroachments upon their liberties, and devising means whereby they\nmight be enabled to check the personal ambition of their leaders.\n\nThe extreme egoism developed within the male constitution was already\nmanifesting itself in the excessive greed for gain, and in the\ninordinate thirst for military glory; hence, as a safeguard against\nusurpation, in the earliest stages of the Latter Status of barbarism,\nwe find the tribe electing two military chieftains instead of one,\ntwo leaders invested with equal powers and responsibilities and\nsubjected to the same restrictions and limitations in the exercise\nof authority. The Spartan government upon its first appearance in\nhistory is characterized by the existence of two war-chieftains, who,\nby historians of later ages, have been designated as kings; a closer\ninvestigation, however, of the functions performed by them shows that\nthey were lacking in nearly all the prerogatives which characterize a\nmodern sovereign.\n\nSo jealously had the rights of the people been guarded that the\n_basileus_ or war-chief of the Latter Status of barbarism, who is said\nto represent the germ of our present king, emperor, and president, had\nnot succeeded in drawing to himself the powers exercised by a monarch\nof modern times. The selection of a military leader, during the Latter\nStatus of barbarism, doubtless represents the first differentiation\nof the civil from the military functions of government, and indicates\na virtual acknowledgment of the fact that society had outgrown the\nprimary and more simple form of government administered by the council\nof chiefs.\n\nThe third stage in the development of the idea of government was\nrepresented by a council of chiefs, a military commander, and an\nassembly of the people. In this further growth of the administrative\nfunctions may be discovered the same solicitude for individual liberty\nand the rights of the community which had characterized the former\nstage of development, and also the fact that still greater precautions\nwere deemed necessary to insure the people against tyranny and\nthe usurpation of their established rights. The council of chiefs,\nalthough representing a pure democracy, and co-ordinated with two\nmilitary chieftains, between whom was an equal division of power and\nresponsibility, was found to be an insufficient safeguard against\ndespotism; hence the measures devised for the management of the\nconfederacy must henceforth be subjected to an Assembly of the People,\nwhich, although of itself unable to originate or propound any plan\nof government, was invested with the power to accept or reject any\nmeasures offered for adoption by the council.\n\nThe gens was able to carry mankind through to the opening ages of\ncivilization, at which time the council of chiefs was transformed\ninto a senate, and the Assembly of the People assumed the form of the\npopular assembly, from which have been derived our present Congress and\nthe two houses of the English Parliament.\n\nBy a careful study of the growth of government, it is discerned that\nliberty, fraternity, and equality were the original and natural\ninheritance of the human family, and that tyranny, injustice, and\noppression are excrescences which subsequently fastened themselves upon\nhuman institutions through the gradual rise of the egoistic principle\ndeveloped in human nature. We have seen that until the beginning of the\nLatter Status of barbarism, the gens constituted a sovereign power in\nthe tribe; women controlled the gens, and sachem and chief were alike\ninvested with the authority necessary for leadership because they could\ntrace their descent to some female ancestor who was the acknowledged\nhead of the people, and whose influence and patronage must have\nextended over all the individuals included within the recognized bond\nof kinship.\n\nWith the deposing power in the hands of women, and with the precautions\nwhich were taken by them against injustice or usurpation of rights, it\nis plain that unless some unusual or unprecedented circumstances had\ncome into play, they never could have lost that supremacy which, as the\nnatural result of their development, had been maintained by females\nsince the separation of the sexes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE\n\n    I will be master of what is mine own;\n    She is my goods, my chattels; she\u2019s my house,\n    My household stuff, my field, my barn,\n    My horse, my ox, my ass, my everything.\n\n    _The Taming of the Shrew._\n\n\nIt is an obvious fact that so far as her sex relations are concerned\nthe position of civilized woman is lower than that of the female animal.\n\nThe question which presents itself at this stage of our inquiry is:\nWhat were the causes which led to the overthrow of female supremacy or\nwhat were the processes by which man gained the undisputed right to the\ncontrol of woman\u2019s person? By contrasting the industrial position of\nwomen under gentile institutions with that of later times, after they\nhad become the sexual slaves of men, it will be seen that the question\nof economics is deeply involved in this change. Although the early\nindependence of women is now recognized, the fact of their industrial\nsupremacy is for the most part ignored. Indeed the part performed by\nwoman in originating and developing human industries is seldom referred\nto by those dealing with this subject.\n\nAs the activities best suited to the tastes of primitive man were\nconfined to war and the chase, those occupations and pursuits which\nwere necessary for the preservation of the group were carried on by\nwomen. The reason for this is obvious. Fathers were not regarded as\nbeing related to their offspring. The mother was the only recognized\nparent. As the land was held in common, women were economically free.\nThey were absolutely independent of men for their support. Under these\nconditions the importance of women\u2019s position may be easily perceived.\n\nNot only did women establish the first industries, but they invented\nand constructed the tools and implements by which these industries\nwere carried on. Women were the first tillers of the soil. It was they\nwho conceived the idea of preserving seeds whereby farinaceous food\nmight be produced. Corn was not only raised by them but by them it\nwas ground and further prepared for use. They built clay granaries in\nwhich to store their food products and tamed the cat to protect them.\nImplements for tilling the soil, and devices for grinding the grain\nwere invented by women. They were the first architects and the first\nbuilders. They first conceived the idea of making cloth with which to\nprotect the body. They were the first spinners and the first weavers.\nThey invented the first spindles and the first looms. Their attempts\nat decoration were the beginning of art.\n\nAs these pioneers in industry were without means of transportation\nother than their backs, some of the difficulties which they encountered\nmay be readily perceived. It must be borne in mind that for primitive\nwomen there was no accumulated store of knowledge and no previous\nrace-experiences; neither were there any established rules or\nprecedents to guide them. All methods and utilities had to be worked\nout by woman\u2019s unaided brain. When the conditions under which these\npioneers in industry laboured are considered, and when one reflects\non the obstacles which must have presented themselves at every step\nalong their untried pathway, it would almost seem that their early\nachievements were quite as remarkable as are those which have since\nbeen accomplished by men.\n\nThe fact is observed that woman assumed the r\u00f4le of protector and\nprovider, not as is commonly asserted because she was compelled by\nman to become a beast of burden, but because she was the recognized\nguardian not only of infant life but of the public welfare. Later,\nafter the primitive groups began to coalesce to form the tribe, after\nwife-capture became prevalent and men thereby secured the right to the\ncontrol and ownership of individual women, a right which they still\nclaim, then and not till then did women become beasts of burden. Then\nand not till then did man gain the right to the control of woman\u2019s\nperson.\n\nIt is now known that wife-capture is the origin of our present form\nof marriage, and that the establishment of the family with man at its\nhead rests on the same basis. It is also known that through forcible\nmarriage and the economic conditions which it entailed, woman became\na dependent, a mere appendage to her male mate. The dominion of man\nand the assumed inferiority of woman are the direct results of the\nauthority which he was able to exercise over her in the marital\nrelation.\n\nWe have seen that prior to the decline of female influence women taken\nprisoners in war were not regarded as the legitimate property of their\ncaptors. On the contrary, female captives were adopted into the gens\nand invested with the same status of personal independence enjoyed by\nthe original members of the group. Later, however, female prisoners\nbegan to be regarded as the special booty of their captors, and as\nbelonging exclusively to them; and although in primitive times marriage\noutside the limits of related groups was prohibited, owing to the\nesteem in which military chieftains came to be held, this claim was at\nlength allowed them. Any courageous young warrior, conscious of his\npopularity, might gather about him a band of his clansmen and march\nagainst a neighbouring tribe, the women taken prisoners during such\nexpeditions being the special prizes of their captors.\n\nThese prisoners were entitled to none of the privileges of the\ncommunity into which they were taken; and as the hostility felt toward\nunrelated tribes had become so strong as to be shared by women, the\ncaptive woman could no longer look for pity even from her own sex.\n\nFrom this time in the history of the race may be traced the decline\nof woman\u2019s power and the subjection of the natural female impulses.\nAs, at this stage, within the limits of their own tribe, women held\nthe balance of power in their own hands, and as they still exercised\nunqualified control over their own persons, the acknowledged ownership\nof one woman, who, being a \u201cstranger,\u201d was without power or influence,\nwould be an object much to be desired, and one for which a warrior\nwould not hesitate to brave the dangers of a hostile camp. Hence,\nfemale captives were in demand, and the women of warring tribes were\nsought after singly and in groups. In process of time wars for wives\nbecame general and under the new regime women had the fear of captivity\nconstantly before their view as a condition more to be dreaded than\ndeath.\n\nIn the _Mahabharata_ of India it is stated that formerly \u201cwomen were\nunconfined and roved about at their pleasure, independent.\u201d Finally,\nmarriage was instituted and a woman was bound to a man for life. One\nof the eight forms of legalized marriage in the code of Manu was that\nof capture _de facto_ and was called _Racshasa_. This particular form\nof conjugal union was practised exclusively by the military classes,\namong which, the women taken in battle were the acknowledged booty of\ntheir captors. A definition of this kind of marriage is as follows:\n\u201cThe seizure of a maiden by force from her house while she weeps and\ncalls for assistance, after her kinsmen and friends have been slain in\nbattle or wounded, and their houses broken open, is the marriage called\n_Racshasa_.\u201d\n\nCapture as the prescribed form of marriage for warriors may be traced\nthrough thousands of years and among various peoples. Of the three\nlegalized forms of marital union in Rome, that by capture was the one\nin use among the plebeians, the patricians at the same time practising\n_Confarreatio_ and _Usus_. In Arabia, as late as Mohammed\u2019s time, the\ncarrying off of women was recognized as a legal form of marriage.[109]\n\n[109] W. Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 73.\n\nThat capture constituted a legal form of marriage among the Israelites,\nor that women taken captives in war were appropriated as sexual slaves,\nis shown by their religious history, in which the instructions given\nto the Lord\u2019s chosen people after they had taken a city was to \u201csmite\nevery male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the\nlittle ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city\u201d they were to\ntake unto themselves. This, it will be noticed, is to be done \u201cunto\nthe cities which are very far off,\u201d and which \u201care not of the cities of\nthese nations.\u201d[110]\n\n[110] Deuteronomy, chap. xx., 13, 14, 15.\n\nWhen the Israelites 12,000 strong marched against the Midianites, they\nwere commanded by Moses to slay all the males, adults and children,\nand all the women except the virgins. These virgins of whom there\nwere 32,000 were to be spared and utilized as wives by the victorious\nIsraelites. The fact will be noted that these women had been taken\nfrom their own people, hence they were wholly without influence or\npower. They were dependents and therefore subject to the will of their\nmasters. They were sexual slaves or wives.\n\nIn Australia, among the North American Indians, the tribes of the\nAmazon and the Orinoco, in Hindustan and Afghanistan, marriage by\nactual capture is still practised, and many of the details connected\nwith the _modus operandi_ have been given by various writers. The\nfollowing from Sir George Gray, relative to this form of marriage as it\nexists at the present time among some of the native Australian tribes,\nis quoted by Mr. J.\u202fF. McLennan.\n\nAlthough a woman give no encouragement to her admirers,\n\n many plots are laid to carry her off, and in the encounters which\n result from these, she is almost certain to receive some violent\n injury, for each of the combatants orders her to follow him, and in\n the event of her refusing, throws a spear at her. The early life of a\n young woman at all celebrated for beauty is generally one continued\n series of captivity to different masters, of ghastly wounds, of\n wanderings in strange families, of rapid flights, of bad treatment\n from other females, amongst whom she is brought a stranger by her\n captor; and rarely do you see a form of unusual grace and elegance,\n but it is marked and scarred by the furrows of old wounds; and many\n a female thus wanders several hundred miles from the home of her\n infancy, being carried off successively to distant and more distant\n points.[111]\n\n[111] _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 40.\n\nIn an account describing the search for wives by the natives of Sydney,\nCollins says:\n\n The poor wretch is stolen upon in the absence of her protectors. Being\n first stupefied with blows, inflicted with clubs or wooden swords,\n on the head, back, and shoulders, every one of which is followed by\n a stream of blood, she is then dragged through the woods by one arm,\n with a perseverance and violence that it might be supposed would\n displace it from its socket. This outrage is not resented by the\n relations of the female, who only retaliate by a similar outrage when\n they find an opportunity. This is so constantly the practice among\n them that even the children make it a play game, or exercise.[112]\n\n[112] Quoted by Sir J. Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 108.\n\nBy various travellers and explorers, the fact has been observed that\ncertain symbols representing force in their marriage ceremonies are in\nuse among nearly if not all extant tribes which have reached a certain\nstage of growth. To such an extent, in an earlier age, has the forcible\ncarrying-off of women prevailed, that among most of these tribes a\nvalid marriage may not be consummated without the appearance of force\nin the nuptial ceremonies. In reference to these symbols, we have the\nfollowing passage from Mr. McLennan:\n\n Meantime, we observe that, whenever we discover symbolical forms,\n we are justified in inferring that in the past life of the people\n employing them, there were corresponding realities; and if, among the\n primitive races which we examine, we find such realities as might\n naturally pass into such forms on an advance taking place in civility,\n then we may safely conclude (keeping within the conditions of a sound\n inference) that what these now are, those employing the symbols once\n were.[113]\n\n[113] _Studies in Ancient History_, p.\u202f5.\n\nAmong primitive tribes, the area controlled by each was small,\ntherefore vigilance in maintaining their possessions was one of their\nchief duties, and hostility to surrounding tribes a natural condition.\nSubsequently, however, when friendly relations began to be established\nwith hitherto hostile tribes, they are found entering into negotiations\nto furnish each other with wives. It was at this time that marriage by\nsale or contract was instituted, an arrangement by which the elder men\nin the tribe could be accommodated with foreign wives, at the same time\nthat their own daughters and sisters became to them a source of revenue.\n\nIn Uganda many men obtain wives by exchanging daughters and sisters\nwith each other. Of this practice C. Staniland Wake says:\n\n This is not an unusual mode of proceeding in different parts of\n the world. The perpetuation of the monopoly of women enjoyed to a\n great extent by the older men of the tribe among the Australians\n is, according to Mr. Howitt, encouraged by those having sisters or\n daughters to exchange with each other for wives.[114]\n\n[114] _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 207.\n\nNot unfrequently actual capture is practised side by side with\nfiction\u2014violent seizure being in active operation among the same tribes\nat the same time with the symbol, the frequency of actual violence\ndepending partly on the extent to which hostility prevails between the\ntribes, and partly on the degree of \u201cuniformity established by usage in\nthe prices paid for wives.\u201d Among certain tribes, when a dispute arises\nconcerning the price to be paid for a bride, if the man is able to\nseize the woman and carry her off to his tent, the law recognizes her\nas his wife and nothing is left for the relations to do in the matter\nbut to accept his terms as to the price.\n\nThe peoples among which actual capture is at present practised, and\nthose among which wives are procured by sale or contract, represent two\ndifferent stages in the development of the institution of marriage, and\nit is owing to this fact that the symbols used among the latter may be\ntraced to the realities in which they originated.\n\nOf the Bedouins of Mt. Sinai, Burckhardt says that marriage is a\nmatter of sale and purchase, in which the inclination of the girl is\ndisregarded.\n\n The young maid comes home in the evening with the cattle. At a short\n distance from the camp she is met by the future spouse and a couple\n of his young friends, and carried off by force to her father\u2019s tent.\n If she entertains any suspicion of their designs she defends herself\n with stones, and often inflicts wounds on the young men, even though\n she does not dislike the lover, for, according to custom, the more she\n struggles, bites, kicks, cries, and shrieks, the more she is applauded\n ever after by her own companions.[115]\n\n[115] Quoted by E.\u202fJ. Wood, _The Wedding Day_, etc., p. 60.\n\nIn reference to the Mezeyne Arabs the same writer observes that a\nsimilar custom prevailed within the limits of the Sinai Peninsula, but\nnot among the other tribes of that province.\n\n A girl having been wrapped in the Abba at night, is permitted to\n escape from her tent, and fly into the neighbouring mountains.\n The bridegroom goes in search of her next day, and remains often\n many days before he can find her out, while her female friends are\n apprised of her hiding-place, and furnish her with provisions. If\n the husband finds her at last (which is sooner or later, according to\n the impression that he has made upon the girl\u2019s heart), he is bound\n to consummate the marriage in the open country, and to pass the night\n with her in the mountains. The next morning the bride goes home to her\n tent, that she may have some food; but again runs away in the evening\n and repeats these flights several times, till she finally returns to\n her tent. She does not go to live in her husband\u2019s tent until she is\n far advanced in pregnancy; if she does not become pregnant, she may\n not join her husband till a full year from the wedding-day.[116]\n\n[116] Quoted by E.\u202fJ. Wood, _The Wedding Day_, etc., p. 60.\n\nCranz says that in Greenland \u201csome females, when a husband is proposed\nto them will fall into a swoon, elope to a desert place, or cut off\ntheir hair.... In the latter case they are seldom troubled with further\naddresses.\u201d The refractory bride is dragged\n\n forcibly into her suitor\u2019s house, where she sits for several days\n disconsolate, with dishevelled hair, and refuses nourishment. When\n friendly exhortations are unavailing, she is compelled by force and\n even with blows to receive her husband. Should she elope, she is\n brought back and treated more harshly than before.[117]\n\n[117] _History of Greenland_, vol. i., p. 146.\n\nWherever friendly relations have been established between the tribe of\nthe wife and that of the husband, he pays a price to her relatives\nfor the privilege of removing her to his camp. This purchase price,\ntogether with the simulated hatred of the woman\u2019s friends, signifies a\nsacrifice on the part of the wife and her family. In Nubia when a man\nmarries he presents his wife with a wedding-dress, and gives her also\na pledge for three or four hundred piastres, half of which sum is paid\nher in case of a divorce. Divorces, however, are very rare.[118]\n\n[118] Burckhardt, _Travels in Nubia_, p. 34.\n\nAmong the Circassians, after the preliminaries have been settled by\nthe parents, the lover meets his bride-elect by night in some secluded\nspot, and with the assistance of two or three of his best friends\nseizes her and carries her away. Sometimes the pretended capture takes\nplace in the midst of a noisy feast. The woman is usually conducted\ninto the presence of a mutual friend, where, on the following day,\nher friends, simulating anger, seek her and demand a reason for her\nabduction. Although the affair is usually settled at once by the\nbridegroom paying the accustomed price for his bride, custom requires\nthat there shall be still further manifestations of anger on the part\nof her friends; so, on the following day, all the relatives of the\nbride, armed with sticks, proceed to the place where the bride is in\nwaiting, there to meet the bridegroom and his friends who have come to\ncarry off the bride. A sham fight ensues, in which the bridegroom and\nhis party are always victorious. Among certain of the Arabian tribes\nthe bridegroom must force his bride to enter his tent, and in France,\nas late as the seventeenth century, a similar custom prevailed.\n\nIn describing a wedding dance in Abyssinia, Parkyns observes:\n\n This dance is performed by men armed with shields and lances, who\n with bounds, feints, and springs attack others armed with guns, so as\n to approach them, and at the same time avoid their fire, while the\n gunners make similar demonstrations, and at last fire off their guns\n either in the air or into the earth, and then, drawing their swords,\n flourish them about as a finish.\n\nFinally the bridegroom fires off a gun and immediately rushes across to\nwhere the bride and her female relations are stationed.[119]\n\n[119] _Life in Abyssinia_, vol. ii., p. 49.\n\nTylor informs us that a Scandinavian warrior generally sought to gain\nhis bride by force, that he conceived it beneath his dignity to win\nher by pacific means. That the affair might appear more heroic, he\nwaited until the object of his choice was about to wed another, and was\nactually on her way to the nuptial ceremony, when with his friends he\nwould surprise the wedding cortege, seize the bride, and carry her off.\nIt has been said of Scandinavian marriages that they were matters of\ndeep anxiety to the friends both of the bride and groom, who, until the\nwedding was over, remained at home in suspense fearing an attack of\nthe kind already mentioned. It was customary for a party of young men\nto station themselves at the church door, and, as soon as the ceremony\nwas completed, to carry the news to the homes of the wedded pair.\n\u201cWithin a few generations the same old practice was kept up in Wales,\nwhere the bridegroom and his friends, mounted and armed as for war,\ncarried off the bride,\u201d and in Ireland they used even to hurl spears at\nthe bride\u2019s people, though at such a distance that no one was hurt.[120]\n\n[120] _Anthropology_, p. 404.\n\nIn the Amazon valley the bride is always carried away by violence.\nAmong the Zulus, although a purchase price is paid for a woman, custom\nrequires that a wife, after having been captured, shall make three\nattempts to return to her own home.\n\nOf the marriage customs in ancient Sparta, Plutarch says: \u201cIn their\nmarriages the bridegroom carried off the bride by violence.\u201d[121]\nIn Rome we have the familiar example of the Sabine women, who were\ncaptured or carried off by force.\n\n[121] _Lycurgus._\n\nA notable fact in connection with the subject of capture is, that the\nmother of the bride, or, in case the mother is dead, the nearest female\nrelative, is the individual who assumes the part of the principal\ndefender in this ceremony. She it is who attempts to rescue the bride,\nand who more than any other mourns the fate of the captured wife. Among\nprimitive peoples, with the exception of the symbol of wife-capture\nin marriage ceremonies, there is perhaps none more significant than\nthat typifying the hatred of the mother for the captor of her daughter.\nCustoms indicating estrangement or, actual aversion to sons-in-law,\nusually, if not always, accompany marriage by capture.\n\nThe fact that the change in the relative positions of the sexes, as\nindicated by the _sadica_ and _ba\u2019al_ forms of marriage in Arabia,\nwas not easily or speedily accomplished, is apparent not only in the\nsymbols of wife-capture everywhere practised among peoples in a certain\nstage of development, but is strongly suggested also by the aversion\nfound to exist among these same peoples between mothers-in-law and\nsons-in-law, whether appearing as a reality or as a symbol.\n\n Among the Arawaks of South America, it is unlawful for the son-in-law\n to look upon the face of his mother-in-law. If they live in the same\n house a partition separates them, and if by chance they must enter the\n same boat, she must precede him so as to keep her back toward him.\n\nAmong the Caribs, all the women talk with whom they will, but the\nhusband dare not converse with his wife\u2019s relations except on\nextraordinary occasions.[122] Mr. Tylor refers to the fact that\n\n[122] Quoted by Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_, p. 290.\n\n In the account of the Floridian expedition of Alvar Nu\u00f1ez, commonly\n known as Cabeca de Vaca, or Cow\u2019s Head, it is mentioned that the\n parents-in-law did not enter the son-in-law\u2019s house, nor he theirs,\n nor his brother-in-law\u2019s, and if they met by chance, they went a\n buckshot out of their way, with their heads down and eyes fixed on the\n ground, for they held it a bad thing to see or speak to one another.\n\nIt is observed by Richardson, an author quoted by Tylor, that among the\nCrees, while an Indian lives with his wife\u2019s family, his mother-in-law\nmust not speak to or look at him. In some portions of Australia, \u201cthe\nmother-in-law does not allow the son-in-law to see her, but hides\nherself if he is near, and if she has to pass him makes a circuit,\nkeeping carefully concealed within her cloak.\u201d\n\nAmong some of the tribes in Central Africa, from the moment a marriage\nis contracted, the lover may not behold the parents of his future\nbride. When a young man wishes to marry a girl, he dispatches a\nmessenger to negotiate with her parents regarding the presents required\nand the number of oxen demanded. This being arranged, he may not again\nlook upon the father and mother of his intended wife; \u201che takes the\ngreatest care to avoid them, and if by chance they perceive him they\ncover their faces as if all ties of friendship were broken.\u201d We are\ntold, however, that this indifference is only feigned, that they feel\nthe same friendship as before, and in conversation extol one another\u2019s\nmerit. Mr. Caillie says that this custom extends beyond the relations;\nif the lover is of a different camp, he must avoid all the inhabitants\nof the lady\u2019s camp, except a few intimate friends who are permitted\nto assist him in his love-making. A little tent is set up for him in\nthe neighbourhood, under which he is to remain during the day. If he\nhas occasion to cross the camp he must cover his face. He may not see\nthe face of his intended throughout the day, but at nightfall he may\ncreep silently to her tent and remain with her until the dawn. These\nclandestine visits are continued for a month or two when the marriage\nis solemnized. At the wedding festival the women collect round the\nbride singing her praises and extolling her virtues.[123]\n\n[123] _Travels through Central Africa_, vol. i., p. 94.\n\nGubernatis is authority for the statement that, in many parts of\nItaly the bride is compelled to go through the process of weeping on\nher wedding-day, also for the fact that one of the marriage customs\nprevalent in Sardinia is identical with that which appeared among the\nplebeians at Rome, namely, the pretence of tearing the bride from the\narms of her mother.[124]\n\n[124] See McLennan\u2019s _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 189.\n\nFrom the facts which have been obtained relative to the practice of\nwife-capture, it is only natural to suppose that the mother of the\ncaptured wife would be her chief ally and defender; that such has been\nthe case seems to be clearly shown by the symbols of distrust and\naversion everywhere manifested between mothers-in-law and sons-in-law\namong the various existing uncivilized races. The practice of\nwife-capture exists either as a reality or as a symbol entering into\nthe marriage ceremonies among the tribes of Central Africa, the Indians\nof North and South America, in Australia, in New Zealand, in Arabia, in\nthe hill tracts of India, among the Fuegians, and in the islands of the\nPacific Ocean, and wherever this system is found the symbol of hatred\nbetween mother-in-law and son-in-law also prevails.\n\nThe simulated anger and sham violence connected with marriage\nceremonies among friendly peoples, which are so far removed from a\ntime when actual capture was practised as to be ignorant of the true\nsignificance of these symbols, show the extent to which marriage is\nbased on the idea of force on the one side and unwilling submission on\nthe other.\n\nAs the numerous Arabian clans in the time of Mohammed represented the\nvarying stages of advancement from the second period of barbarism to\ncivilization, the constitution of Arab society at that time affords an\nexcellent opportunity for observing the growth of the institution of\nmarriage, and the various processes by which the former supremacy of\nwomen was overthrown.\n\nOne of the principal objects of war at the time of the Prophet is said\nto have been the capture of women for wives, a practice which was\nrecognized as lawful. Under Islam the custom of forcibly carrying off\nwomen for wives was universal and was carried on side by side with the\nsystem of marriage by contract or sale. The position of the captured\nwoman, however, differed somewhat from that of the purchased wife.\nThe former, having been forcibly carried away from her home, lost the\nprotection of her friends, while the purchased wife, although she\nrelinquished the authority which had formerly been exercised by women\nwithin the gens, and although she surrendered her person to her \u201clord,\u201d\ndid not forfeit her right to the protection of her own family in case\nof abuse.\n\nAlthough in Arabia, under the form of marriage by sale or contract,\nthe wife lost the right to the control of property belonging to her\nown gens, she did not, as in Rome, forfeit her claim to the protection\nof her kindred. If she received ill treatment within the home of her\nhusband, her relatives, who were still her natural protectors, were\nbound to redress her wrongs. In Rome, on the contrary, under a system\nrepresenting a later stage in the development of marriage, the wife\nwas adopted into the stock of her husband whose rights over her person\nwere supreme, at the same time that her kindred renounced the right to\ninterfere in her behalf.\n\nIt is to the fact, that in early Arabia the wife never relinquished her\nhold upon her own relations, that we are to look for an explanation of\nthe high social position of Arabian women. We are assured that it is\n\u201can old Arab sentiment, and not Moslem,\u201d that women are entitled to\nthe highest respect, and that as mothers of the tribe they \u201care its\nmost sacred trust.\u201d\n\nAccording to Professor W.\u202fR. Smith in Mohammed\u2019s time, in addition\nto the two forms of marriage mentioned, namely, that by capture and\nthat by sale or contract, there existed also a more ancient form\nknown as the _sadica_\u2014a form of conjugal union which was a remnant of\nthe matriarchal system. By observing the facts connected with this\nlast-named institution, we shall be enabled to understand something\nof the position occupied by women during the earlier ages of human\nexistence before wife-capture became prevalent.\n\nAmong certain tribes just prior to Islam, upon the event of marriage,\nthe man presented the woman with a sum of money, which offering was\nsimply an acknowledgment of the favour which she was conferring upon\nhim. The husband went to live with the wife in her tent, and as the\ncontract was for no specified length of time, he was at liberty to go\nwhenever he tired of the conditions imposed on him by his wife and her\nrelations. Any children, however, that were born as a result of this\nunion belonged to the mother and became members of her _hayy_. If she\ndesired him to go, she simply turned the tent around, \u201cso that if the\ndoor had faced east it now faced west, and when the man saw this he\nknew that he was dismissed and did not enter.\u201d In relation to these\nmarriage customs Professor Smith says: \u201cHere, therefore, we have the\nproof of a well-established custom of that kind of marriage which\nnaturally goes with female kinship in the generation immediately before\nIslam.\u201d Of this kind of marriage the same writer observes:\n\n The _mot\u0103_ marriage was a purely personal contract, founded on consent\n between a man and a woman, without any intervention on the part of\n the woman\u2019s kin.... Now the fact that there was no contract with the\n woman\u2019s kin\u2014such as was necessary when the wife left her own people\n and came under the authority of her husband\u2014and that, indeed, her\n kin might know nothing about it, can have only one explanation: in\n _mot\u0103_ marriage the woman did not leave her home, her people gave up\n no rights which they had over her, and the children of the marriage\n did not belong to the husband. _Mot\u0103_ marriage, in short, is simply\n the last remains of that type of marriage which corresponds to a law\n of mother-kinship, and Islam condemns it, and makes it \u201cthe sister\n of harlotry,\u201d because it does not give the husband a legitimate\n offspring, _i. e._, an offspring that is reckoned to his own tribe and\n has rights of inheritance within it.[125]\n\n[125] Prof. W.\u202fR. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 69.\n\nBefore the separation of the Hebrews and Aram\u00e6ans, the wife remained\nwithin her own tent where she received her husband, the children of\nsuch unions taking her name and becoming her heirs. This kind of\nconjugal union is known to have been in existence in many portions of\nthe world. In Ceylon it is designated as the _beena_ marriage.\n\nIn ancient Arabia, not only did women control their own homes, but\nthey owned flocks and herds, and were absolutely independent of male\nrelations. As late as the fourteenth century of our era, although the\nwomen of certain Arabian tribes were willing to marry strangers, they\nnever followed them to their homes.\n\nAmong the Bedouins it is a rare thing for a woman at marriage to leave\nher home and kindred. When a woman marries a man he settles among her\nkinsmen, and, as she presents him with a spear and a tent by way of\ndowry, it would seem that he is expected to join her relations and\nassist in the common defence. The marks of authority under gentile\nrule are the possession of a tent and a lance; yet we find that these\nare the objects which, under matriarchal usages, the wife tenders her\nhusband when he enters her family; the first doubtless as a symbol of\nher protection, the second as indicating her authority and the services\nwhich he is expected to render her and her people. Until a late period\nin Rome it was the custom, during the solemnities of marriage, to pass\na lance over the head of the wife in token of the power which the\nhusband was about to gain over her.[126]\n\n[126] Ortolan, _History of Roman Law_, p. 80.\n\nUnder the two types of marriage\u2014namely, _mot\u0103_ and _ba\u2019al_\u2014the\npositions of women were so diametrically opposed that both could not\ncontinue, hence when under the pressure brought to bear upon them,\nwomen began to accept the _ba\u2019al_ form of marriage within their own\n_hayy_, _mot\u0103_ unions were doomed. Of the more ancient form of marriage\nin Arabia, under which the woman chooses her mate, evidences of which\nare still extant in that country, and that by capture under which she\nbecomes the slave of her lord, Professor Smith says:\n\n There is then abundant evidence that the ancient Arabs practised\n marriage by capture. And we see that the type of marriage so\n constituted is altogether different from those unions of which\n the _mot\u0103_ is a survival, and kinship through women the necessary\n accompaniment. In the one case the woman chooses and dismisses her\n husband at will, in the other she has lost the right to dispose of her\n person and so the right of divorce lies only with the husband; in the\n one case the woman receives the husband in her own tent, among her own\n people, in the other she is brought home to his tent and people; in\n the one case the children are brought up under the protection of the\n mother\u2019s kin and are of her blood, in the other they remain with the\n father\u2019s kindred and are of his blood.\n\n All later Arabic marriages under the system of male kinship, whether\n constituted by capture or by contract, belong to the same type; in all\n cases, as we shall presently see in detail, the wife who follows her\n husband and bears children who are of his blood has lost the right\n freely to dispose of her person; the husband has authority over her\n and he alone has the right of divorce. Accordingly the husband, in\n this kind of marriage, is called not in Arabia only, but also among\n the Hebrews and Aram\u00e6ans, the woman\u2019s \u201clord\u201d or \u201cowner,\u201d and wherever\n this name for husband is found we may be sure that marriage is of the\n second type, with male kinship, and the wife bound to the husband and\n following him to his home.[127]\n\n[127] _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 75.\n\nNotwithstanding the humane enactments of Mohammed in the interest of\nwomen, their position steadily declined, such enactments having been\noverbalanced by the establishment of marriages of dominion, by the\ngrowing idea that _sadica_ or _mot\u0103_ marriages were not respectable,\nand that women could not depend upon their relations to take their\npart against their husbands. The history of religion shows that\nits growth has always followed the same course as have the ideas\nconcerning the relative importance of the sexes. The god-idea and the\nfundamental doctrines of religion are always found to be in harmony\nwith the established principles and ideas relative to sex domination\nand superiority. The religion of Mohammed was essentially masculine,\nall its principles being in strict accord with male supremacy; it is\nnot, therefore, singular that when the weight of religion was added to\nthe already growing tendency toward _ba\u2019al_ marriages that _sadica_\nmarriages were doomed.\n\nIn Arabia, as elsewhere, the duties of the purchased wife were\nspecific. The present which under the older form of marriage had been\ngiven to the bride as a love-token, or as an acknowledgment of the\nhusband\u2019s devotion to her, subsequently took the form of a purchase\nprice, and was claimed by her father and brothers as a compensation for\nthe loss sustained by the group through the removal of her offspring,\nwhose services belonged to their mother\u2019s people. In other words, the\nhusband paid a price to the wife\u2019s relations for the right to raise\nchildren by her which should belong exclusively to his kin\u2014children\nwhich should she remain within her own home would belong to her\nkindred. The wife was therefore removed to the husband\u2019s _hayy_, where,\nso far as the sexual relation was concerned, his rights over her were\nsupreme.\n\nWe have observed that wherever the possessions of the gens continued\nto be the property of all its members, and were controlled by women,\nthe man at marriage went to live with the woman; so soon, however, as\nmen began to claim the soil, and property began to accumulate in their\nhands, the wife went to reside with her husband and his family as a\ndependent. Among various tribes, the form of marriage in use depends on\nthe means of the contracting parties; if the man is able to pay to the\nwoman\u2019s father or brothers the full price charged for her, she goes to\nhim as his slave\u2014she is his property as much as is his dog or his gun;\nif, however, he is unable to pay the amount charged, he goes to live\nwith her and her family, and becomes their slave.\n\nIn Japan, among the higher classes, upon the marriage of the eldest\nson, his bride accompanies him to his paternal home; but, on the other\nhand, when the eldest daughter marries, her husband takes up his abode\nwith her parents. Eldest daughters always retain their own names, which\ntheir husbands are obliged to assume. As the wife of an eldest son\nbecomes a member of her husband\u2019s family, and the husband of an eldest\ndaughter joins the family of his wife and assumes her name, the eldest\nson of a family may not marry the eldest daughter of another family.\nRegarding the younger members of the household, if the husband\u2019s family\nprovides the house, the wife takes his name, while if the bride\u2019s\nfamily furnishes the home the bridegroom assumes the name of the\nwife.[128]\n\n[128] Quoted by C.\u202fS. Wake from Morgan\u2019s _System_, etc., p. 428.\n\nIn the marriage customs of various nations, and in their ideas relative\nto the ownership and control of the home, may be observed something\nmore than a hint of the principal causes underlying the decline of\nfemale power. Wherever women remain within their own homes, or with\ntheir own relations, they are mistresses of the situation; but when\nthey follow the fathers of their children to their homes, they become\ndependents and wholly subject to the will and pleasure of their\nhusbands.\n\nIt is plain, however, that under a system of marriage by sale or\ncontract, although a woman might exercise little influence in the home\nof her husband, so long as her relations stood ready to defend her she\nwould enjoy an immunity from abuse. The fact that a woman can count\nupon her relations for protection against her husband, shows plainly\nthat in a certain stage of marriage by contract or sale, women are not\nthe abject slaves which they have been represented to be. Although in\nthe Fiji Islands a man may seize a woman and take her to his home, she\ndoes not remain with him unless agreeable to her inclinations.[129]\n\n[129] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, p. 598.\n\n Amongst the Abipones, a man, on choosing a wife bargains with her\n parents about the price. But it frequently happens that the girl\n rescinds what has been agreed upon between the parents and the\n bridegroom, obstinately rejecting the very mention of marriage.[130]\n\n[130] _Ibid._, p. 598.\n\nAmong the Charruas of South America, divorce is quite optional. In\nSumatra, if a man carries off a virgin against her will, he incurs a\nheavy fine, or if a man carries off a woman under pretence of marriage,\n\u201che must lodge her immediately with some reputable family.\u201d[131]\n\n[131] Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, p. 193.\n\nAlthough in the earlier ages of marriage by sale or contract, daughters\nwere regarded as the property of their fathers, still that stage had\nnot been reached at which women were accounted simply as sexual\nslaves. The Arabs practised marriage by sale or contract, yet they\njealously watched over their women,\u2014they \u201cdefended them with their\nlives and eagerly redeemed them when they were taken captive.\u201d They\nthought it better to bury their daughters than to give them in marriage\nto unworthy husbands.[132] According to the testimony of J.\u202fG. Wood,\nKaffir women are very tenacious about their relations, probably, it\nis thought, for the reason that husbands are more respectful toward\nwives who have friends near them, than they are to those who have no\nrelations at hand to take their part.[133] Usually among the Kaffirs,\naccording to Mr. Shooter, although a man pays a price to the parents of\nthe woman whom he wishes to marry, the affair is by no means settled;\non the contrary, he must undergo the closest scrutiny by her before she\nwill consent to accept him. Bidding him stand, she surveys first one\nside of him, then the other, the relations in the meantime standing\nabout awaiting her decision. Upon this subject Mr. Wood remarks: \u201cThis\namusing ceremony has two meanings: the first that the contract of\nmarriage is a voluntary act on both sides; and the second, that the\nintending bridegroom has as yet no authority over her.\u201d[134]\n\n[132] Professor Smith, _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 79.\n\n[133] _Uncivilized Races_, etc., p. 78.\n\n[134] _Ibid._, p. 79.\n\nAlthough under the system of marriage by sale or contract a woman\nhas a voice in the selection of her husband, and although she can\ncount on her kinsmen to protect her against abuse, still, practically,\nthe contract brings the wife under the same condition as a captured\nwife; she follows her husband to his home, where, as a dependent, he\nexercises control over her person and her children. In Arabia prior\nto the time of the Prophet the wife could claim the protection of her\nkindred against her husband, yet the principle underlying marriage by\ncontract and that by capture was the same, except that under the former\nthe husband paid a price for the woman\u2019s sexual subjection, while under\nthe latter, not only in sexual matters, but in all others as well, he\nwas her \u201clord\u201d and master.\n\nThe Prophet says: \u201cI charge you with your women, for they are with\nyou as captives (_aw\u00e2n\u00ee_).\u201d Professor Smith informs us that according\nto the lexicons _aw\u00e2n\u00ee_ is actually used in the same sense as married\nwomen generally.[135] For long ages after _ba\u2019al_ marriages had been\nestablished, so degrading was the office of wife that women of rank\nwere considered too great to marry.\n\n[135] _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 77.\n\nAfter relating some interesting accounts of certain practices in common\nwith the custom of capture among the Brazilian tribes, Sir John Lubbock\nsays:\n\n This view also throws some light on the remarkable subordination of\n the wife to the husband, which is so characteristic of marriage,\n and so curiously inconsistent with all our avowed ideas; moreover it\n tends to explain those curious cases in which Hetair\u00e6 were held in\n greater estimation than those women who were, as we should consider,\n properly and respectably married to a single husband. The former were\n originally fellow-countrywomen and relations; the latter captives and\n slaves.[136]\n\n[136] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 127.\n\nWith the development of the egoistic principle, or when selfishness\nand the love of gain became the rule of action, the protection of\nher kindred, which in an earlier age a woman could count on against\nher husband, was withdrawn, and daughters came to be looked upon as\na legitimate source of gain to their families. On this subject C.\nStaniland Wake remarks:\n\n Women by marriage became slaves, and it was the universal practice for\n a man who parted with his daughter to be a slave to require a valuable\n consideration for her. Moreover, as a man can purchase as many slaves\n as he likes, so he can take as many wives as he pleases.[137]\n\n[137] C. Staniland Wake, _Marriage and Kinship_, p. 199.\n\nThus arose polygamy.\n\nIn Rome, in the Latter Status of barbarism and the opening ages\nof civilization, woman, at marriage, forfeited all the privileges\nbelonging to her as a member of her own family, while within that\nof her husband no compensatory advantages were granted her. Even a\nproprietary right in her own children was denied her, and from a legal\npoint of view the wife became the daughter of her husband, and not\nunfrequently the ward of her own son.\n\nAfter the power gained by man over woman during the latter ages of\nbarbarism had reached its height, the family was based not on the\nmarriage of a woman and a man, but upon the power of a man over a woman\nand her offspring, or upon the absolute authority of the male parent.\nIn Rome a man\u2019s wife and children were members of his family not\nbecause they were related to him but because they were subject to his\ncontrol. At this stage in the development of the family, the father had\nthe power of \u201cuncontrolled corporal chastisement\u201d and of life and death\nover his children.[138] If it was his will to do so, he could even sell\nthem. Indeed, a son\u2019s freedom from paternal tyranny could be gained\nonly by the actual sale of his person by his father. Relating to the\ncontrol exercised by the father over his children, it is observed that\nhe had the right \u201cduring their whole life to imprison, scourge, keep to\nrustic labour in chains, to sell or slay, even though they may be in\nthe enjoyment of high state offices.\u201d[139] If a father granted freedom\nto his son, that son was no longer a member of his family.\n\n[138] Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 133.\n\n[139] Ortolan, _History of Roman Law_, p. 107.\n\nThat, with the exception of force, there is no quality in the male\nconstitution capable of binding together the various individuals born\nof the same father, is apparent from the past history of the human\nrace. Mr. Parkyns, referring to the character of the Abyssinians,\nobserves that the worst point in the constitution of their society is\nthe want of affection among relations, \u201ceven though they be children of\none father.\u201d He says that the animosities which keep the tribes in a\nconstant state of warfare do not exist among the offspring of the same\nmother and father, but, as the children of polygamous fathers are more\nnumerous than own brethren, fraternal affection is a rare thing.[140] A\ncomparison between the family group under archaic usages at a time when\nwoman\u2019s influence was in the ascendency, and the Roman family under\nthe older Roman law, will serve to show the wide difference existing\nbetween the altruistic and egoistic principles as controlling agencies\nin the home and in society.\n\n[140] _Life in Abyssinia_, p. 156.\n\nA significant fact in connection with this subject is here suggested,\nthat, although for untold ages women were leaders of the gens, so long\nas their will was supreme, no human right was ever invaded, and no\nlegitimate manly prerogative usurped; but, on the contrary, all were\nequal, and the principles of a pure democracy were firmly grounded.\nLiberty and justice had not at that time been throttled by the extreme\nselfishness inherent in human nature.\n\nAlthough the processes by which women at a certain stage of human\ndevelopment lost their independence were gradual, they are by no means\ndifficult to trace. The history of human marriage as gathered from the\nvarious tribes and races in the several stages of growth shows the\nprimary idea of the office of wife to have been that of sexual slavery,\nand discloses the fact that it was the desire for foreign women who,\nshorn of their natural independence, could be controlled, which caused\nthe overthrow of female supremacy.\n\nAs during the earlier ages of human existence the women of the group\nwere absolutely independent of men for the means of support, they were\nable to so control their own movements. Only foreign women\u2014captives\nstolen from their homes and friends\u2014taken singly or in groups could\nbe subjugated or brought into the wifely relation. Indeed, until\nthe systematic practice of capturing women from hostile tribes for\nsexual purposes had been inaugurated, and the subsequent agency of\nrepression\u2014namely, ownership of the soil by males, had followed as a\nnatural consequence, the usurpation by man of the natural rights and\nprivileges of woman was impossible. The male members of the group had\nnot at that time the power to sell their sisters and other female\nrelations, but, on the contrary, defended them manfully against the\nassaults of hostile tribes. The foreign captor, the wife-catcher, was\nan enemy who was both feared and hated, and upon him were showered the\nmaledictions of the entire group upon which the assault had been made.\nIn retaliation for his offence, the men who had been bereft of a sister\nmust in their turn commit a like depredation; thus, through the removal\nof women, the men of early groups gradually gained control of the\ncommon possessions at the same time that they were being supplied with\nforeign wives over whom they exercised absolute control. In process of\ntime, when wealth began to accumulate in the hands of men, and when\nfriendly relations began to be established between neighbouring tribes,\nforeign wives, without influence, were received in exchange for the\nfree-born women of a man\u2019s own clan; henceforward a resort to capture\nwas unnecessary. Distant tribes, however, were still liable to attack.\nWars were waged against the men, who were sometimes slain, sometimes\ntaken prisoners, the invaders taking possession of the lands and\ncompelling the women to accept the position of wife to them. Finally,\nnegotiations were entered into whereby women were uniformly taken from\ntheir homes to become wives in alien groups. Later, the _ba\u2019al_ form\nof marriage came to prevail within the tribe. Professor Smith, quoting\nfrom the advice given by an Arab to his son, says: \u201cDo not marry in\nyour own _hayy_, for that leads to ugly family quarrels,\u201d to which he\nadds,\n\n there was a real inconsistency in the position of a woman who was\n at once her husband\u2019s free kinswoman and his purchased wife. It was\n better to have a wife who had no claims of kin and no brethren near to\n take her part.[141]\n\n[141] _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 105.\n\nUnder earlier conditions of the human race women as bearers and\nprotectors of the young were regarded as the natural land-owners;\nhence, they did not leave their own homes to follow the fathers of\ntheir children. The woman who left her own relations for the _hayy_ of\nher husband could no longer exercise control over the possessions of\nher own gens, neither could she at a later period inherit property from\nher kindred for the reason that her interests were identical with those\nof her children and her children belonged to another clan. As property\ncould not be transferred from the group in which it originated, she was\ndisinherited. Through marriage women gave up their natural right to\nthe soil, and consequently to independence. A knowledge of the facts\nconnected with the origin of the institution of marriage, reveals the\nfact that women lost their influence and power, not because of their\nweakness, but because they were foreigners and dependents in the homes\nof their husbands.\n\nThe statement was made at the beginning of this chapter that the origin\nof marriage and the establishment of the family with man at its head\ninvolve the subject of economies.\n\nWhen property began to accumulate in the hands of men, when women\nwere forced to relinquish their right to the soil and thus to become\ndependent on men for their support, their slavery was inevitable.\nLater, when through the exigencies of the situation, woman went without\nprotest to the home of her master, there to become a pensioner upon his\nbounty, her slavery was complete.\n\nIn process of time, women bound to foreign tribes by the children which\nthey had borne, began to accommodate themselves to the situation, and\neven to claim an interest in the home of their adoption, whereupon\nfriendly relations began to be established between the tribe of the\nmother and that of the father. Hence may be observed the fact that\nthe maternal instinct was the agency by which the barriers between\nunrelated groups were gradually broken down, and by which a spirit\nof friendliness was established between hitherto hostile tribes. As\nthe coherence of the group and the combination of the gentes to form\nthe tribe had been possible only by means of this instinct, so the\nconfederacy of tribes to form the nation was accomplished in the same\nmanner.\n\nThe change from female supremacy to male dominion is among the most\nimportant of the evolutionary processes. From the facts underlying the\ndevelopment of human society, and especially those underlying the two\ndiverging lines of sex-demarcation, it is evident that evolution does\nnot proceed in an undeviating line toward progress. It is perceived,\nthat seeming retrogressions always involve a gain\u2014a gain which could\nhave been accomplished in no other way.\n\nAmong the benefits derived from this change in the positions of the\nsexes was the development of altruism in man. When fathers began to\ntake an interest in their own offspring, to care for them and to become\nresponsible for their welfare, an important step had been taken toward\nthe establishment of the principle of brotherhood among mankind.\nThe evolutionary processes indicate a constant tendency toward the\nsolidarity of the race, they may be said to represent a resistless\nforce ever drawing the human family together in a closer bond of union\nand sympathy. Under female supremacy, combination, or association of\ninterests, was confined to the gens. The extension of these interests\nwhich resulted from the new order was necessary before humanity could\nproceed on its onward course. These changes could not have taken place\nunder the early system based on the supremacy of women.\n\nThe facts brought out by scientists going to prove that the progressive\nprinciple is confided to the female are accentuated by those\nconnected with the origin and subsequent development of marriage and\nthe family. That within the female lie the elements of progress is\nclearly indicated, not only in the position which the female occupied\namong the orders of life lower in the scale of being, and during the\nearlier ages of human history, but also by her career as the slave of\nman. Simply by means of the characters developed within the female\nconstitution, without material resources, and deprived of recognized\ninfluence, women have been able to a certain extent, to dignify the\nfamily and the home.\n\nIt is more than likely that in the not distant future, even the\ninstitution of marriage, through which women have been degraded, will\nbecome so purified and elevated that its results, instead of being a\nmenace to higher conditions will constitute a continuous source of\nprogress and a promise of still higher achievement. Before this may be\naccomplished, mothers must be absolutely free and wholly independent\nof the opposite sex for the means of support. Marriage must be a co\npartnership in which neither sex has the right to control the other.\n\nAlthough our present system of marriage took its rise in the practice\nof forcing women into the marital relation, it must be borne in mind\nthat it was not inaugurated for the purpose of establishing monogamy.\nOn the contrary, the privileges of the captor remained the same within\nhis tribe as before the foreign woman was stolen. The theft was\ncommitted for no other purpose than to augment the hitherto restricted\nrange of sexual liberties, and to give to the father absolute dominion\nover the individuals born in his house.\n\nThe system of marriage in vogue at the present time has never\nrestricted men to the possession of a single woman. Monogamy, as\nestablished under male supremacy, means one husband for one woman,\nwhile a man may have as many women as he is able or willing to support.\nAs women are still dependent upon men for the necessities of life, the\nsupply of the former is regulated by the demands of the latter.\n\nMarriage still retains its original meaning and significance, namely,\nthe ownership and control of women. With the exception of physical\nforce all the ceremonies, customs, ideas, and usages of primitive\nmarriage have been preserved. When a woman marries she is \u201cgiven\u201d to\nher husband by her father or some other male relative. She promises\nto obey her master and accepts a ring as a badge of her dependence\nupon him. She relinquishes her own name and family, accepting as her\nown the name and family of her husband. She follows him to his home\nwhere, as she is supported by his bounty, she is subject to his will\nand pleasure. Until women are economically free they will remain sexual\nslaves.\n\nOf all the forms of human slavery which have ever been devised there\nhas probably never been one so degrading as is that which has been\npracticed within the marital relation, nor one in which the extrication\nof the enslaved has been a matter of such utter hopelessness. The\npresent struggle of women for freedom shows how deeply rooted is the\ninstinct which demands their subjection.\n\nThe descent of woman has encompassed the lowest depths of human\ndegradation, but the end of the long and weary road which she has\ntraversed is nearly reached. Already the evolutionary processes which\nare to release her from bondage are in operation.\n\nFrom available facts relative to the development of early mankind,\nit is certain that it must have required centuries upon centuries of\ntime to subjugate women and bring them into harmonious relations with\nmen while occupying a position of sexual slavery; first, physical\nforce, second, dependence, and third the substitution of masculine\nopinions for the instincts and ideas which are peculiar to the female\nconstitution. This accomplished the processes were begun which were to\nrivet the chains by which they were bound and by means of which women\nthemselves in their weakened condition were to acquiesce in their own\ndegradation. Religion was the means employed. Apollo, according to\nGreek mythology, issued an edict declaring that man is superior to\nwoman and must rule, and Athene herself finally accepted the edict.\nThrough religion, women came to regard themselves simply as appendages\nto men, as tools or instruments for their pleasure and gratification,\nand as possessing no inherent right either to liberty or happiness.\n\nReligion has its root in sex. As we have already seen the creative\nforce has ever been regarded as masculine or feminine according to\nthe relative importance of the two sexes in human society and in the\nreproductive processes. So long as woman\u2019s influence and power were in\nthe ascendency the mother was the only recognized parent. She was the\ncreator of offspring. Later, the abstract idea of female reproductive\npower was manifested in the female deities. It required thousands upon\nthousands of years to subdue women. It also required millenniums to\ndethrone the female deities.\n\nWhen, with the rise of male power, man began to assume the r\u00f4le of\nparent, he assumed also all the functions which had formerly belonged\nto woman. As has been noted in another portion of this work he even\nwent to bed when a child was born. With this change in the physical\nrelations of the sexes, the creative principle soon began to assume\na masculine aspect. Male deities began to appear associated with the\ngoddesses. In process of time, as male power increased, the god-idea\nbecame wholly masculine. The Jewish god is a personified idea of male\npower and reproductive energy. This subject will be referred to later\nin these pages.\n\nThus the ancient plan of government which was the outgrowth of the free\nmaternal instinct, and which had guided humanity on its course for\nthousands of years, finally succumbed to a system based on physical\nforce. When we remember the conditions surrounding early society we may\nwell believe that civilization was gained, not because of the fact that\nmale power succeeded in gaining the ascendency over female influence,\nbut in spite of it.\n\nGiven a combination of circumstances involving the supremacy of the\nlower instincts in mankind, and the individual ownership of land, the\nsubjection of women, monarchy, and slavery, with all their attendant\nevils, namely, poverty, disease, crime, and misery were sure to follow.\n\nWhen we consider the fundamental bias of the two diverging lines of\nsexual demarcation, it is not perhaps singular that the strong sexual\nnature which has prompted males to vigorous physical action should for\na time have gained the ascendency over the higher qualities peculiar to\nfemales; yet the material progress achieved under the inspiration and\ndirection of agencies like this will not, in a more enlightened stage\nof existence, be regarded as embodying the results of the best efforts\nof human activity, or as representing the highest capabilities of the\nrace.\n\nProbably no one will deny that the accumulation of wealth by\nindividuals, and the subsequent change in the relative positions of\nthe sexes, were necessary steps toward the establishment of society\non a political or territorial basis, or toward the breaking up of\nkindred groups and the acknowledgment of the idea of the unity of the\nentire human family. Neither will the proposition be contradicted\nthat the evils attending these changes namely, monarchy, slavery,\nand the inordinate love of gain have been unavoidable adjuncts to\nthe development of the race; yet, who will doubt that under higher\nconditions, as the animal recedes in the distance, these blots on the\nrecords of human history will be regarded not as regular steps in the\nadvancement of mankind, but as by-paths which, owing to the peculiar\nbias which had been given to the male organism among the lower forms\nof life, the human race has been obliged to take in order to reach\ncivilization?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE MOTHER-RIGHT\n\n\nAmong the most conspicuous of the writers who have dealt with the\nsubject of primitive society are Herr Bachofen, Mr. J.\u202fF. McLennan,\nSir John Lubbock, and Mr. L.\u202fH. Morgan. In 1861, the first-named of\nthese writers, a Swiss jurist, published an extensive work on the early\ncondition of society, entitled _Das Mutter-recht_ (The Motherright),\nin which was first given to the world the fact that prior to the\nestablishment of a system of kinship through males, there everywhere\nexisted a system based on female supremacy, under which descent was\nreckoned through women.\n\nBachofen was first led to a belief in a former state of society in\nwhich women were the recognized leaders through the evidence which\neverywhere underlies the traditions and mythologies of extant nations.\nUpon investigation he found indisputable evidence going to prove that\nevery family of the human race had undergone the same processes of\ndevelopment or growth, and that among all peoples female influence was\nonce supreme.\n\nAccording to Bachofen\u2019s theory, as there were at this early stage\nof human existence no \u201claws\u201d regulating the intercourse between the\nsexes, human beings lived in a state of lawlessness, or hetairism.\nRecognizing the difference in the reproductive instinct as manifested\nin the two sexes, he says that becoming disgusted with their manner\nof living women rebelled, and rising in arms, conquered their male\npersecutors by sheer superiority in military skill; and that after they\nhad overthrown the degrading practices of communal or lawless marriage,\nthey established monogamy in its stead, under which system woman became\nthe recognized head of the family.\n\nChildren, although they had hitherto succeeded to the father\u2019s name,\nwere now called after the mother, and all rights of inheritance were\nthereafter established in the female line. Not only did women take upon\nthemselves the exercise of domestic authority and control, but, acting\nunder a strong religious impulse, they seized the reins of popular\ngovernment and completed their title to absolute dominion by wielding\nthe political sceptre as well, thus declaring themselves unconditional\nmasters of the situation.\n\nAt this juncture in human affairs, the belief began to be entertained\nthat motherhood was divine while the paternal office was regarded only\nin the light of a human relation. Thus, through religion, women were\nraised from a state of hetairism, or sexual slavery, to a position of\nindependence and self-respect. But that which was gained through a\nsupernatural impulse they were destined subsequently to lose through\nthe same source; for, when in Greece, the doctrine was promulgated that\nthe spirit of the child is derived from its father, paternity at once\nassumed a divine character, and, as under the new order, the functions\nof the mother were only to clothe the spirit, or simply to act as\n\u201cnurse\u201d to the heaven-born production of the father, women lost their\nsupremacy, and under the new r\u00e9gime, maternity and womanhood again\ntrailed in the dust.\n\nAccording to Bachofen, however, the cause of mothers did not at once\ncease to be the subject of contention and conflict, but ever and\nanon fresh battles and renewed struggles proclaimed the discontent\nand uneasiness of women and heralded the fact that the contest for\nsupremacy had not yet ended. But, in process of time, as resistance\nproved ineffectual, mothers themselves gradually succumbed to the\nnew idea of the divine character of the father, and, without further\nmurmuring or complaint, accepted gracefully the position of nurse to\nhis children.\n\nThe father now became the recognized head of the family, and men at\nonce seized the reins of government. Descent was henceforth traced in\nthe male line, and children took the father\u2019s instead of the mother\u2019s\nname; in fact all relationships to which rights of succession were\nattached were thereafter traced through fathers only. The complete\nand final triumph of males having been established by the all-powerful\nauthority of Roman jurisprudence, the conflict between the sexes was\nended forever. Thus, according to Bachofen, was the supremacy of women\ngained and lost.\n\nThrough a profound study of the traditions, legends, symbols, and\nmythologies of antiquity, this writer was enabled to discover the fact\nthat at an earlier age in human history women were the recognized\nleaders of mankind; that their influence and authority were supreme\nover both the family and the community, and that all relationships to\nwhich rights of succession were attached were traced through them.\nIn attempting to account for this early period of gynecocracy (the\nexistence of which to Bachofen\u2019s mind no doubt presented a singular\nand intricate problem) it first became necessary to set forth a theory\nconcerning a former condition of society out of which such a state\ncould have been evolved. But as at the time _Das Mutter-recht_ made its\nappearance, the theory of the development of the human species from\npre-existing orders had not been adopted by scientists, and as many\nof the various means at present employed for obtaining a knowledge of\nprimitive races had not been brought into requisition, even the vast\nlearning of Bachofen did not suffice to furnish a satisfactory solution\nof the problem.\n\nWe have seen that in addition to the discovery that at an early age\nin human experience female influence was supreme, he had arrived at\nthe conclusion that the natural instincts of women differ from those\nof men; yet, notwithstanding this, so accustomed had he become to\nthe predominance of the masculine instincts in every branch of human\nactivity as to be unable to conceive of a state of society in which\nthe characters belonging to females could have controlled the sexual\nrelations. Evidently he was unable to connect these two facts, or to\nperceive that that tendency or quality required for the protection of\nthe germ and the species, and which so early characterized the female\nsex, had constituted the most primitive influence by which the human\nrace had been governed. As in the earliest ages of human existence no\narbitrary laws regulating marriage and the relations of the sexes had\nbeen in operation, he could discern no condition under which society\ncould have existed other than that of \u201clawlessness\u201d or \u201chetairism\u201d\u2014a\ncondition under which women were slaves, and men ruled supreme.\n\nAs Herr Bachofen was doubtless unaware of the fact that the human\nanimal is a descendant from creatures lower in the scale of life,\nthe idea of connecting his history with theirs had probably by him\nnever been thought of; therefore, judging primitive society, not by\nthe instincts and the natural laws governing them which mankind had\ninherited from their progenitors, but, on the contrary, measuring them\nby the standards of later ages when the grosser or disruptive elements\nhad gained dominion over the finer or constructive qualities in human\nnature, he was unable to discern any way in which the conditions of\nfemale supremacy everywhere indicated in the traditions and mythologies\nof antiquity could have originated, except in an uprising of women, and\na resort to arms for the protection of their womanly dignity.\n\nIn referring to the military exploits of the women of Lycia, and,\nin fact, of various portions of Africa and Asia, at a comparatively\nlate stage in human history, Bachofen says that the importance of\nAmazonianism as opposed to Hetairism for the elevation of the feminine\nsex, and through them of mankind, cannot be doubted.\n\nThere seems to be considerable evidence going to prove that there have\nbeen times in the past history of the race in which women were brave\nin war and valiant in defending their rights. Indeed, the accounts\ngiven of the struggles of the Amazons in maintaining their independence\nagainst surrounding nations\u2014notably, the Greeks\u2014are tolerably well\nauthenticated.[142]\n\n[142] Concerning one of the encounters of this warlike people, the\nfollowing has been recounted by Plutarch (_Theseus_):\n\n\u201cAnd it appears to have been no slight or womanish enterprise; for they\ncould not have encamped in the town, or joined battle on the ground\nabout the Pynx and the Museum, or fallen in so intrepid a manner upon\nthe city of Athens, unless they had first reduced the country round\nabout. It is difficult, indeed, to believe (though Hellanicus has\nrelated it) that they crossed the Cimmerian Bosphorus upon the ice; but\nthat they encamped almost in the heart of the city is confirmed by the\nnames of places, and by the tombs of those that fell.\u201d\n\nAlthough the fact seems to be well substantiated that in certain\nportions of the earth, and at various periods in the history of the\nrace, women have maintained their independence and protected their\ninterests by force of arms, it seems quite as certain that actual\nwarfare carried on by them has been confined to peoples among which\nmale supremacy had but recently been gained, and among which a resort\nto arms represented the last act of desperation to which they were\ndriven to maintain their dignity and honour. We have reason to believe,\nhowever, that even these cases have been exceptional; at least, from\nthe facts at hand, we have no reason for thinking that at any stage in\nthe history of women\u2019s career, armed resistance to masculine authority\nhas been uniform or protracted among them.\n\nAccording to scientists, among the lower orders of life, males are\nconsiderably in the excess of females, and among less developed\nraces men are more numerous than women. It has been shown in a\nformer portion of this work that the advancement of civilization is\ncharacterized by a corresponding increase in the number of women\namong the adult population; hence their evident lack of numbers among\nprimitive peoples, to say nothing of their probable aversion to war\nand bloodshed, would at once preclude the idea that their dominion\nwas achieved through armed resistance to a foe so superior in numbers\nand in fighting qualities. By a natural law governing propagation\u2014\na law which determines the numerical proportion of the sexes, and\nwhich creates an excess in the number of that sex best suited to its\nenvironment, primitive women, had they relied on physical force, would\nhave had little chance to maintain their independence.\n\nIn a former portion of this work it has been observed that it was\nneither to lack of numbers nor to their want of physical force that\nwomen were divested of their power; that it was not through their\nweakness, but through the peculiar course which the development or\ngrowth of males had taken, that under certain conditions women became\nenslaved.\n\nNot merely from the facts laid down by naturalists regarding the\npeculiar development of the male, but from later researches into the\nconditions and causes which have influenced progress, it is plain that\nno restrictions on the range of sexual liberties could have originated\nin males. Hence the demand for a more refined state of society must\nhave begun with females. This fact seems to have been perceived by\nBachofen, but, as according to his reasoning, at an early period of\nhuman existence, women were slaves, exercising none of the powers\nnecessary to personal control, it is difficult to conceive of any\nmanner in which it was possible for them to rise to the social position\nand moral dignity ascribed to them in _Das Mutter-recht_.\n\nAccording to the theory set forth by this writer, however, religion\nwas the cause of the important change which at this time took place\nin the positions of the sexes. Although, according to him, the\nreligion which prevailed during the ages of \u201clawlessness\u201d was of a low\n\u201ctelluric chthonic\u201d type, it was nevertheless the cause, or at least\none of the causes which led to the abandonment of promiscuity and the\nestablishment of the monogamic family. It will doubtless be remembered,\nhowever, that this age of lawlessness or hetairism which Bachofen\nhas described, represents a very early stage of human existence, in\nwhich, according to his reasoning, the baser instincts ruled supreme;\nnevertheless, within it, he would have us believe that a religious\nsystem had been evolved capable of lifting women from a state of\ndegradation to which they had been consigned by nature, or at least to\nwhich they had always been committed, to a position of influence and\nwomanly dignity in which they were able to assume supreme control over\nthe forces by which they had been enslaved. With sexual desire as the\ncontrolling influence in human affairs, and with women in bondage to\nthis power, it is difficult to conceive of any manner in which such a\nreligion could have arisen.\n\nAs all religious systems are believed to represent growths, and to\nindicate a result of the degree of progress attained, it is evident\nthat had a religion appeared at this early age which was capable of\nelevating women from a condition of degradation, as indicated by the\nearly state described by Bachofen it could not have been the result of\nnatural development, but, on the contrary, must have proceeded directly\nfrom a divine source; in which event it would doubtless have remained\nupon the earth still further to aid development and bless the race.\nSuch, however, was not the outcome of this remarkable but premature\nreligion; for it is asserted by this writer that what women gained by\nreligion they afterward lost through the same source\u2014that in Greece,\nthe loss first came through the oracle of Apollo, which declared the\nfather to be the real parent of the child.\n\nBachofen assures us, also, that through the Bacchanalian excesses which\nfollowed the dominion of males in Greece, hetairism was again restored,\nand through this means gynecocracy reappeared. From this it would seem\nthat although under the earliest stage of hetairism women were without\npower and wholly under the control of men, with the return, at a later\nage, of a like state of society, the basis was at once laid for female\nsupremacy.\n\nIt is evident that Herr Bachofen\u2019s confusion arises from a\nmisconception of the early importance of women. Although perhaps more\nthan any other writer upon this subject he has been able to recognize\nthe true bias of the female constitution, yet, as he has mistaken\nthe relative positions of women and men at the outset of the human\ncareer, and as he has been unable to perceive the previously developed\ninfluences which governed these relations, he has failed to furnish\na satisfactory solution of the problem of the early supremacy of\nwomen, which from the evidence adduced, not only by the traditions and\nmythologies of past ages, but by later developments in ethnology, may\nnot be doubted.\n\nPrior to the appearance of mankind on the earth, had there been\ndeveloped within the female no higher element than that which\ncharacterized the male, and had she appeared on the scene of human\naction as the willing and natural tool of her less-developed male mate,\nit is plain that she would have been unable to elevate herself to the\nposition of dignity which Bachofen assigns her, and which, until a\ncomparatively recent period in the human career, she had occupied.\n\nAs among the orders of creation below mankind the structural organism\nof the male has been materially changed through his efforts to please\nthe female and secure her favours, it is evident that under earlier and\nmore natural conditions of human life, the appetites developed within\nhim were still largely controlled by her will. From logical conclusions\nto be drawn from the hypotheses of naturalists, it is not likely that\nat the outset of human life those restrictions on the nature of the\nmale imposed by the female throughout the animal kingdom were suddenly\nwithdrawn, or that the destructive elements which all along the line\nof progress had been in abeyance to the higher powers developed in\norganized matter, were immediately and without good cause put in\nabsolute command over the constructive forces of life.\n\nWith a better knowledge of the past history of mankind, comes the\nassurance that such was not the case, but, on the contrary, that for\nthousands of years women were the ruling spirits in human society; that\nthe cohesive quality\u2014sympathy, which is the result of the maternal\ninstinct, and which conserves the highest interests of offspring, was\nthe underlying principle which governed human groups\u2014in fact, that\nit was the principle which made organization possible and progress\nattainable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHEORIES TO EXPLAIN WIFE-CAPTURE\n\n\nThe prevalence of wife-capture and the extent to which the symbol of\nforce in marriage ceremonies appears among tribes and races in the\nvarious stages of development, have given rise to numerous speculations\nand theories relative to the origin of these \u201csingular phenomena.\u201d\nNotable among the works dealing with this subject are _Primitive\nMarriage_, by Mr. J.\u202fF. McLennan, and the _Origin of Civilization_, by\nSir John Lubbock, both of which works followed closely the publication\nof _Das Mutter-recht_ by Herr Bachofen.\n\nAs at the time these works were published the fact of man\u2019s descent\nfrom the lower orders of life had not been established, and as nothing\nwas then known of the origin and development of organized society it\nis not remarkable that theories concerning the early relations of the\nsexes should prove worthless except perhaps to show the extent to which\nestablished prejudices may warp the judgment and dwarf the intellectual\nfaculties even of those who are honestly seeking after truth.\n\nThe avowed object of Mr. McLennan\u2019s volume was to trace the origin\nof wife-capture which is found to exist either as a legal symbol in\nmarriage ceremonies, or as a stern reality among peoples which have not\nyet reached civilized conditions. This writer declares: \u201cIn the whole\nrange of legal symbolism there is no symbol more remarkable than that\nof capture in marriage ceremonies.\u201d\n\nAfter setting forth numerous examples to prove the prevalence of\nwife-capture among uncivilized tribes and races, and after denouncing\nas absurd the theories relative to the symbol of force entering into\nthe marriage ceremonies in Sparta and in Rome, Mr. McLennan observes:\n\n The question now arises, what is the meaning and what the origin of a\n ceremony so widely spread that already on the threshold of our inquiry\n the reader must be prepared to find it connected with some universal\n tendency of mankind?\n\nMr. McLennan\u2019s answer to his own query is as follows:\n\n We believe the restriction on marriage to be connected with the\n practice in early times of female infanticide which rendering women\n scarce led at once to polyandry within the tribe and the capture of\n women from without.\n\nIn another portion of this work it has been shown that although\nmarriage was restricted within the gens, the earliest form of organized\nsociety, this restriction did not extend to the tribe. Marriage was\nforbidden among closely related groups. The gentes coalesced to form\nthe tribe. Although a man might not marry within his own gens, he was\nnot forbidden to marry within the tribe.\n\nIn Mr. Morgan\u2019s work on _Primitive Society_, published in 1871, are\nto be found the systems of consanguinity and affinity of 139 tribes\nand races representing, numerically, four-fifths of the entire human\nfamily. These systems show conclusively that the restrictions on\nmarriage observed in the gens did not extend to the tribe. The author\nof _Primitive Marriage_ has evidently mistaken a rule of the gens for a\nbinding tribal decree.\n\nMr. McLennan\u2019s theory relative to female infanticide is found to be\nequally fallacious. Noting the numerical difference in the two sexes\namong lower races, he says that as subsistence was scarce, and as war\nwas the natural and constant condition of primitive groups, only those\nof their members would be spared who could contribute to the defence of\nthe tribe, or who would be able to aid in the supply of subsistence.\nMales were possessed of strength, they were by organization and\ninclination adapted to war and the chase, and could therefore be\ndepended upon to assist in defending the tribe against the assaults of\nits enemies and in securing the necessary food for its requirements.\nOn the other hand, women being worthless in war and in the chase were\nregarded as useless appendages, and as they constituted a source of\nweakness to the tribe, large numbers of them were destroyed at birth.\nThrough this practice the balance of the sexes was greatly disturbed,\nand wives could be obtained only by means of stealth or a resort\nto force. Thus in process of time, the stealing of women became a\nlegitimate practice, and each warrior depended on his skill in this\nparticular direction to provide himself with a wife.\n\nFinally the children of these alien women began to intermarry and thus\nthe necessity for wife-capture no longer existed, and the practice\nof stealing women for wives was superseded by a system through which\nwives from other tribes were habitually obtained either by gift or\nsale. Thereafter the symbol of wife-capture was retained in marriage\nceremonies.\n\nWith a better understanding of peoples in a less developed state of\nsociety, it is found that infanticide has been less prevalent among\nthem than was formerly supposed; that when through scarcity of food it\nhas been practised it has not been confined to females, neither has it\nbeen carried on by tribes in the lowest stages of barbarism.\n\nRegarding this custom in Arabia, Prof. W. R. Smith says that our\nauthorities \u201cseem to represent the practice of infanticide as having\ntaken a new development not very long before the time of Mohammed.\u201d\nThis writer declares that the chief motive for infanticide was\n\u201cscarcity of food which must always have been felt in the desert.\u201d\n\nMuch has been written in the attempt to explain the practice of\ninfanticide which to some extent seems to have prevailed during a\ncertain stage of human development; but with the exception of those\ncases in which children of both sexes were slain because of scarcity\nof food, the one cause, namely, the dread of capture, is sufficient to\nexplain this unnatural practice.\n\nAlthough to a considerable extent, men had come to depend on foreign\ntribes for their wives, they nevertheless found little pleasure in\nfurnishing their quota of women in return, and as mothers doubtless\npreferred the death of their female children to the degradation and\nsuffering which was inevitable in case of capture, female infanticide\nno doubt seemed the wisest and in fact the only expedient.\n\nThe blood-tie of ancient society which bound together all those born\nof the women of the group irrespective of their fathers, must have\nemphasized the influence of mothers in the matter of infanticide. It is\nnot reasonable to suppose that the law of sympathy which had united the\nmembers of a clan by a bond stronger than that which binds together the\nmembers of a modern family was reversed without some deeper cause than\nhas thus far been assigned for it. It is indeed difficult to believe,\nin opposition to all the facts before us, that a practice which\ninvolved the destruction of the female members of the group would have\ngained the sanction of the tribe to such an extent that it would have\nbecome an established rule among them.\n\nRegarding the destruction of female infants among early races, Mr.\nDarwin remarks:\n\n They would not at that period have lost one of the strongest of all\n instincts common to all lower animals, namely the love of their young\n offspring, and consequently they would not have practised female\n infanticide.[143]\n\n[143] _Descent of Man_, p. 594.\n\nAnother reason why female infanticide could not have prevailed to any\nconsiderable extent is seen in the fact that any diminution in the\nnumber of females, would have involved a scarcity of warriors, thus\nweakening their means of defence. From available facts it is quite\nevident that the practice of female infanticide throws no light on\nwife-capture.\n\nMr. McLennan declares that women among rude tribes are usually depraved\nand inured to scenes of depravity from their earliest infancy; hence\nwhen property began to amass in the hands of men, in order to assure\npaternity, it became necessary, that women be brought under subjection.\n\nAs the female, when free, is unwilling to pair with individuals for\nwhom she feels no affection, and as under earlier conditions of human\nsociety women chose their mates, and so long as they remained together\nwere true to them, it is reasonable to suppose that paternity was\nknown, or at least that it might have been readily determined.\n\nMr. Morgan informs us that the \u201cTuranian, Ganow\u00e1nian, and Malayan\nsystems of consanguinity show conclusively that kinship through males\nwas recognized as constantly as kinship through females,\u201d that a man\nhad brothers and sisters, grandfathers and grandmothers traced through\nmales as well as through females. Although under gentile institutions\ndescent and all rights of succession were traced through mothers,\nkinship through fathers was easily ascertained.\n\nHence it is plain that Mr. McLennan\u2019s assumption that women were\nenslaved in order to assure paternity, that they became subject to the\ndominion and control of men so that fathers might not be compelled to\nsupport children not their own, is not supported by the evidence at\nhand.\n\nThat it was through capture, the forcible carrying away of women at\nfirst singly and later in groups to foreign tribes, in which as aliens\nand dependents they were shorn of their right to the soil, that males\nwere first enabled to arrogate to themselves the individual right to\nproperty is a fact which has been overlooked by Mr. McLennan.\n\nFrom the facts at hand relative to the earliest social regulation\nof mankind, that into classes on the basis of sex, it is evident\nthat it was inaugurated for no other purpose than the restriction\nof the marital relation\u2014a restriction to prevent the pairing of\nnear relations. Yet Mr. McLennan would have us believe that \u201cthe law\ncompelling marriage outside the recognized limit of near relationship\noriginated in no innate or primary feeling against marriage with\nkinsfolk.\u201d\n\nThe repugnance of females among the lower orders of life to pairing\nwith those individuals which were distasteful to them, or for which\nthey felt no genuine affection, has already been referred to in these\npages. At the earliest dawn of human life there probably existed within\nwoman a naturally acquired aversion to pairing with near relations,\nyet doubtless many ages elapsed before an idea of kinship sufficiently\ndefinite to be incorporated into an arbitrary law for the government of\nthe group was formulated; but in due course of time, with the further\ndevelopment of the higher characters, the idea of relationship began\nto take shape, whereupon was inaugurated a movement which doubtless\nrepresents one of the most important steps ever taken toward human\nadvancement.\n\nAs the female among all the orders of life, when free, is unwilling\nto pair with individuals for which she feels no affection, and as the\nsex-instinct has ever been restricted or held in abeyance by her, and\nas according to the savants, it was through the efforts of women that\nfrom time to time during the earlier ages of human existence the range\nof conjugal rights was abridged, it is reasonable to suppose that it\nwas woman who first objected to the pairing with near relations.\n\nThe statement of Mr. McLennan that the women of primitive races were\ndepraved, that they were inured to scenes of depravity from their\nearliest infancy is not borne out by facts. It has been shown in\nanother portion of this work that the most trustworthy writers, those\nwho have personally investigated tribes and races in the various stages\nof development, agree that chastity was an unvarying rule among them,\nthat before they were corrupted by civilization, a condition of morals\nexisted nowhere to be found among the so-called higher races.\n\nAfter referring to a state of advanced social existence in which every\nperson knowing what is right would feel an irresistible impulse toward\nright-living, Mr. Wallace remarks that among peoples low in the scale\nof development \u201cwe find some approaches to such a perfect social\nstate.\u201d He observes: \u201cIt is not too much to say that the mass of our\npopulation have not at all advanced beyond the savage code of morals,\nand have in many cases sunk below it.\u201d\n\nMost of the reports which come to us regarding the immorality of lower\nraces are brought by missionaries, who, although unacquainted with the\nlanguage, customs, and habits of thought of the peoples whose countries\nthey visit, nevertheless feel called upon to furnish lengthy reports\nof those benighted races which are \u201cutterly destitute of Christian\ntraining.\u201d\n\nAs the restrictions on marriage among early peoples were limited to\nclosely related groups, it is evident that the capture of wives was\nnot carried on because of any established law of exogamy, neither\nwas it practised because of the scarcity of women resulting from\nfemale infanticide nor because of a desire for recognized paternity.\nWife-capture arose from a demand for foreign women, aliens, who, torn\nfrom their homes and deprived of the protection of their own kinsfolk,\nhad no alternative but sexual slavery. These women were much more\ndesirable than the free-born women of a man\u2019s own tribe.\n\nAfter having created a false and wholly unwarrantable hypothesis, an\nhypothesis in which exogamy and endogamy, two principles which as\napplied to tribes never existed, play a conspicuous part, Mr. McLennan\nhas thrust nearly all the facts which he has observed relative to\nprimitive society into false positions and forced them to do duty in\nbolstering up his thoroughly imaginative theory to account for the\norigin of wife-capture. It is perhaps needless to say that the whole\nsubject, so far as his contribution is concerned, is as much a mystery\nas before he attempted a solution of the problem.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSir John Lubbock, like J.\u202fF. McLennan, assumes that the earliest\norganization of society was that of the tribe, and that a man was first\nregarded as belonging only to a group. Subsequently, as the maternal\nbond is stronger than that which unites a father to his offspring,\nkinship with his mother and her relations was established. In course of\ntime he was accounted as a descendant of his father only, and lastly he\nbecame equally related to both parents.\n\nNumerous illustrations are cited by this writer, going to show that\namong certain peoples descent is still reckoned in the female line, and\nthat all the rights of succession, both as regards property and tribal\nhonours, are traced through women.\n\nIn his _Origin of Civilization_ the fact is noted that in Guinea,\nwhen a wealthy man dies, his property passes by inheritance, not to\nhis sons, but to the children of his sister. He quotes also from\nPinkerton\u2019s _Voyages_ to show that the town of Loango is governed by\nfour chiefs who are sons of the king\u2019s sisters, and from Caillie who\nobserves that in Central Africa the sovereignty remains always in the\nsame family, but that the son never succeeds to his father\u2019s position.\nThese and numerous other instances, similar in character, are cited\nfrom various parts of the world, going to prove that a system of\ndescent and inheritance through women was once general throughout the\nraces of mankind.\n\nWith Herr Bachofen and Mr. McLennan, Sir John Lubbock is of the opinion\nthat the earliest conjugal unions of the human race were communal.\nCommunal marriage was founded on the supremacy of males, or, was based\non the undisputed right of men to the control of women. According to\nthis writer, communal marriage was succeeded by individual marriage\nthrough capture.\n\nAlthough Lubbock coincides with McLennan in the belief that under\ncertain circumstances infanticide has been practised by the lower\nraces, he does not agree with him as to the extent to which it has\nprevailed among them; neither is he of the opinion that it was confined\nto the female sex. On the contrary, he cites trustworthy authority to\nprove that boys were as frequently disposed of as were girls.\n\nAlthough with McLennan, Lubbock recognizes the prevalence of\nwife-capture and the principle of exogamy, yet, according to the theory\nof the former, marriage by capture arose from exogamy, while, according\nto the latter, exogamy arose from marriage by capture.\n\nLubbock accounts for wife-capture by the following theory: As under the\ncommunal system, women of the tribe were the \u201ccommon property\u201d of the\nmen of the group, no individual male among them would have attempted\nto appropriate one of these women to himself, for the reason that\nsuch appropriation would have been regarded as an infringement on the\nrights of the remaining males in the community. A warrior, however,\nupon capturing a woman from a hostile people, might claim her as his\nrightful possession, and hold her as against all the other members of\nthe tribe. Since the women of the group were so emphatically the common\nproperty of the men, the exclusive right to one of them in progressive\ntribes which had reached a state of friendliness would involve a symbol\nof capture to make valid such a claim. This symbol, according to\nLubbock, has no reference to those from whom the woman has been stolen,\nbut is intended to bar the rights of other members of the tribe into\nwhich she is brought. He thinks that \u201cthe exclusive possession of a\nwife could only be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the\npre-existing communal rights,\u201d and cites the account given by Herodotus\nof the custom existing in Babylonia, where every woman once during\nher lifetime must present herself at the temple, there to accept the\nproposals of the first man who requests her to follow him.\n\nAlthough Lubbock declares that the symbol of violence in marriage\nceremonies \u201ccan only be explained by the hypothesis that the capture\nof wives was once a stern reality,\u201d he claims not to believe that the\nearly conditions under which men were compelled to capture their wives\nby violence, or do without them, were in any degree the result of\nfeminine will in the matter.\n\nIn referring to the fallacious theory of Mr. McLennan, that the capture\nof women for wives arose from the practice of female infanticide,\nwhich, by producing a scarcity of women, created a necessity for\nmarriage without the limits of the tribe, Sir John Lubbock, although\nseemingly unable to recognize the actual force which was in operation\nto prevent the \u201cappropriation\u201d of women by men, has nevertheless shown\nhimself able to perceive the reason why foreign women were captured,\nand what the tendency in males was which demanded their presence.\n\nAfter referring to the fact that no male could appropriate to himself a\nfemale belonging to the tribe, he says:\n\n Women taken in war were, on the contrary, in a different position. The\n tribe, as a tribe, had no right to them, and men surely would reserve\n to themselves exclusively their own prizes. These captives then would\n naturally become wives in our own sense of the term.\n\nForeign women would become dependents, their captors having the\nundisputed right to the control of their persons.\n\nAt the outset, Sir John Lubbock finds himself confronted with the\nfact that a system of reckoning descent through women once prevailed\nover the habitable globe. According to his own reasoning, this system\npresupposes a condition of society under which property rights and\nall rights of succession were traced through women, still we find\nhim offering the following belief concerning the matter. \u201cI believe,\nhowever, that communities in which women have exercised the supreme\npower are rare and exceptional, if, indeed, they ever existed at all.\u201d\n\nWere we not already acquainted with the prejudices of most of the\nwriters who have thus far dealt with this subject, in view of the facts\neverywhere represented going to prove that a system of gynecocracy once\nprevailed over the entire earth, this \u201cbelief\u201d of Mr. Lubbock would be\ntruly remarkable, especially when we learn the reason given by him for\nhis conclusion. He says:\n\n We do not find in history, as a matter of fact, that women do assert\n their rights, and savage women would, I think, be peculiarly unlikely\n to uphold their dignity in the manner supposed.[144]\n\n[144] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 99.\n\nIt is quite true that it is not observed \u201cin history\u201d that women assert\ntheir rights. It has been shown, however, that prior to the historic\nage, through capture and the individual ownership of land, women had\nbecome dependent upon men and wholly subject to their control. After\nthousands of years of subjection to male influence, the movements of\nwomen, who are still dependent upon men, furnish little satisfactory\ninformation regarding the character of free women at a time before\nthey had succumbed to the exigencies of brute force, and the unbridled\nappetites of their male masters. Slaves seldom assert their rights, or,\nif they do, of what avail is it?\n\nWere we in possession of no other facts in support of the theory of\nan early age of female supremacy than that all relationships to which\nrights of succession were attached were formerly traced through women,\nthe evidence in its favour would be sufficient to prove it true, but\nthis manner of reckoning descent represents only one of the many\nindications of such an age which Lubbock himself has been constrained\nto record; yet, because\u2014during the historic age\u2014an age throughout which\nthe masculine element has ruled supreme, women have not asserted their\nrights, this writer feels inclined to ignore all the evidence bearing\nupon the subject, at the same time declaring that women could not\nhave \u201cupheld their dignity in the manner supposed\u201d; that the female,\non gaining human conditions, could not have exercised the instincts\ninherited by her from her dumb progenitors.\n\nIf the females among insects, birds, and many species of mammals are\nable to control the relations between themselves and their male mates,\nwhy should it not be inferred that the female of the human species\nwould still be able to uphold the natural dignity of the female sex?\n\nAs an argument in support of his theory that the influence of women\nwas never supreme, Sir John Lubbock alludes to the position of\nAustralian women as being one of \u201ccomplete subjection,\u201d and as the\nnative Australians represent perhaps the lowest existing stage of human\nsociety, he doubtless thinks his argument unassailable. However, that\nthe position of Australian women cannot be taken as a reliable guide in\nestimating primitive womanhood is shown by the writer\u2019s own reasoning\nwhen he says:\n\n It must not be assumed, however, that the condition of primitive\n man is correctly represented by even the lowest of existing races.\n The very fact that the latter have remained stationary, that their\n manners, habits, and mode of life have continued almost unaltered for\n generations, has created a strict, and often complicated, system of\n customs, from which the former was necessarily free, but which has in\n some cases gradually acquired even more than the force of law.[145]\n\n[145] _Origin of Civilization_, p.\u202f2.\n\nYet we find him comparing primitive women with this race which for\nthousands upon thousands of years, because of its environment, or\nthrough some cause which is not understood, has been unable to advance.\n\nWhile this writer perceives clearly that foreign women were much more\ndesirable for wives than those belonging to a man\u2019s own tribe, he has\nnot been able to discover the reason why this was so, but, continuing\nto babble about the \u201crights\u201d of the men of the group, overlooks the\nfact that native-born women were free, and as only those women who had\nfirst been torn from their friends and shorn of their independence\ncould at this stage of human existence be forced into the position of\nwife, it became necessary to secure them by violence from surrounding\ntribes. He is not blind to the fact that it was a desire to extend\nthe limit of conjugal liberties on the part of males which prompted\nwife-capture; yet he would have us believe that although women were\nabsolutely independent of men, and although they were the recognized\nheads of families, and the source whence originated all the privileges\nof the gens, it was in no degree owing to their influence that the\nconjugal liberties of males were restricted within the tribe, but, on\nthe contrary, that this restriction was enforced out of regard for\nthe \u201cproprietary rights\u201d of the men of the group. He says: \u201cWe must\nremember that under the communal system the women of the tribe were\nall common property. No one could appropriate one of them to himself\nwithout infringing on the general rights of the tribe.\u201d\n\nAs well might we say of the female bird for whose favours the male\nfights until overcome by exhaustion and loss of blood, that she belongs\nto him, or that he may appropriate her, as to say that the men of early\ngroups could \u201cappropriate\u201d women. From all the facts relative to the\ncondition of early society, it is plain that if either sex could with\npropriety be designated as property it must have been the male. It is\nevident that women were stolen from distant tribes for the express\npurpose of sexual slavery, a position to which free, native-born women\ncould not be dragged; therefore, when Lubbock assures us that these\nforeign women naturally \u201cbecame wives in our own sense of the term,\u201d\nwe may be sure that he is neither unmindful of the origin of our\npresent social system, nor of the true significance attached to the\nposition of wife. Indeed, he informs us that the \u201corigin of marriage\nwas independent of all sacred and social conditions,\u201d and proves\nthe same by actually producing the evidence. He has no hesitancy in\ndeclaring that marriage is a masculine institution, established in the\ninterest (or supposed interest) of males; that it was \u201cfounded not on\nthe rights of the woman, but of the man,\u201d and that there was not on\nthe woman\u2019s part even the semblance of consent. In fact he declares\nthat he regards it as an illustration of the good old plan that \u201che\nshould take who has the power, and he should keep who can.\u201d He says\nalso that it had nothing to do with mutual affection or sympathy,\nthat it was invalidated by no appearance of consent, and that it was\nsymbolized not by any demonstration of warm affection on the one side\nand tender devotion on the other, but by brutal violence and unwilling\nsubmission. To prove that the connection between force and marriage\nis deeply rooted, Sir John Lubbock, like Mr. McLennan, has furnished\nnumerous examples of peoples among whom marriage by actual capture\nstill prevails, as well as many among which the system has passed into\na mere symbol. He is quite certain that the complete subjection of\nthe woman in marriage furnishes an explanation to those examples in\nbarbarous life in which women are looked upon as being too great to\nmarry\u2014and cites the case of Sebituane, chief of the Bechuanas, who told\nhis daughter, Mamochis\u00e1ne, that all the men were at her disposal\u2014\u201cshe\nmight take any one, but ought to keep none.\u201d\n\nThis instance, together with numberless others which might be cited,\nproves that long after the practice of appropriating solitary women for\nsexual purposes had become general, the position of wife was considered\ntoo degrading to be occupied by women of rank.\n\nAttention has been called to Lubbock\u2019s idea concerning the \u201crights\u201d\nof the males of the group. We have seen that it is his opinion that\nthe exclusive possession of a woman could only be legally acquired by\na temporary recognition of the pre-existing communal rights, and that\nthe account in Herodotus of the debasement of Babylonian women was\ncited by him as evidence to prove his position. He seems, however, to\nforget that this custom, which was practised in various nations, is a\nreligious rite, and was inaugurated at a time when the adoration of the\nsun, as the source of all life and light, had degenerated into the most\ndegrading phallic worship. To those who have given attention to the\ngrowth of the god-idea, the supposed cases of \u201cexpiation for marriage,\u201d\ncited by Lubbock, are to be explained by the peculiar practices\ninaugurated under fire and passion worship at a time long subsequent to\nthe establishment of _ba\u2019al_ marriages.\n\nIn his chapter on \u201cThe Origin of Marriage by Capture,\u201d this writer\nsays:\n\n That marriage by capture has not arisen from female modesty, is, I\n think, evident, not only because we have no reason to suppose that\n such a feeling prevails especially among the lower races of man; but\n also, firstly, because it cannot explain the mock resistance of the\n relatives; and, secondly, because the very question to be solved\n is why it became so generally the custom to win the female not by\n persuasion but by force.[146]\n\n[146] _Origin of Civilization_, p. 106.\n\nThat female modesty may not account for marriage by capture will\nscarcely be disputed; it is not impossible, however, that disgust, or\naversion, on the part of women, may, in a measure, serve to explain it.\n\nSir John Lubbock should bear in mind that \u201cchoice\u201d in the matter of\npairing was an early prerogative of the female; that true affection, a\ncharacter differing widely from the sex instinct developed in the male\nwas necessary before she could be induced to accept the attentions of\nthe male. While the women among primitive peoples abhorred strangers or\nforeigners, it may scarcely be said of them that they were too modest\nto accept them as suitors. Evidently, modesty is not the term to be\nemployed in this connection.\n\nIn seeking a reason to explain why force rather than persuasion was\nused in the consummation of early marriages, we have to remember the\nwide difference existing between the position of free women and that\nof those who were obliged to accept the _ba\u2019al_ form of marriage. If,\nas we have reason to believe, as late as the beginning of the second\nor Middle Status of barbarism, instead of following the father of her\nchildren to his house as his slave, a woman remained in a home owned,\nor at least controlled jointly by herself, her mother, her sisters, and\nher daughters, it is plain that a state of female independence existed\nwhich was incompatible with female subjection. Add to this the fact\nthat a woman\u2019s children belonged exclusively to herself, or to her\nfamily, and that all hereditary honours and rights of succession were\ntraced through females, and we have a set of circumstances which would\nseem sufficient to explain why force was necessary to bring women into\nthe marital relation.\n\nThat the capture of women for wives arose because the independence\nof free women was a bar to the gratification of the lower instincts\nin man, can, in the presence of all the facts at hand, scarcely be\ndoubted; and that women submitted to the position of wife only when\nobliged to do so, or when deprived of liberty and dragged from home and\nfriends, is only too apparent. While modesty as a cause for capture\nmay not account for the resistance of the relations, the sacrifice of\na daughter may serve to explain even this knotty point. If the capture\nof a free and independent girl from her mother by a band of marauders\nfrom a hostile tribe for purposes of the most degrading slavery, cannot\naccount for the resistance of the mother-in-law, among most of the\nso-called lower races, then indeed it is difficult to conjecture any\nprovocation or any set of circumstances which can account for it.\n\nThis writer\u2019s assertion that it is \u201ccontrary to all experience that\nfemale delicacy diminishes with civilization,\u201d proves conclusively that\nhe regards the slight degree of reserve which he is pleased to accredit\nto women in modern times, as a result of civilization\u2014a civilization,\ntoo, which he evidently considers as wholly the result of masculine\nachievement; in other words, he doubtless thinks that the degree of\nself-respect observed among women at the present time is the result not\nof the innate tendencies in the female constitution, but of masculine\ntuition and training, an assumption which, when viewed by the light\nwhich in recent years has been thrown upon the development of the two\ndiverging sex columns, is as absurd as it is arrogant and false. Some\ntime will doubtless elapse before Sir John Lubbock and the class of\nwriters which he represents will be willing to admit that civilization\nhas been possible only because of the checks to the animal nature of\nthe male, which are the natural result of the maternal instinct.\n\nWith a system, however, under which for six thousand years every\nwomanly instinct has been smothered, and under which female activity\nhas been utilized in the service of the strong sex instinct developed\nin males, the outward expression of female delicacy has doubtless\ndiminished; and, in their weakened mental and physical condition,\nwomen, dependent not only for all the luxuries but the necessities\nof life as well, upon pleasing the men, have doubtless given them,\nblinded as they have become by the conditions of their own peculiar\ndevelopment, some reason for believing that within the female as within\nthe male, passion has been the ruling characteristic.\n\nSir John Lubbock, as well as other writers who have dealt with this\nsubject, should bear in mind the fact that female delicacy is a subject\nwhich can be satisfactorily discussed only in relation to free and\nindependent women; hence the degree of its manifestation at any time\nduring the past six thousand years may bear little testimony concerning\nthe natural tendencies of women, or the condition of society under a\nsystem where female influence was in the ascendency.\n\nTo those individuals whose minds are not clouded by prejudice, the fact\nwill doubtless be apparent, that the valuable information which has\nbeen presented by three of the foremost writers on the subject of the\nearly relations of the sexes and the origin of marriage, instead of\nserving as evidence to substantiate the fallacious theories which they\nhave propounded, is found to lie in a direct line with the facts and\nprinciples which have been put forward by scientists in the theory of\nnatural development.\n\nA review of the theories set forth by these three writers shows\nthat about the only point on which they agree is the lawlessness, or\npromiscuity, of early races. As they have all started out with a false\npremise, it is not singular that none of them has succeeded in setting\nforth a consistent and reasonable hypothesis to account either for the\nsymbol of wife-capture, or for the early supremacy of women.\n\n\n\n\n                               PART III\n\n                        Early Historic Society\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nEARLY HISTORIC SOCIETY FOUNDED ON THE GENS\n\n\nThe result of recent research into the early organization of society,\nthe growth of the governmental idea, and the development of the\nfamily, among tribes in the ascending scale, serve to throw new and\nunexpected light upon the customs, ideas, institutions, and legends\nof early historic peoples. Upon investigation it is observed that the\nconstruction of Greek and Roman society corresponds exactly with that\nof existing tribes occupying a lower plane in the scale of development,\nand that all the institutions of these nations, although in a higher\nstate of advancement, involve the same original principles and ideas.\n\nThat the Greek and Roman tribes before reaching civilization had\npassed through exactly the same processes of development as have been\nwitnessed in the ascending scale among the North American Indians,\nthe Arabians, and all other extant peoples, is shown not alone by\nthe manner in which early society was organized and held together,\nbut by the similarity observed in their myths, legends, traditions,\ninstitutions, and social usages.\n\nWhether or not a more advanced stage of civilization had been attained\nby the progenitors of the Greeks and Romans is a question that does not\nhere concern us; for, if at any time prior to the appearance of these\npeoples in history, a higher plane of life had been reached, it is\nreasonable to suppose that such a state was gained under gentile forms\nof society, especially as their various institutions at the beginning\nof the historic period represent them as still to a considerable extent\ngoverned by the ideas peculiar to the gens.\n\nThe earliest authentic accounts which we have of the Greeks represent\nthem as composed of the Doric tribes, who were Hellenes, and the\nIonians, who were of Pelasgic origin. The Dorians were a conservative\npeople, exclusive in their tastes and intolerant of innovations, while\nthe Ionians, who occupied the seacoasts and the adjacent islands,\nwere restless, fond of novelty, and not averse to intercourse with\nsurrounding nations.\n\nOf the original inhabitants of Rome, it is observed that they consisted\nof wandering tribes, bands of outlaws, and refugees from various\ncountries. Concerning the true origin of these peoples, however, and\nof the history of their earliest settlements, they themselves were\nevidently ignorant, and the fragmentary accounts of them which have\nbeen preserved to us, when viewed independently of the light reflected\nupon them by recent investigation, furnish but a dim picture in the\noutline of which the most prominent figures appear only as indistinct\nshadows or as objects without definite shape. It is true there was no\nlack of myths and traditions which had come down to the Greeks and\nRomans as genuine history, and which were doubtless regarded by them\nas trustworthy accounts of their ancestors. Theseus who united the\nAttic tribes, and Romulus who founded Rome, were heroes in whom the\ndivine and human were so nicely adjusted and so evenly balanced that\nthe history of their earthly career presents no shade of error either\nin public or in private life. Indeed, both had sprung from immortal\nsources, and their exploits were such as might be expected from the\nmythical heroes of a forgotten age.\n\nAlthough Greek society when it first came under our observation was\nunder gentile organization, the gens had passed out of its archaic\nstage. This ancient institution, which had carried humanity through\nto civilization, was gradually losing its vitality; it had lost its\nefficiency as a governing agency, and was about to give place to\npolitical institutions.\n\nWith the facts at present accessible regarding peoples in the lower\nand middle stages of barbarism, the various steps in the growth of\ngovernment as administered in the upper or latter stage of barbarism\nare clearly observed; also by close attention to the conditions\nsurrounding extant peoples in the latter stage of barbarism and the\nopening ages of civilization, the processes involved in the transfer\nof society from gentile to political institutions are easily traced,\ntogether with the principal ideas and motives underlying the growth of\nall the institutions belonging to early historic nations.\n\nUntil civilization was reached the gens constituted the unit of\norganized society. This fact, however, until a comparatively recent\ntime, seems to have been overlooked. Without attempting to explain\nthe origin of the gens and phratry as they existed in Greece, Mr.\nGrote observes: \u201cThe legislator finds them pre-existing, and adapts or\nmodifies them to answer some national scheme.\u201d Unacquainted as this\nwriter evidently was with the construction of primitive society, he\nfailed to observe that originally, in Greece, all the powers of the\nlegislator himself were derived from and circumscribed by the gens.\nIndeed, that this organization upon which the superstructure of Grecian\nsociety rested was the original source whence proceeded all social\nprivileges and all military rights and obligations, is a condition\nwhich until a comparatively recent time has been overlooked. While\ndiscussing the relations of the family to the gens, the gens to the\nphratry, and the phratry to the tribe, Mr. Grote says: \u201cThe basis of\nthe whole was the house, hearth, or family\u2014a number of which, greater\nor less, composed the gens, or genos.\u201d[147]\n\n[147] _History of Greece_, vol. iii., p. 54.\n\nMr. Morgan has shown, however, that the family could not have\nconstituted the basis of the gens, for the reason that the heads of\nfamilies belonged to separate gentes. We are assured that the gens is\nmuch older than the monogamic family, and therefore that the latter\ncould not have formed the basis of the gentile organization; but even\nhad the family preceded the gens in order of development, as its\nmembers belonged to different gentes it could not have constituted the\nunit of the social series.\n\nIn order to gain a clear understanding of the processes and principles\ninvolved in the early Grecian form of government, it first becomes\nnecessary briefly to review the various steps in the growth of the\ngovernmental functions through two ethnical periods.\n\nThe tribe is a community of related individuals possessed of equal\nrights and privileges, and bound by equal duties and responsibilities.\nIt has been shown that in the Lower Status of barbarism the government\nconsisted of only one power\u2014a council of chiefs elected by the people.\nDuring the Middle Status of barbarism two powers appear,\u2014the civil and\nmilitary functions have become separated, the duties of a military\ncommander being co-ordinated with those of a council of chiefs. The\nmilitary commander, however, has not succeeded in drawing to himself\nthe powers of a ruler or king. In the Second Status of barbarism\ntribes have not begun to confederate. A single tribe, its members\nbound together by the tie of kinship and united by common rights and\nresponsibilities, owning their lands in common, and each contributing\nhis share toward the common defence, so long as it was able to maintain\nits independence, had little need for an elaborate form of government.\nAs yet no strifes engendered by envy and extreme selfishness had arisen\nto disturb the simplicity of their lives, or to check the development\nof those early principles of liberty and fraternity which were the\nnatural inheritance of the gens. A council of chiefs elected by the\ngentes and receiving all its powers from the people had thus far\nperformed all the duties of government.\n\nAfter the Upper Status of barbarism is reached we find confederated\ntribes dwelling together in walled cities surrounded by embankments,\nand a state of affairs existing which called for a further\ndifferentiation of the functions of government, and a redistribution of\nthe powers and responsibilities of the people. In process of time, with\nthe accumulation of property in masses in the hands of the few, and\nthe consequent rise of an aristocracy, a government founded on wealth,\nor on a territorial basis, rather than on the personal relations of an\nindividual to his gens, was demanded; and, finally, those principles,\nrights, and privileges which constitute a pure democracy, and which\nhad always formed the basis of gentile institutions were gradually\nignored; that personal influence which was originally exercised by each\nand every gentilis being transferred to a privileged class\u2014a class\nwhich controlled the wealth, and at the head of which was the military\ncommander or _basileus_. Such was the condition of Grecian society as\nit first appears in history.\n\nA comparison instituted by Mr. Morgan between the Iroquois gens and\nthat of the Greeks shows the former at the time when it first came\nunder European observation to have been in the archaic stage, with\ndescent and all the rights of succession traced in the female line;\nwhile the latter, at the time designated as the heroic age, had not\nonly changed the manner of reckoning descent from the female to the\nmale line, but was evidently about to give place to political society\nwhich, instead of being founded on kinship, was based on property and\nterritory, or upon a man\u2019s relations to the township or deme in which\nhe resided.\n\nWhile the Iroquois tribe of Indians represents the gens in its original\nvitality, the Greeks appear to have reached a stage at which the\narchaic form of government instituted on the basis of kin was found\ninadequate to meet their necessities; hence the confusion arising\nfrom disputed authority, at the almost interminable struggle between\nthe various classes which had arisen, and the evident disaffection\nand unrest manifest among the entire Grecian people during the ages\nintervening between Codrus, nearly eleven hundred years B.C., and\nClisthenes, five hundred years later.\n\nThat degree of jealousy with which individual liberty was guarded\nduring the earlier ages of historic Greece, that thirst for freedom,\nand that restlessness under tyranny which characterized the Grecian\npeople throughout their entire career, are explained by the fact that\nprior to the age of Clisthenes they were under gentile institutions,\nthe fundamental principles of which were liberty, equality, and\njustice. From all the facts which may be gathered bearing upon this\nsubject, it is evident that although at the beginning of the historic\nperiod the Greeks had lost much of that independence which belonged to\nan earlier stage of human development, their institutions still partook\nof the character of a democracy.\n\nOf the similarity of the customs and institutions of early historic\nGreece and those of a more primitive age we have ample evidence. In\nancient Greece, as among the Iroquois tribe of Indians, \u201cproperty\nwas vested absolutely in the clan, and could not be willed away from\nit.\u201d[148] Not only did the members of a clan hold their property in\ncommon, but they were obliged to help, defend, support, and even\navenge those of their number who required their assistance. Young\nfemales bereft of near relations were either furnished with husbands or\nprovided with suitable portions. Descent must still have been reckoned\nin the female line, for foreigners admitted to citizenship were not\nmembers of any clan, neither were their descendants, unless born of\nwomen who were citizens. Citizens were enrolled in the clan and phratry\nof their mothers.[149]\n\n[148] George Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.\n\n[149] _Ibid._\n\nIn the administration of the government, however, are to be noted a\nfew important changes. The complications which had arisen as a result\nof the individual ownership of property, the change in the reckoning\nof descent from the female to the male line which followed, and the\ngrowth of the aristocratic element, had produced a corresponding change\nin the control and management of the government. Solicitude for the\ncommon weal, although still felt by the great mass of the people, had\namong the rulers given place to extreme egoism, and that association\nand combination of interests, which since the dawn of organized society\nhad characterized the gens, was rapidly giving way before the love of\ndominion, the thirst for power, and the greed of gain\u2014characters which\nin process of time came to represent the mainspring of human action.\n\nWith the changes which took place in the conditions of the people,\nit is seen that the administrative functions became still further\ndifferentiated. Co-ordinate with the Greek _basileus_ or war-chief are\nto be observed not only a council of chiefs who were the heads of the\ngentes, but also an assembly of the people, these three governmental\nfunctions corresponding in a general way to our President, Senate, and\nHouse of Representatives.\n\nThe Ecclesia or general assembly at Sparta was originally composed\nof all the free males who dwelt within the city. Although this body\noriginated no measures, it was invested with authority to adopt or\nreject any proposed legislation or plan of action devised by the\nchiefs. \u201cAll changes in the constitution or laws, and all matters of\ngreat public import, as questions of peace or war, of alliances, and\nthe like, had to be brought before it for decision.\u201d[150] Thus may be\nobserved the precautions which during the latter stages of barbarism\nhad been taken to guard the rights of the people, and to insure them\nagainst individual and class usurpation.\n\n[150] George Rawlinson, book v., essay i.\n\nCurtius assures us that the Dorian people\n\n did not feel as if they were placed in a foreign state, but they were\n the citizens of their own\u2014not merely the objects of legislation, but\n also participants in it, for they only obeyed such statutes as they\n themselves had agreed to.[151]\n\n[151] _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.\n\nAlthough Mr. Grote would have us believe that the assembly of the\npeople was simply a \u201clistening agora,\u201d[152] it is plain that it was\noriginally invested with sufficient power to protect the people against\ndespotism. In the further differentiation of the administrative\nfunctions the powers of the subordinate officers are all drawn from\nthe sum of the powers invested in the three principal branches of\nthe government, the ill-defined duties of each giving rise to those\nunabated dissensions and fierce and unrelenting strifes which in course\nof time became such a fruitful source of devastation and bloodshed.\n\n[152] Vol. ii., p. 348.\n\nFrom what is known at the present time regarding Greek society prior\nto the age of Theseus, it is not at all likely that it was organized\non monarchial principles, or that any form of government prevailed in\nGreece other than that of a military democracy. It is true that by most\nof the writers who have dealt with the subject of the government of the\nearly Greeks, the _basileus_ has been designated as king, and that he\nhas been invested by them with all the insignia of a modern monarch.\nIn later times, however, with a better understanding of the principles\nunderlying early society, this view of the matter is seen to be false.\nMr. Morgan, a writer who as we have seen has given much attention to\nthe constitution of gentile society, informs us that in the Lower and\nalso in the Middle Status of barbarism the office of chief was elective\nor during good behaviour, \u201cfor this limitation follows from the right\nof the gens to depose from office.\u201d[153]\n\n[153] _Ancient Society_, p. 262.\n\nWhen descent was in the female line this office descended either to a\nbrother of the deceased chief or to a sister\u2019s son, but later, when\ndescent began to be traced in the male line, the eldest son was usually\nelected to succeed his father. Upon this subject Mr. Morgan says\nfurther:\n\n It cannot be claimed, on satisfactory proof, that the oldest son of\n the _basileus_ took the office, upon the demise of his father, by\n absolute hereditary right.... The fact that the oldest, or one of\n the sons, usually succeeded, which is admitted, does not establish\n the fact in question; because by usage he was in the probable line of\n succession by a free election from a constituency. The presumption on\n the face of Grecian institutions is against succession to the office\n of _basileus_ by hereditary right; and in favour either of a free\n election, or of a confirmation of the office by the people through\n their recognized organization, as in the case of the Roman rex. With\n the office of _basileus_ transmitted in the manner last named, the\n government would remain in the hands of the people. Because without an\n election or confirmation he could not assume the office; and because,\n further, the power to elect or confirm implies the reserved right to\n depose.[154]\n\n[154] _Ancient Society_, p. 262.\n\nThere is no lack of evidence at the present time going to prove\nthat all these early tribes were originally organized on thoroughly\ndemocratic principles, and that there never was any dignity conferred\non the leader of the early Grecian hosts answering to the present\ndefinition of king; also that prior to the time of Romulus, no\nchieftain of the Latin tribes was ever invested with sufficient\nauthority to have constituted him an imperial ruler. The term\n_basileus_, as applied to a leader of a military democracy in the early\nages of Grecian history, doubtless implies simply the war-chief of the\nprimitive tribe, an officer chosen from among the chiefs of the gentes\nas a leader of the hosts in battle, but as claiming no civil functions,\nand as possessing no authority outside the office of military\nchieftain.\n\nThe Homeric writings, which contain the earliest direct information\nwhich we have of the Greeks, and in which are doubtless mirrored forth\na tolerably correct picture of the customs, institutions, and manners\nof this people, when read by the light of more recently developed facts\nrelative to the early constitution of society, are invested with new\ninterest, and a fresh charm and a new significance are added to every\ndetail connected with the narrative. As to the extent of authority\nattached to the office of military leader among the Greeks, Homer has\ngiven us a fair illustration in the person of Agamemnon\u2014\u201cshepherd of\nthe people.\u201d That the position of this chieftain differs widely from\nthat occupied by the king of succeeding ages is apparent. At the outset\nwe find the injured Achilles, after he has taunted the chieftain with\nbeing the \u201cgreediest of men,\u201d addressing him in the following language:\n\n    Ha, thou mailed in impudence\n    And bent on lucre! Who of all the Greeks\n    Can willingly obey thee, on the march,\n    Or bravely battling with the enemy![155]\n\n[155] _The Iliad_, book i., Bryant\u2019s translation.\n\nThen Pelides takes up the strain and with opprobrious words thus\naddresses the son of Atreus:\n\n    Wine-bibber with the forehead of a dog\n    And a deer\u2019s heart. Thou never yet hast dared\n    To arm thyself for battle with the rest,\n    Nor join the other chiefs prepared to lie\n    In ambush,\u2014such thy craven fear of death.\n    Better it suits thee, midst the mighty host\n    Of Greeks, to rob some warrior of his prize\n    Who dares withstand thee.[156]\n\n[156] _The Iliad_, book i., Bryant\u2019s translation.\n\nEven the brawler Thersites,\n\n    Squint-eyed, with one lame foot, and on his back\n    A lump, and shoulders curving towards the chest,\n\ndares to insult this chief\u2014this king as he is represented by most\nmodern writers, and to his face taunt him with his injustice towards\nAchilles. To Agamemnon he says:\n\n    Of what dost thou complain; what wouldst thou more,\n    Atrides? In thy tents are heaps of gold;\n    Thy tents are full of chosen damsels, given\n    To thee before all others, by the Greeks,\n    Whene\u2019er we take a city. Dost thou yet\n    Hanker for gold, brought by some Trojan knight,\n    A ransom for his son, whom I shall lead\u2014\n    I, or some other Greek\u2014a captive bound?\n    Or dost thou wish, for thy more idle hours,\n    Some maiden, whom thou mayst detain apart?\n    Ill it beseems a prince like thee to lead\n    The sons of Greece, for such a cause as this,\n    Into new perils. O ye coward race!\n    Ye abject Greeklings, Greeks no longer, haste\n    Homeward with all the fleet, and let us leave\n    This man at Troy to win his trophies here,\n    That he may learn whether the aid we give\n    Avails him aught or not, since he insults\n    Achilles, a far braver man than he.[157]\n\n[157] Book ii.\n\nIt is true Ulysses smote Thersites as he upbraided him for this insult\nto Agamemnon. It is plain, however, that the chastisement was of a\nprivate nature. It seems not to have been a crime openly to berate\ntheir chief. Indeed the position of \u201cshepherd of the people\u201d was not\none of such dignity that any warrior among the hosts might not with\nimpunity freely speak his mind concerning him, or to his face confront\nhim with improper behaviour. When Agamemnon compared unfavourably\nthe valour of Diomed with that of his father, Tydeus, Sthenelus, the\nhonoured son of Capaneus, hesitated not to remind the chief of his\nfolly, and to his face upbraid him. \u201cAtrides, speak not falsely when\nthou knowest the truth so well.\u201d[158]\n\n[158] Book iv.\n\nRegarding the office of king, Mr. Morgan says:\n\n Modern writers, almost without exception, translate _basileus_ by\n the term _king_, and _basileia_ by the term _kingdom_, without\n qualification, and as exact equivalents. I wish to call attention\n to this office of _basileus_, as it existed in the Grecian tribes,\n and to question the correctness of this interpretation. There is no\n similarity whatever between the _basileia_ of the ancient Athenians\n and the modern kingdom or monarchy.... Constitutional monarchy is\n a modern development, and essentially different from the _basileia_\n of the Greeks. The _basileia_ was neither an absolute nor a\n constitutional monarchy; neither was it a tyranny nor a despotism. The\n question then is, what was it?\n\nMr. Morgan\u2019s answer to the question is as follows:\n\n The primitive Grecian government was essentially democratical,\n reposing on gentes, phratries, and tribes organized as self-governing\n bodies, and on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.\n\nThis writer says further:\n\n Our views upon Grecian and Roman questions have been moulded by\n writers accustomed to monarchical government and privileged classes,\n who were perhaps glad to appeal to the earliest known governments of\n the Grecian tribes for a sanction of this form of government, as at\n once natural, essential, and primitive.[159]\n\n[159] _Ancient Society_, p. 247.\n\nWe have noted the precautions which during the second and latter\nperiods of barbarism were necessary to keep in check the increasing\nthirst for power, and it may not be doubted that through the growth of\nthe aristocratic tendency during the latter ages of the existence of\nthe gens, the office of _basileus_ gave to its incumbent a degree of\ndistinction closely allied to that of king.\n\nIn the eleventh century B.C. upon the death of Codrus, so necessary\nhad it become to check the continually increasing power of the military\nchieftains that the office was abolished and the archonship established\nin its place; but as an election or confirmation was necessary before\nthe duties of either office could be entered upon, it is plain that at\nthe period referred to a democratic form of government still prevailed.\n\nNow archon is the term which had been applied to the chief of the\nearly gentes at a time when fraternity, liberty, and equality were\nthe cardinal virtues of society; and the abolition of the office of\n_basileus_, to which had become attached a considerable degree of\npower, was doubtless an attempt on the part of the people to return\nto the simpler and purer methods of government which had formerly\nprevailed; but the institution known as the Agora, Ecclesia, or\nAppella, which had proved the great bulwark of safety to early\ndemocratic institutions, had, through the strengthening of the\naristocratic element, become gradually weakened, hence the nobles\nwere in a position to draw to themselves not only much of the power\noriginally exercised by the military commander, but that also which\nhad formerly belonged to the assembly of the people. We have observed\nthat not only among the Greeks of the heroic age, but among the\ntribes and nations which preceded them, as far back in the history\nof the past as the close of the second stage of barbarism, there had\nalways been an assembly of the people whose duty it was to guard the\nrights of the tribe, to protect it against usurpation, and to keep\ndown the rising tendency toward imperialism. Of this institution, Mr.\nRawlinson says: \u201cThus at Athens, as elsewhere, in the heroic times,\nthere was undoubtedly the idea of a public assembly consisting of all\nfreemen.\u201d[160]\n\n[160] George Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.\n\nTheseus, _basileus_, or military chieftain of the Athenian tribes,\na personage who belongs to the legendary period, was the first to\nperceive the insufficiency of gentile institutions to meet the needs\nof the people. Although the primary idea involved in the establishment\nof political society was the transference of the original governmental\nfunctions from the gens to a territorial limit, so deeply had the\ninstincts, ideas, and associations connected with the personal\ngovernment of the gens taken root that several centuries were required\nto accomplish the change. To establish the deme or township, in which,\nirrespective of kinship or personal ties, all its inhabitants (except\nslaves) should be enrolled as citizens, with rights, privileges, and\nduties adjusted according to the amount of property owned by each, and\nwhich should be a unit of the larger and more important institution\u2014the\nState,\u2014was an undertaking the mastery of which although seemingly\nsimple, nevertheless involved intricacies and obstacles of such\nmagnitude as to baffle all attempts of the Greeks from the time of\nTheseus to that of Clisthenes, at which time political society was\nestablished, and the gens, shorn of its utility and power, remained\nonly as the embodiment of certain social ideas, or survived as a\nreligious centre, over which their eponymous ancestor, as hero or god,\nstill presided.\n\nThe age of Theseus could not have been later than 1050 B.C., and the\nfinal overthrow of gentile government did not, as we have seen, occur\nuntil the age of Clisthenes, five hundred years later. Throughout the\nintervening time between Theseus and Clisthenes little real advancement\nis noted among the Greeks; none, perhaps, except that connected with\nthe growth of the idea of government as indicated by the change\nfrom gentile to political institutions, and even this growth, when\nwe observe that nearly five centuries and a half were required to\nestablish it, or to substitute the deme or township in the place of the\ngens as the unit in the governmental series, can scarcely be regarded\nas evidence of remarkable genius, or as indicating a notable degree\nof ingenuity. In the transference of society, however, from gentile\nto political institutions may be observed a progressive principle,\ninasmuch as by it the limits of the gens and tribe were gradually\nbroken down or obliterated, and the enlarged conception of the state\nestablished in their stead. After the age of Clisthenes an isolated\ncommunity bound together by kinship, and with interests extending no\nfurther than the tribe of which it was a part, no longer constituted\nthe fundamental basis upon which the superstructure of society was to\nrest; but, on the contrary, the deme or township, with all its free\ninhabitants, of whatsoever tribe or gens, was to become the recognized\nunit in organized society.\n\nPrior to the age of Theseus, Attica was divided into petty states,\neach with a council-house of its own. According to the testimony of\nThucydides, from the time of Cecrops to Theseus\n\n the population of Athens had always inhabited independent cities, with\n their own guild-halls and magistrates; and at such times as they were\n not in fear of any danger they did not meet with the king to consult\n with him, but themselves severally conducted their own government, and\n took their own counsel.[161]\n\n[161] Thucydides, _The History of Peloponnesian War_.\n\nThe _basileus_ or war-chief exercised no civil functions,[162] and his\nservices were never called into requisition except in times of danger.\n\n[162] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 250.\n\nTheseus upon receiving the office of military chieftain \u201cpersuaded\u201d the\npeople in the adjacent country to remove to the city.[163] According\nto Plutarch he \u201csettled all the inhabitants of Attica in Athens and\nmade them one people in one city.\u201d[164] He persuaded them to abolish\ntheir independent city governments and to establish in their stead,\nat Athens, a council-house which would be common to all. Thus, under\nhis direction, the Attic peoples coalesced, or were united under\none government. Theseus, we are told, divided the people into three\nclasses, irrespective of gentes, on the basis of property and social\nposition. The chiefs of the several gentes with their families, and\nthe citizens who through their great wealth had become influential,\nconstituted the first class; the second class were the husbandmen,\nand the third the mechanics. All the principal offices both of the\ngovernment and the priesthood were in the hands of the nobles or the\nmoneyed and aristocratic classes. Thucydides refers to the fact that\n\u201cwhen Greece was becoming more powerful, and acquiring possessions\nof money still more than before, tyrannies were established in the\ncities.\u201d[165]\n\n[163] Thucydides, book ii., 14.\n\n[164] _Theseus._\n\n[165] Book i., 13.\n\nUpon this subject Mr. Rawlinson says:\n\n All important political privilege is engrossed by the Eupatrids, who\n consist of a certain number of \u201cclans\u201d claiming a special nobility,\n but not belonging to any single tribe, or distinguishable from the\n ignoble clans, otherwise than by the possession of superior rank and\n riches. The rest of the citizens constitute an unprivileged class,\n personally free, but with no atom of political power, and are roughly\n divided, according to their occupation, into yeoman-farmers and\n artisans. The union of the Eupatrids in the same tribes and phratries\n with the Geomori and Demiurgi, seems to show that the aristocracy of\n Athens was not original, like that of Rome, but grew out of an earlier\n and more democratical condition of things\u2014such, in fact, as we find\n depicted in the Homeric poems.... Thus at Athens, as elsewhere, in the\n heroic times, there was undoubtedly the idea of a public assembly,\n consisting of all free-men; but this institution seems entirely to\n have disappeared during the centuries which intervened between Codrus\n and Solon.[166]\n\n[166] Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.\n\nDuring the three hundred years which followed the death of Codrus,\nnothing of great importance is observed concerning the growth of\nGrecian institutions. Doubtless their development was characterized\nonly by the strengthening of the aristocracy and the stimulation of\nthose egoistic principles which are essential in the establishment of\nan oligarchy. That in course of time the power attached to the office\nof archon also became a menace to the people\u2019s liberties is shown in\nthe fact that in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, B.C., 752, the\nlife archonship was brought to a close and the term of office reduced\nto ten years. Although the office was still limited to the family of\nCodrus, the incumbent became amenable to the elders or chiefs for his\nacts. However, that this movement was not wholly in the interest of the\nmasses of the people is shown in the fact that during the following\nthirty years the Eupatrids, or members of the aristocratic party, had\ndrawn to themselves all the power belonging to the archonship. It\nis observed that during the reign of the fourth decennial archon, a\npretext having been found to depose him, the reigning family or gens\nwas declared as having forfeited its right to rule and the office was\nthrown open to all Eupatrids. Nine archons from among the aristocratic\nparty, with all the powers formerly belonging to the supreme archon,\nconveyed to them, were chosen as a governing board,[167] and were\nto continue in office for one year. Selected by and from among the\nEupatrids, their legislation was wholly in the interest of the wealthy\nand privileged classes.\n\n[167] Rawlinson, book v., essay ii.\n\nFrom 684 B.C. to 624 B.C., the aristocratic party exercised unlimited\ncontrol over the Athenian state, and during the entire sixty years used\ntheir great power to crush out even a semblance of free institutions.\nThe thirst for power among them was equalled only by their greed for\ngain; hence while wielding the former, they gratified their cupidity\nby gathering into their own coffers almost the entire wealth of the\nnation. With the machinery of legislation turned against them, the\nmiddle and lower classes were soon robbed even of their means of\nsupport. Most of the land was mortgaged, and the persons of the owners\nheld by the Eupatrids for debt. Men sold their children and their\nsisters to satisfy the demands of creditors,[168] and such was the\ninequality existing between various classes that dissensions arose on\nevery hand, and a general state of confusion, disorder, and discontent\nprevailed. Thus may be observed some of the processes by which the\nearly principles of fraternity, liberty, and justice were overthrown.\n\n[168] _Ibid._\n\nAt length the sufferings of the people caused by the injustice and\nrapacity of their rulers became unbearable, and by means of various\nsigns of discontent, notably that of a popular demand for written\nlaws, it became evident that a crisis had been reached. The Eupatrids,\npretending to heed the popular demand, elected Draco, one of their\nnumber, to the office of archon, with the understanding that a code of\nwritten laws defining the rights of the several classes be prepared.\n\nAs the Greeks of the Draconian and Solonic age were but a few\ncenturies removed from a time when individual liberty and equality had\nconstituted the cardinal principles upon which society was founded, we\nmay believe that that spirit of personal independence and self-respect\nwhich had been inherited from gentile institutions, although it had\nperhaps slumbered, had never been crushed; therefore, a condition\nof subjection or slavery, although for a time endured, could not be\nwillingly accepted as a settled fact.\n\nAs the laws prepared by Draco tended only to aggravate the abuses\nof which the people complained, it is quite evident that no reform\nwas intended; the Eupatrids, however, had mistaken the temper of the\npeople, and the fact soon became manifest, even to the members of the\ngoverning classes themselves, that certain concessions must be made\nto the popular demand for justice. An idea of the rapacity, greed,\ndishonesty, and cupidity which prevailed at this stage of Greek life\nmay be obtained from the writings of Theognis, a poet of Grecian Mega,\nwho lived about five hundred and seventy years B.C. Among his Maxims\nappear the following:\n\n Now at length a sense of shame hath perished among mankind, but\n shamelessness reigns over the earth. Everyone honours a rich man but\n dishonours a poor: And in all men there is the same mind.... No one of\n the present race of men doth the sun look down upon, being entirely\n good and moderate.... When I am flourishing, friends are many; but\n should any calamity have chanced upon me, few retain a faithful\n spirit. For the multitude of men there is this virtue only, namely, to\n be rich: But of the rest, I wot, there is no use.\n\nThe fact is obvious that already in the history of the Greeks the love\nof property and the rise of the aristocratic spirit had gained such a\nfoothold that a democracy was no longer desired by the more influential\ncitizens, and that it was the moneyed classes and the aristocratic\nparty who were growing restless under institutions which acknowledged\nthe equality of all free-born citizens.\n\nDoubtless the power which had been hitherto exercised by the gentes\nhad already been drawn to the moneyed classes; still, this attempt to\norganize society into classes on the basis of property and station was\nperhaps the first regulated movement openly to curtail the hitherto\nrecognized power of the individual members of the gens, and doubtless\nconstituted the first formulated step towards the subsequent removal of\nthis ancient institution from its original position as the unit in the\ngovernmental series.\n\nFrom accessible facts to be gathered relative to early Greek society,\nit is plain that individual liberty perished with the gens, and that\nmonarchy, aristocracy, and slavery were the natural results of the\ndecline of the altruistic principles upon which early society was\nfounded.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nWOMEN IN EARLY HISTORIC TIMES\n\n\nAs it is claimed that the history of the natural growth of society is\nrepresented by the extant tribes in the varying stages of advancement\nfrom savagery to civilization, and as upon our first acquaintance with\nthe Greeks we find them just emerging from barbarism and preparing to\nenter upon a civilized career, we may naturally expect to find in their\nvarious traditions, customs, forms of marriage, etc., some hint of that\ninfluence which, but little more than one ethnical period before, had\nbeen exercised by women, and some clue to the processes involved in the\nchange from female to male supremacy.\n\nFrom the facts which are gradually coming to light concerning society\nin the early historic period, it is observed that the extant mythoses\nand traditions of the ancients contain a mixture of history, mythology,\nand astrology. Until a comparatively recent time no attempt has been\nmade to separate the former from the latter two.\n\nHerodotus opens his account of the Greeks with a story of the capture\nof women. The Ph\u0153nicians, the great maritime people of that time,\nhad sent ships loaded with merchandise to Argos. When nearly all was\ndisposed of there came down to the beach several women among whom was\nIo, child of Ianchus the king. As the women were standing by the stern\nof the ship attending to their purchases, the foreign sailors rushed\nupon them and attempted to carry them off. The most of them made their\nescape, but a number were taken away and Io amongst them.[169]\n\n[169] Rawlinson, book i., 1.\n\nDoubtless beneath this myth is concealed a religious doctrine which\nhad an historical basis. The original version of the legend was that\nIo who was carried to Egypt by a god became the mother of a race of\nhero-kings; but when the true significance of the early physiological,\nreligious myth was forgotten, this one of Io, too, after having become\nmutilated and distorted to suit a more degenerate time, was accepted in\na purely literal sense and made to do duty as actual history. Following\nthis narrative in the history of Herodotus is the story of Europa who\nwas carried away by the Greeks.\n\nIn the next generation was enacted the seizure of Helen by Paris,\nson of Priam, a deed which, whether committed for revenge or lust,\nis supposed to have constituted the sole cause of the Trojan War\u2014a\nstruggle which continued for nine years. Helen had previously, and\nwhile but a child, according to Plutarch, been carried off by Theseus,\nfounder of Athens, and borne away to Egypt. Indeed it would seem from\nthe accounts of this hero that his exploits were instigated for the\nmost part by a desire to possess himself of women. Even later in the\nhistory of the Greeks we find that Pausanius, King of Sparta, upon\nthe defeat of the barbarians, received as his share of the booty, ten\nspecimens of the following articles: \u201cwomen, horses, talents, and\ncamels.\u201d The familiar story of the seizure of the Sabine women by the\nRomans is regarded as a probable myth or as a doubtful fact; yet, when\nwe remember that not far distant in the past, capture constituted the\nonly form of marriage, the acts of violence committed on women are\ninvested with a fresh interest, for by them we are enabled to trace the\nidentity of the processes of development between historic nations and\nthe tribes occupying a lower position in the scale of advancement.\n\nAlthough Homer traces genealogies through fathers, the fact will\ndoubtless be observed that two generations generally suffice to carry\nmen back to an unknown or divine progenitor. Indeed many of the Greeks\nof Homer\u2019s time sprang directly from gods. Tlepolemus was of the stock\nof Hercules. Priam and his sons were descendants of Zeus, and many of\nthe noblest Greeks derived their origin from Mars. Helen also was the\ndescendant of Zeus.\n\nA tradition from Varro in reference to the decline of woman\u2019s power in\nAthens is as follows:\n\n In the age of Cecrops two wonders sprang from the earth at the same\n time, one of which was the olive tree, the other water. The king in\n terror dispatched a messenger to Delphi to ascertain what he was to\n do in the matter. The oracle in response answered that the olive tree\n signified Minerva (Athene), and the water Neptune (Poseidon); and\n that it was optional with the Burgesses after which of the two they\n would name their town. Cecrops convened an assembly of the Burgesses,\n both men and women, for it was customary then for the women to take\n part in the public counsels. The men voted for Poseidon, the women\n for Athene, and as there were more women than men by one, Athene\n conquered. Thereupon Poseidon became enraged, and immediately the sea\n flowed over all the land of Athens. To appease the god the Burgesses\n were compelled to impose a three-fold punishment upon their wives:\n They were to lose their votes; the children were to receive no more\n the mother\u2019s name; and they themselves were no longer to be called\n Athenians after the goddess.\n\nWe are assured that prior to the struggle between Athene and Poseidon\nfor the mastery in Athens, children in Attica and Lycia were named\nafter their mothers, and that the people as a body were called after\nthe goddess. Formerly the women were actual Burgesses but after the\ndecision that the office of father in the processes of reproduction\nis superior to that of the mother the women lost their position as\nBurgesses and became only the wives of Burghers. It is the vote of\nAthene herself which decides that the child is the production of the\nfather. The ancient Attic traditions are full of references to female\nsupremacy. Indeed, Herr Bachofen is certain that he has found proof of\nfemale descent and supremacy not only among the early Greek tribes but\nin every branch of the Indo-Germanic family.\n\nThe Grecian tribes were named after women, as were also the ancient\ncities of Greece. The founders of these cities and the eponymous\nleaders of the various peoples were women who had been \u201ccarried off by\ngods.\u201d Sarpedon and Minos who quarrelled over the government of Lycia\nwere the sons of Europa[170] who had been carried off from Tyre on the\nPh\u0153nician coast. Thebe, the eponymous leader of the Thebans, and Egina,\nthe founder of Egina, were sisters. Therefore when the oracle commanded\nthe Thebans to seek succour from their nearest of kin, they applied to\nthe Eginetans, thereby proving that at that time relationships were\nstill traced through women.\n\n[170] Herodotus, book i., 173.\n\nThe Greek tradition of the Scythian nation is as follows: As Hercules\nwas passing through the country he came to a district called the\nWoodland. While he slept, the mares which he had loosed from his\nchariot wandered away, and while in quest of them he came to a cave in\nwhich dwelt a being with the head of a woman and the body of a serpent,\nprobably a goddess representing the two creative principles throughout\nnature. Upon being asked by Hercules if she had seen his mares, she\nreplied, \u201cyes,\u201d but that unless he would remain with her she would not\nyield them to him, whereupon he consented to do her bidding. Later, as\nshe questioned him as to his wishes concerning the three sons which she\nhad borne him, she said: \u201cWouldst thou wish that I should settle them\nhere in this land whereof I am mistress, or shall I send them to thee?\u201d\nHercules placed in her hand a bow with instruction that the son which\nwhen grown to manhood should bend it in a certain way should remain as\nking of the land. Scythes, the youngest son of the goddess, was the\nsuccessful competitor. From this time gods, not goddesses, are in the\npossession of the country.[171] Europe, Asia, and Lybia (Africa) are\nnamed after women, and in nearly all the earliest traditions, a woman,\neither divine or human, appears as the eponymous leader of the people.\n\n[171] Herodotus, book v., 80.\n\nThe tradition respecting the daughters of Dana\u016bs fleeing from their\nnative land to avoid the hateful caresses of the sons of Egyptus,\ndoubtless refers to a time when relationships were beginning to be\ntraced through males, and when under the _ba\u2019al_ form of marriage they\nwere beginning to claim the right to control the women of their own\ngroup.\n\nEgyptus and Dana\u016bs were brothers, the former of whom had fifty sons,\nthe latter fifty daughters. Upon the sons of Egyptus demanding that\ntheir cousins unite with them in marriage, the women immediately fled\nby sea to Argos and placed themselves under the protection of Pelasgus.\nAlthough hotly pursued by their tormentors, they reached Argos in\nsafety; the following is their supplication as set forth by \u00c6schylus:\n\n    On this moist shore, drive them into the deep,\n    With all their flying streamers and quick oars,\n    There let them meet the whirlwind\u2019s boisterous rage,\n    Thund\u2019rings and lightnings, and the furious blasts\n    That harrow up the wild tempestuous waves,\n    And perish in the storm, ere they ascend\n    Our kindred bed, and seize against our will\n    What nature and the laws of blood deny.[172]\n\n[172] _The Supplicants._\n\nAfter having reached Argos and after having besought Pelasgus to\nespouse their cause, he says:\n\n    If by your country\u2019s laws Egyptus\u2019 sons,\n    As next of blood, assert a right in you,\n    Who should oppose them? It behooves thee then\n    By your own laws to prove such claim unjust.\n\nTo which they make answer:\n\n    Ah! never may I be perforce a thrall\n    To man. By heaven-directed flight I break\n    The wayward plan of these detested nuptials.\n    Arm justice on thy side, and with her aid,\n    Judge with what sanctity the gods demand.\n\nThe reply of Pelasgus is as follows:\n\n    No easy province: Make not me your judge,\n    Great though my power, it is not mine to act,\n    I told thee so, without my people\u2019s voice\n    Assenting.\n\nIt is plain that these lines refer to a time when woman was not \u201ca\nthrall to man.\u201d It relates also to a time when the _basileus_ or chief\ncould not act without the consent of his people.\n\nThat in the earliest traditions and accounts of the Greeks, women\noccupy a much more exalted position than they do four or five centuries\nlater, is a fact which can be explained only by the truths which have\nbeen set forth in the foregoing pages; namely, the capture of women\nfor wives, at first singly and finally in groups. We have seen that\nduring the period designated as the Latter Status of barbarism, wars\nwere frequently undertaken upon no other pretext than that of securing\nwomen for wives. Cities were attacked and destroyed, the men murdered,\nand the women carried away captives. Property both landed and personal\nwas seized and held by the conquerors, and as these captured women\nwere strangers, aliens, and dependents in the countries to which they\nwere taken, they became simply sexual slaves, or wives, and in process\nof time sank to the position in which we find them under Solon, the\nlawgiver of Athens.\n\nThe difference in the sentiments entertained toward women during\nHomer\u2019s time and those which had come to prevail among the Greeks in\nthe sixth century, B.C., may be observed in the following lines from\n\u00c6schylus, and also in a quotation from _The Iliad_, which follows.\nAt the siege of Thebes, when the women, fearing captivity more than\ndeath, appeared before the sacred images to pray for protection,\nEtiocles the chief, trembling with fear, and himself praying loudly to\nJove, to Earth, and \u201call the guardian gods,\u201d being displeased with the\nattitude of the female supplicants, and doubtless eager to exercise his\nauthority over women thus displays his contempt for them:\n\n    It is not to be borne, ye wayward race;\n    Is this your best, is this the aid you lend\n    The State, the fortitude with which you steel\n    The souls of the besieged, thus falling down\n    Before these images to wail, and shriek\n    With lamentations loud? Wisdom abhors you.\n    Nor in misfortune, nor in dear success,\n    Be woman my associate. If her power\n    Bears sway, her insolence exceeds all bounds,\n    But if she fears, woe to that house and city.\n    And now, by holding counsel with weak fear,\n    You magnify the foe, and turn our men\n    To flight: thus are we ruined by ourselves.\n    This ever will arise from suffering women\n    To intermix with men. But mark me well,\n    Whoe\u2019er henceforth dares disobey my orders,\n    Be it man or woman, old or young,\n    Vengeance shall burst upon him, the decree\n    Stands irreversible, and he shall die.\n    War is no female province, but the scene\n    For men: hence home; nor spread your mischiefs here,\n    Hear you, or not? Or speak I to the deaf?[173]\n\n[173] _The Seven Chiefs against Thebes._\n\nFrom this scene pictured by \u00c6schylus five centuries and a quarter B.C.,\nlet us return to the siege of Troy, three centuries earlier, and listen\nto Homer. During the thickest of the fight Helenus, approaching Eneas\nand Hector, his brother, thus addresses the latter:\n\n        But, Hector, thou depart\n    To Troy and seek the mother of us both\n    And bid her call the honoured Trojan dames,\n\nthat at the fane of Pallas they may supplicate for mercy in behalf of\nthe wives and little ones of the defenders of Troy. Whereupon the noble\nHector calls aloud:\n\n    O valiant sons of Troy, and ye allies\n    Summoned from far! Be men, my friends; call back\n    Your wonted valour, while I go to Troy\n    To ask the aged men, our counselors,\n    And all our wives, to come before the gods\n    And pray and offer sacrifice.[174]\n\n[174] _The Iliad_, book vi., Bryant\u2019s translation.\n\nAfter referring to the generally conceded fact that in Europe the\nspread of civilization has been commensurate with the influence\nexercised by women, Mr. Buckle expresses himself as being unable\nto account for the seeming inconsistencies which are presented by a\ncomparison of the position occupied in Greece by the women of Homer\u2019s\ntime, and that as pictured by the laws, usages, and social customs in\nthe age of Plato and his contemporaries.\n\nAlthough the Greeks during the ages which intervened between Homer\nand Plato had made many notable improvements in the arts of life, and\nin various branches of speculative and practical knowledge, women had\nevidently lost ground, \u201ctheir influence being less than it was in the\nearlier and more barbarous period depicted by Homer.\u201d[175]\n\n[175] _The Influence of Women on the Progress of Knowledge._\n\nThe fact will doubtless be borne in mind that at the time Mr. Buckle\npenned these words comparatively little concerning the construction or\norganization of primitive society was known. That one ethnical period\nand a half prior to the earliest age of the historic Greeks, woman\u2019s\ninfluence was supreme in the family and in the gens, that descent was\nreckoned in the female line, and that all rights of succession were\ntraced through mothers, are facts with which this writer was evidently\nunacquainted; hence, we are not surprised that in contemplating a\nsocial phenomenon like that presented by the diminution of woman\u2019s\ninfluence during the ages between Homer and Plato, he should have been\nat a loss to account for it, and that he should have declared that\nthe \u201ccauses of these inconsistencies would form a curious subject for\ninvestigation.\u201d\n\nMr. Lecky, also, in referring to the same subject, says:\n\n A broad line must, however, be drawn between the legendary or poetical\n period, as reflected in Homer and perpetuated in the tragedians, and\n the later historical period. It is one of the most remarkable, and to\n some writers one of the most perplexing, facts in the moral history of\n Greece, that in the former and ruder period women had undoubtedly the\n highest place, and their type exhibited the highest perfection.[176]\n\n[176] _European Morals_, vol. ii., p. 295.\n\nOf marriage in the legendary period of Greek history, Mr. Grote says:\n\n We find the wife occupying a station of great dignity and influence,\n though it was the practice for the husband to purchase her by valuable\n presents to her parents.... She even seems to live less secluded\n and to enjoy a wider sphere of action than was allotted to her in\n historical Greece.... A large portion of the romantic interest which\n Grecian legend inspires is derived from the women.[177]\n\n[177] _History of Greece_, vol. ii., p. 83.\n\nFrom the facts which have been brought to light in relation to the\nposition occupied by women in the age in which Homer wrote, it may be\nobserved that much of the seeming inconsistency noticed by Mr. Buckle,\nMr. Lecky, Mr. Grote, and others, between the picture of Greek life\nas it appeared at this time, and that noticed six or seven centuries\nlater in the age of Plato, may be easily explained. The triumph of\nthe male over the female in human society as exemplified amongst the\nearliest Greeks, was of such a recent date that the influence of women\nwas not wholly extinct, and the deference due them had not entirely\ngiven place to that lofty contempt and biting scorn which characterized\nthe treatment of women by Greek men at a later stage of their career.\n\nAlthough later in the history of this people, mothers were not regarded\nas related to their own children, and although in the age of Homer\nrelationships had begun to be reckoned through fathers, in many places\nthis writer reveals to us the fact that the bond between mother and\nchild was stronger than that between father and child, or that the tie\nbetween sisters and brothers of the same mother was closer than that\nbetween the children of the same father. In Apollo\u2019s address before\nthe assembled gods, in which he advocates the ransoming of the body of\nHector by Priam and his sons, Homer puts the following words into the\nmouth of the oracle:\n\n  A man may lose his best-loved friend, a son,\n  Or his own mother\u2019s son, a brother dear.[178]\n\n[178] _The Iliad_, book xxiv., Derby\u2019s translation.\n\nNumerous illustrations might be drawn from _The Iliad_ as proof of the\nfact that the tie between mother and child was still regarded as more\nbinding than that between father and child. Homer doubtless represents\nan age in which the manner of reckoning descent was in dispute, certain\ntribes acknowledging only the tie between children born of the same\nmother, others only the bond between those of the same father, while\nstill others acknowledge both, though with a preference for either one\nor the other. In the _Eumenides_ of \u00c6schylus the idea of male descent\nis put forth as a new doctrine. Orestes, who has murdered his mother,\nClytemnestra, asks: \u201cDo you call me related to my mother?\u201d Although\nreproaches and imprecations are heaped upon him for his inhumanity, it\nis found that the new doctrine in which the father is represented as\nthe only real parent, has many adherents\u2014that the gods have concurred\nin it, Athene herself having succumbed to the new faith.\n\nNo one, I think, who is acquainted with the recently developed facts\nrelative to human growth, can carefully read _The Iliad_ without\nobserving the similarity existing between the position occupied by\nthe women of Greece in Homer\u2019s time, and that of the women among the\ntribes and races in a somewhat lower stage of development. On board\nthe \u201croomy ships\u201d of the Greeks, the prizes parcelled out to the\nchiefs were women. We observe that even the daughters of influential\nand wealthy priests, like the oracle of Apollo, might be \u201ccarried\noff\u201d\u2014an act for which there was absolutely no redress except perhaps\nan appeal to the gods. Briseis also was a captured prize assigned to\nAchilles by the Greek warriors. Notwithstanding the fact that wives\nwere still captured, we frequently find women possessed of both wealth\nand influence. Helen, although the wife of Meneluas, had vast treasure\nwhich she was able to take away with her when she was carried off by\nParis\u2014treasure over which neither of her husbands seems to have had any\ncontrol. Laotho\u00eb, the aged wife of Priam, had gold and brass of her own\nwith which to ransom her sons,[179] and Andromache, the wife of Hector,\nwho came to Ilium from \u201camong the woody slopes of Placos,\u201d brought with\nher not only wealth but sufficient influence to secure for her the\nrespect of the king\u2019s household.[180]\n\n[179] _The Iliad_, book xxii.\n\n[180] _Ibid._, book vi.\n\nWe have seen that in an earlier age, at a time when women were free,\nwives had to be captured from foreign tribes; but later, after the\n_ba\u2019al_ form of marriage had become established, wives were for the\nmost part selected from the ranks of native-born women, while foreign\nwomen were usually utilized as concubines. It is true that in the\nHomeric age, foreign women sometimes became the wedded wives of their\ncaptors, but unless they possessed great wealth, or unless they were\nthe daughters of kings, they were unable to command that degree of\nconsideration due to those who were native-born. The practice, during\nthe early history of the Greeks, of securing foreign women for\nconcubines is doubtless the source whence sprang the custom among the\nAthenians of later times, of importing all classes of \u201ckept women\u201d from\nother countries, Athenian women only being reserved for wives.\n\nDuring the latter stage of barbarism a marked change in the government\nand in the fundamental principles regulating human conduct had taken\nplace. A review of the facts connected with the history of Greek\nsociety during the ages between Homer and Solon shows that coeval with\nthe decline of the cardinal principles of the gens, namely, justice,\nequality, and fraternity, there had been also a corresponding change\nin the relations of the sexes; that during the time in which egoism\nor selfishness had gained the ascendancy over the early altruistic\nprinciples developed in human society, woman\u2019s influence had steadily\ndeclined.[181]\n\n[181] A similar change had taken place in the god-idea. Jove was no\nlonger the \u201cterrible virgin\u201d who \u201cbreathes out on crime, misery, and\ndeath,\u201d but, on the contrary, had come to represent a male god who had\ngiven birth to Minerva.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nANCIENT SPARTA\n\n\nAlthough in the writings commonly ascribed to Homer is to be observed\na fairly correct picture of many phases of Greek life, the earliest\nauthentic historical accounts which we have of this people are\nperhaps those of Aristotle and Plutarch. In the accounts given of the\nLaced\u00e6monians by the last named of these writers, the fact is shown\nthat male influence among the Spartans of the time of Lycurgus had not\nreached that state of intense and overshadowing domination in which we\nfind the Athenians of the Solonic period submerged.\n\nThe early Dorians were ever ready to uphold the ancient customs\nas opposed to innovations. In the management of public affairs\nthey trusted to the ties of relationship rather than to political\norganization based on property. The policy of the Athenians, on the\ncontrary, as enunciated by Pericles, was that \u201cit is not the country\nand the people, but movable and personal property, in the proper sense\nof the word, which make states great and powerful.\u201d The one policy was\nessentially Doric, the other Ionic.[182]\n\n[182] M\u00fcller, _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book i., 9,\n13.\n\nThe exact time at which Lycurgus occupied the position of lawgiver to\nthe Spartans is not known, but it is claimed by Xenophon that he lived\nshortly after the age of Homer. If the accounts of the Laced\u00e6monians\nwhich have come down to us in connection with the name of this\nlegislator belong to that early age, if scarcely one ethnical period\nhad elapsed since woman\u2019s influence was supreme in the home and in the\ngroup, we would naturally expect to find in their customs, usages, and\nregulations for the management of society, certain traces of a former\nstate of female independence, and a hint, at least, of those principles\nof liberty and equality in the establishment of the commonwealth\nwhich were the result of female influence; especially would this be\ntrue as we are informed that the Spartans were a conservative people,\nclinging to the prejudices of more ancient times. A glance at Spartan\ninstitutions at the time indicated, furnishes ample proof of the fact\nthat the Laced\u00e6monians were still to a considerable extent living under\nconditions which had been established under the archaic rule of the\ngens.\n\nThe Spartan senate as reconstructed by Lycurgus was composed of thirty\nmembers including the two kings or military leaders.[183] These chiefs\nwere the heads of the several gentes. The Ecclesia, or assembly of the\npeople, \u201ccontained originally all the free males who dwelt within the\ncity were of a legal age.\u201d[184] Hence may be observed the fact that\nthe constitution of the state was the same as that in the Upper Status\nof barbarism; yet the spectacle of a double monarchy (notwithstanding\nthe fact that it has been designated as a kind of irresponsible\ngeneralship)[185] shows that the power attached to the office of\n_basileus_ had become a menace to the liberties of the people; hence\nthis equal division of responsibility and authority.\n\n[183] Grote, _History of Greece_, vol. ii., p. 345.\n\n[184] Rawlinson, book v., essay i.\n\n[185] Aristotle, _Politics_, book iii., Jowett\u2019s translation.\n\nThe Spartan men were warriors who had subjugated the country, making\nserfs of the original inhabitants. In the time of Lycurgus these\ngentlemen soldiers constituted an aristocratic class who spent their\nlives in the performance of public duties, leaving the cultivation of\nthe soil to the serfs. Helots, the name given to the serfs, signifies\n\u201ccaptives.\u201d They were the slave population of Laconia.[186] The\nmanufacturers and tradespeople of the towns and country districts\naround Sparta were free, but had been deprived of their political\nrights. It is evident from these facts that although the constitution\nof the state had not been changed, the division of the people into\nclasses, a division which since the latter part of the Second Status\nof barbarism had been threatened, had through spoliation and conquest\nalready taken place. Add to this the fact that property had passed\ninto the hands of private individuals, and we shall observe that the\nconditions had already become favourable for the development of that\nthirst for wealth and power which characterizes monarchial institutions.\n\n[186] Rawlinson, book v., essay i.\n\nIf we carefully note the early condition of Spartan society, and\nstudiously observe the processes involved in the growth of human\ninstitutions, we shall be enabled to perceive the nature of the \u201cload\u201d\nunder which the Spartans \u201cgroaned\u201d in the time of Lycurgus. The fact\nhas been noted that, throughout an entire ethnical period, human\ningenuity had been taxed to the utmost to subdue or keep in check the\ngrowing tendency toward usurpation and tyranny, and the spectacle of\na double monarchy, or of two military chieftains as they appeared in\nancient Sparta, indicates an attempt on the part of the people to\ndivide the power which had become attached to this office, and which\nwas doubtless already menacing the popular rights.\n\nIn addition to the turmoil and strife engendered by the thirst for\npower were the turbulence and frequent insurrections of the serfs, who,\nit will be remembered, had previously been free, and who were therefore\nrestless and impatient under the tyranny of their Spartan masters.\n\nAlthough wealth had greatly increased in Sparta during the ages\nimmediately preceding the Lycurgan system, yet that the disorders which\nprevailed were in no wise attributable to luxury and enervation is\nshown in the fact as given by Aristotle, that the men during their\nfrequent campaigns had become inured to the rigours and hardships of a\nsoldier\u2019s life. He says:\n\n For, during the wars of the Laced\u00e6mons, first against the Argives,\n and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were\n long away from home, and on the return of peace, they gave themselves\n into the legislator\u2019s hands, already prepared by the discipline of\n a soldier\u2019s life (in which there were many elements of virtue), to\n receive his enactments.[187]\n\n[187] _Politics_, book ii.\n\nIt is indeed plain that the state of disorder which prevailed at Sparta\nin the time of Lycurgus can be accounted for in no other way than\nthat the people were no longer able to keep in check the constantly\nincreasing egoism and selfishness developed within the governing\nclasses.\n\nThe extent to which all wise regulations are attributed to the\ngoverning head is plainly apparent in the view taken of the management\nof Sparta which Herodotus and Plutarch ascribe to Lycurgus, but which\nin the very nature of the case must have originated from other sources.\n\nIt is in no wise probable that Lycurgus instituted any such radical\nchanges in the constitution of the state as have been ascribed to him\nby the above writers, for, as we have seen, prior to his appearance\nas lawgiver the government was administered by a military chieftain\nor _basileus_, a senate, and an assembly of the people. In order to\nstrengthen their authority, the kings had made common cause with the\nassembly of the people, and through this means had drawn to themselves\nnearly all the powers originally vested in that body; while the senate,\ndestitute of support, had gradually yielded up its functions to them.\n\nBefore accepting the statements of these writers, attributing to\nLycurgus that almost unparalleled degree of genius by means of which\nwas originated an entirely new set of institutions, all the accessible\nfacts relative to these institutions should without prejudice be\nclosely scrutinized, especially as they involve principles and actions\nwhich could scarcely have been forced upon a people through an\narbitrary stretch of power in the hands of a single individual.\n\nDoubtless the principal changes in the government inaugurated by\nLycurgus were, first, the importance which he caused to be attached to\nthe assembly of the people, and second, the restoration of the senate.\nBy strengthening this body, which was originally composed of the heads\nof the gentes, the gentile organization was in a measure restored to\nits original dignity. The extreme anxiety felt in the time of Lycurgus\nlest the people\u2019s rights be invaded, is shown in the fact that the\nthree administrative functions of the government were supplemented\nby five ephors chosen annually as agents of the people, whose chief\nprerogative it was to scrutinize the acts of the chief magistrate and\nother guardians of the commonwealth. Although the office of the ephors\nis much older than the Lycurgan legislation,[188] it had previously\nbeen abolished, or had sunk into disuse. The ephors of Lycurgus were\n\u201cprobably appointed for the special purpose of watching over the\nLycurgan discipline, and punishing those who neglected it.\u201d[189]\n\n[188] Curtius, _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.\n\n[189] Rawlinson, book v., essay i.\n\nLater, however, when through the greed for gain and the inordinate\nthirst for power, the ephors in their turn had drawn to themselves\nthe greater share of the powers belonging to the state, the military\ncommander, or so-called king, became responsible to them for his\nconduct even while directing the army in the field. He received his\norders from them, and although in cases of emergency he was authorized\nto exercise the power of life and death, according to Xenophon, they\ncould accuse the king and compel him to defend his acts or suffer the\npenalty of death. By a gradual process of usurpation the ephors had,\n\u201cby the time of Thucydides, completely superseded the king as the\ndirectors of affairs at Sparta.\u201d\n\nThe fact has been observed that the authority of the senate, a body\nwhich in earlier times had been composed of the heads of the genets,\nwho were elected by all the people, and who held their office only\nduring good behaviour, had, in the time of Lycurgus, through the growth\nof the monarchial and aristocratic party become weakened; and that,\nas the kings had drawn to themselves the powers formerly belonging to\nthe popular assembly, the people were no longer represented, but had\nbeen obliged to surrender their independence to the authority of the\nmilitary leaders. It is altogether likely, therefore, that the load\nunder which the Spartans are said to have groaned, and from which\nLycurgus is supposed to have released them, was the undue assumption\nof power by the _basileus_ and the aristocratic party; and that the\nchief service which he lent to the state was the sanction which he gave\nto those principles of equality and liberty which had been recognized\nand practised at a time when the gens as the unit of human society was\nstill in its original vitality and strength, and when woman\u2019s influence\nwas therefore in the ascendency.\n\nMost modern writers agree in the opinion that Lycurgus instituted no\nfundamental changes in the constitution of the state; indeed all the\naccessible facts relative to this subject go to prove that the attempt\nat legislative reform in the time of this lawgiver did not begin with\nhim; but, on the contrary, that all along the line of development, for\nan entire ethnical period, there had been a struggle between the people\non the one hand and the constantly increasing power exercised by their\nrulers on the other.\n\nConcerning the measures instituted by Lycurgus, and the way in which\nthe political power was distributed by him, we are assured that it was\naccording to a Rhetra of this legislator given under the direction of\nthe Pythian Apollo:\n\n _Build a temple to Jupiter Hellanius and Minerva Hellania; divide\n the tribes, and institute thirty obas; appoint a council, with its\n princes; convene the assembly between Babyca and Cnacion; propose\n this, and then depart; and let there be a right of decision and power\n to the people._[190]\n\n[190] M\u00fcller, _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book iii.,\nchap. v.\n\nBy this decree the assembly was invested with authority to reject\nor accept any proposed measures of the council and princes. Later,\nhowever, when the chiefs and the military leaders would draw to\nthemselves a portion of the power which had been delegated to the\npeople, we find subjoined to the original document of the priestess the\nfollowing clause: \u201cBut if the people should follow a crooked opinion,\nthe elders and the princes shall dissent.\u201d Or, according to Plutarch:\n\u201cIf the people attempt to corrupt any law, the senate and chiefs shall\nretire,\u201d meaning that \u201cthey shall dissolve the assembly and annul the\nalterations.\u201d[191]\n\n[191] _Lycurgus._\n\nAccording to the testimony of Plutarch, when Lycurgus entered upon\nthe duties of lawgiver he went to Crete, and while there examined the\nlaws of that people; those of them which he considered wise and suited\nto the needs of a commonwealth and which were based on principles\ninvolving the highest interests of the people, he incorporated into\nhis system. Now the Cretans were a branch of the Doric stock,[192]\nand as among them descent and rights of succession were still traced\nthrough women, it would seem that they had preserved much of that\nsimplicity of manner which characterizes primitive society. Upon his\nreturn from Crete Lycurgus made an equal division of the land, and\nas he could not induce the people to surrender their treasures, he\nprohibited the use of gold and silver currency and substituted iron in\nits place. To a great quantity and weight of this metal he assigned\na slight value, so that to lay up a small amount of wealth a whole\nroom was required, and for the removal of a moderate sum of money a\nyoke of oxen must be employed. When this became current many kinds of\ninjustice ceased in Laced\u00e6monia. \u201cWho would steal or take a bribe,\nwho would defraud or rob, when he could not conceal the booty, when\nhe could neither be dignified by the possession of it, nor if cut in\npieces be served by its use?\u201d[193] There is little evidence in support\nof the statement of Plutarch that Lycurgus attempted to establish a\ncommunity of goods among the Spartans. Although he caused the landed\npossessions which had been parcelled out to individuals to be returned\nto the state, too much interest had already become attached to personal\npossessions to have made a division of this kind of wealth possible.\n\n[192] Aristotle\u2019s _Politics_, book ii.\n\n[193] Plutarch\u2019s _Lycurgus_.\n\nA legislator may not enact laws with the expectation of seeing them\nenforced which are not in accord with the temper of the people, and the\ndegree of success which attended the legislation ascribed to Lycurgus\nproves that the great mass of the people were in sympathy with many of\nthe measures which he proposed for the government of Sparta.\n\nIt is plain that the object of the person or persons, whom history\nhas named Lycurgus, was a return to the simpler manners and purer\ncustoms of a more primitive age, which the growth of the aristocratic\nspirit and the accumulation of wealth in masses in the hands of the\nfew threatened entirely to subvert; and, as a community of goods was\nat this time impossible, he, or they, sought to level the distinctions\nbetween rich and poor by exalting virtue and moral excellence above the\nmere possession of wealth and hereditary titles.\n\nIt is the opinion of some writers that although Lycurgus did not\ninaugurate a new set of institutions, nor materially change the\nconstitution of the state, the great service which he rendered to the\nSpartans was the remarkable system of discipline which he is supposed\nto have inaugurated. Of this Mr. Rawlinson says: \u201cIt must always remain\none of the most astonishing facts in history, that such a system was\nsuccessfully imposed upon a state which had grown up without it.\u201d[194]\nOf the fact, however, that the state had not grown up without it there\nis ample evidence. On this subject Curtius remarks:\n\n It is certain that the Spartan discipline in many respects corresponds\n to the primitive customs of the Dorians, and that by constant\n practice, handed down from generation to generation, it grew into the\n second nature of the members of the community.[195]\n\n[194] Book i., essay i.\n\n[195] _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.\n\nFrom the facts at hand it is quite evident that Lycurgus did not\noriginate that system of discipline through which it is claimed Spartan\ngreatness was achieved. The fact has been noted that when he entered\nupon the duties of lawgiver he sailed for Crete, and, \u201chaving been\nstruck with admiration of some of their laws,\u201d he resolved to make use\nof them in Sparta.[196] As the discipline of Lycurgus constitutes the\nprincipal feature of the government ascribed to him, and as his models\nwere for the most part drawn from the Cretans, it is only reasonable\nto suppose that this remarkable system was itself, in part at least,\ncopied from them. It appears that among the Cretans, as among all\npeoples among whom female influence is in the ascendency, the children\nbelonged to the mother, and that women owned, or at least controlled,\ntheir own households; they did not, therefore, follow the fathers of\ntheir children to their homes. In Crete, \u201cthe young Dorians were left\nin the houses of their mothers till they grew up into youths.\u201d[197] As\nCretan mothers had charge of their sons until they were grown up, it is\nnot unlikely that the discipline which Lycurgus attempted to copy was\na system inaugurated under matriarchal usages, but which in Sparta in\nthe time of Lycurgus may have become somewhat relaxed. However, that\nthe primitive discipline of the Dorian people was not extinct among\nthe Spartans of this time is observed in the warlike character of the\nmales, and in the express testimony of Aristotle that Spartan men had\nbecome inured to hardships by means of their frequent campaigns. To\nrestore, or rather to intensify this discipline, seems to have been the\nobject of Lycurgus; yet that he lacked greatly in judgment is shown by\nthe measures which he put into execution. We are informed that\n\n[196] Plutarch\u2019s _Lycurgus_.\n\n[197] Curtius, _History of Greece_, book ii., chap. i.\n\n Spartan boys were as early as their eighth year taken into public\n training, and assigned their places in their respective divisions,\n where they had to go through all the exercises introductory to\n military service, and accustom their bodies to endurance and exercise,\n in exact obedience to the forms acquired by the state through its\n officers.[198]\n\n[198] _Ibid._\n\nThis interference with the natural development of the Spartan youth was\nnot without its effect upon his character; and especially so as the\npolicy adopted was such as to narrow his mental horizon, and confine\nhis ideas within the scope of Spartan possibilities.\n\nFrom all the evidence to be gathered about the individual whom\nhistorians call Lycurgus, it would appear that he was a fanatic, who,\ndoubtless feeling deeply the disorders which had fastened themselves\nupon society, attempted to manage not only the affairs of the state,\nbut to impose his authority also upon individual conduct.\n\nOf the position occupied by women at the time when Lycurgus is said to\nhave been lawgiver at Sparta, there seems to be much evidence going\nto show that they were in the possession of a remarkable degree of\nliberty, and that they were possessed of great power and influence.\nWe have seen that while the men of Sparta were away from their homes\nengaged in warfare, the country had become wealthy and prosperous. Not\nonly was the land controlled by women, but nearly two-fifths of it was\ntheirs by actual possession.[199] Therefore, when Aristotle informs\nus that when Lycurgus \u201cwanted to bring the women under his laws,\nthey resisted, and he gave up the attempt,\u201d[200] we are by no means\nsurprised. Indeed, Aristotle himself says that this license of the\nLaced\u00e6monian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what\nmight be expected.[201] It is altogether likely that in the time of\nLycurgus, Spartan women had not been brought under subjection to male\nauthority.\n\n[199] _Politics_, vol. ii., p.\u202f9.\n\n[200] _Ibid._\n\n[201] _Ibid._\n\nAccording to the accounts given by Aristotle and Plutarch, under\nregulations made by Lycurgus, the men dined on the plainest fare at\nthe public table, or mess, while the women remained within their own\nhomes. That a considerable degree of success crowned this legislator\u2019s\nefforts to control the conduct and private life of men, from the facts\nat hand may not be doubted; among the women, however, the case seems to\nhave been altogether different. Of the Spartans, Aristotle says: \u201cIn\nthe days of their greatness many things were managed by their women.\nBut what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are\nruled by women.\u201d[202] Because, however, the Spartan women preferred\nto remain within their own homes, and refused to allow their private\naffairs to be controlled by Lycurgus, Aristotle accuses them \u201cof\nintemperance and luxury.\u201d He says:\n\n[202] _Politics._\n\n For a husband and a wife, being each a part of every family, the state\n may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and,\n therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad,\n half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has\n actually happened at Sparta, the legislator wanted to make the whole\n state temperate, and he has carried out his intentions in the case of\n the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of\n intemperance and luxury.[203]\n\n[203] _Ibid._\n\nSo far, however, from the Spartan women refusing to concur in those\nmovements which were in operation to make the whole state hardy and\ntemperate, we have ample evidence going to prove that it was women\nthemselves who in former times had encouraged the healthful and\nmoderate exercise of body and limb among the youth of both sexes.\nIndeed, from natural inferences to be drawn from the facts at hand,\nit is probable that these exercises which had originated among the\nprimitive Dorians, while under the matriarchal system, had not only\nbeen encouraged, but practised, by women while their husbands and\nfathers were absent on their campaigns.\n\nWe have seen that, according to Aristotle, women refused to unite\nin those movements in operation in the time of Lycurgus for the\nstrengthening and general improvement of the youth. Plutarch, on\nthe contrary, ascribes all the physical strength and vigour of mind\npossessed by Spartan women to the wise regulations of Lycurgus;\nand, notwithstanding the fact that, according to his own testimony,\nthey were possessed of great liberty and power, he imputes to this\nlegislator the inauguration of all those practices for the promotion\nof perfect freedom among women which were so salutary in producing or\ncontinuing a healthful state of public morals.\n\nIt is plain that the position occupied by Spartan women presented\ndifficulties to the minds of Aristotle and Plutarch which they were\nwholly unable to explain. With regard to the supposition of Plutarch\nthat the exercises performed by the young women of Sparta while in a\nnude or semi-nude condition were inaugurated by Lycurgus, it is too\nunreasonable for serious consideration. It is to be doubted if there\nhas ever existed, either in ancient or modern times, a legislator, who,\nunaided and alone, and simply through a stretch of arbitrary power,\nhas been able to regulate the dress, amusements, bodily exercise, and\ngeneral movements of women in possession of a reasonable degree of\npersonal freedom and liberty of action.\n\nRespecting the wise regulations instituted by Lycurgus for the\nmanagement of women, Plutarch says:\n\n In order to take away the excessive tenderness and delicacy of the\n sex, the consequence of a recluse life, he accustomed the virgins\n occasionally to be seen naked as well as the young men, and to dance\n and sing in their presence on certain festivals.[204]\n\n[204] _Lycurgus._\n\nPerhaps throughout the entire narrative of Plutarch concerning Lycurgus\nand his laws, there is nothing so absolutely devoid of reason as this.\nIf, as he assures us, women were possessed of that excessive tenderness\nand delicacy which are the result of a recluse life; and if, as he\nsupposes, they had hitherto been trained according to masculine ideas\nof female modesty and decorum, it is greatly to be doubted if the laws\nof Lycurgus, or even the lightnings of Zeus could have driven these\nvirgins into the presence of the opposite sex under the conditions\nnamed.\n\nDoubtless the Spartan people had not at this stage of their career\ndeparted so far from the customs of a gynecocracy that women were\nunable to exercise absolute control over their persons. Being free\nfrom the domination of the opposite sex, all those exercises and\nhabits of body in use to increase their own vigour and that of the\nentire race had doubtless been instigated by women, or at least had\nbeen instituted at a time when female influence was in the ascendency.\nConcerning the position occupied by the women of Sparta, Plutarch says\nthey had assumed to themselves great liberty and power \u201con account of\nthe frequent expeditions of their husbands, during which they were left\nsole mistresses at home, and so gained an undue deference and improper\ntitles.\u201d[205]\n\n[205] _Lycurgus._\n\nIt is evident that this writer was unacquainted with the fact that\nat a time not far distant in the past from the age of Lycurgus, the\ninfluence of women in the family and in the gens had been supreme;\nhence, like others who have attempted to deal with the subject of\nprimitive peoples, he was unable to conceive of a condition of society\nin which women\u2019s natural instincts played a conspicuous part in\nregulating the social customs and in formulating the laws by which they\nwere governed.\n\nThe extreme modesty and sensitiveness which are observed as a\ncharacteristic of both sexes in the marriage relation, and the reserve\nof the youths at festivals in which young women are reported to have\nappeared naked, may not be ascribed to the laws of Lycurgus, but on the\nother hand appear as direct results of those checks upon the animal\ninstincts in the male which the former strength and independence of\nwomen had imposed.[206]\n\n[206] As to the exercises of the virgins, and their appearing naked,\nC.\u202fO. M\u00fcller, in his _History and Antiquities of the Doric Race_\nobserves:\n\n\u201cThe female sex underwent in this respect the same education as the\nmale, though (as has been above remarked) only the virgins. They had\ntheir own gymnasia, and exercised themselves, either naked or lightly\nclad, in running, wrestling, or throwing the quoit or spear. It is\nhighly improbable that youths or men were allowed to look on, since\nin the gymnasia of Laced\u00e6mon no idle bystanders were permitted; every\nperson was obliged either to join the rest, or withdraw.\u201d\u2014Book iv., ch.\nv.-viii.\n\nAt a later age, for instance that of Plutarch, the spectacle of young\nmaidens appearing on occasions of public festivity in a single garment,\nloose, and reaching a little below the knee, would have been associated\nwith ideas of disgrace and shame; but, under a condition of society in\nwhich the animal instincts had not wholly gained the ascendency over\nthe higher faculties, or in which the characters peculiar to women had\nnot been overshadowed or subdued by the grosser elements developed\nin human nature, such a proceeding might not, as we have seen, be\ninconsistent with the purest motives and the highest aims.\n\nSomething of the extent to which the influence of women was exerted\nto stimulate bravery and courage in the opposite sex is shown in the\ndescription by Plutarch of the festivals in which the young people\nappeared before each other in a semi-nude state to practise the popular\ngames of strength and skill. Concerning these festivals this writer\nremarks that the young women engaged in little raillery upon those\nwho lacked skill, or who had not done their best, while \u201con such as\ndeserved them they sang encomiums, thus exciting in the young men a\nuseful emulation and love of glory.\u201d Plutarch observes also that \u201cthose\nwho were praised for their bravery and celebrated among the virgins\nwent away perfectly happy, while their satirical glances were no less\ncutting than serious admonitions.\u201d[207]\n\n[207] _Lycurgus._\n\nThese facts indicate something of the extent to which female influence\nstill survived in ancient Sparta, and reveal plainly the fact that\nalthough in the time of Lycurgus the coarser instincts developed in\nhuman nature had made considerable headway, they had not totally\neclipsed the finer characters peculiar to women, as was the case at a\nlater period of Grecian history\u2014more particularly among the Athenians.\n\u201cAs for the virgins appearing naked,\u201d Plutarch himself assures us,\n\n there was nothing disgraceful in it, because everything was conducted\n with modesty, and without one indecent word or action. Nay, it caused\n a simplicity of manner and an emulation for the best habit of body;\n their ideas too were naturally enlarged while they were not excluded\n from their share of bravery and honour.\n\nRegarding the commingling of the sexes among the Spartans, Mr. Grote\nsays:\n\n When we read the restrictions which Spartan custom imposed upon the\n intercourse even between married persons, we shall conclude without\n hesitation that the public intermixture of the sexes led to no such\n liberties between persons not married, as might be likely to arise\n from it under other circumstances.[208]\n\n[208] _History of Greece_, vol. ii., p. 385.\n\nIt was a Dorian who first threw aside his heavy girdle during the\nOlympian contests and ran naked to the goal. In an allusion to this\nincident, and also to the custom of Spartan virgins appearing in\na semi-nude state in the presence of the opposite sex during the\nperformance of their gymnastic feats, C.\u202fO. M\u00fcller says that a display\nof the naked form when all covering was unnecessary and inconvenient\nwas quite in keeping with the character and temper of the Dorians.[209]\n\n[209] _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book iv., ch. ii.,\np.\u202f1.\n\nConcerning the style of dress adopted by the Doric virgins, it is said\nto have consisted of a loose woollen garment called a _himation_. It\nwas without sleeves and was fastened over the shoulders with large\nclasps. The _himation_ was completely joined only on one side, the\nother side being left loose and fastened with a buckle or clasp.\nDoubtless this adjustment of the gown was to enable the wearer to\nopen it and throw it back, thereby securing greater freedom to the\nlimbs while running and wrestling. This simple garment reached only to\nthe calf of the leg, and was worn sometimes with a girdle, sometimes\nwithout.\n\nThe pure state of morals in Sparta furnishes an explanation of that\npeculiar style of dress among women which has elicited so much comment\namong later writers, and which has stamped the Spartan women as\ncreatures especially \u201cdevoid of modesty.\u201d True modesty was evidently\none of the leading characteristics of this people among both sexes, but\nthe simulation of it, which, by the way, is usually practised just in\nproportion as the lower propensities have gained the ascendency over\nthe higher faculties, was doubtless absent in Spartan society.[210]\n\n[210] We have the authority of Tacitus respecting the customs,\ncharacter, and style of dress of the ancient Germans. Among this\npeople, as is well known, the influence of women was in the ascendency\nover that of men, and the state of public morals was exactly that which\nmight be expected. Respecting the dress of women, this writer says they\n\u201cdo not lengthen their upper garment into sleeves but leave exposed the\nwhole arm, and part of the breast\u201d (_Germania_, chap. xvii.). It is\nobserved, however, that chastity was the characteristic virtue of this\npeople among both sexes. The marriage bond was strict and severe, and\nwe are informed that among the Saxons the women themselves inflicted\nthe penalty for adultery. From an epistle of St. Boniface, Archbishop\nof Mentz, to Ethelbald, King of England, we have the following: \u201cIn\nancient Saxony (now Westphalia), if a virgin pollute her father\u2019s\nhouse, or a married woman prove false to her vows, sometimes she is\nforced to put an end to her own life by the halter, and over the ashes\nof her burned body her seducer is hanged.\u201d\n\nAn illustration of the state of public morals in ancient Sparta may be\nobserved in the following dialogue. A stranger once asked a Spartan\nwhat penalty their law attached to adultery. The reply was: \u201cMy\nfriend, there are no adulterers in our country.\u201d Upon being further\ninterrogated, \u201cBut what if there should be one?\u201d the Spartan replied:\n\u201cWhy then, he must forfeit a bull so large that he might drink of the\nEurotus from the top of Mount Taygetus.\u201d When the stranger asked: \u201cHow\ncan such a bull be found?\u201d the man answered with a smile, \u201cHow can an\nadulterer be found in Sparta?\u201d[211]\n\n[211] Plutarch\u2019s _Lycurgus_.\n\nCommenting on the relative position of Doric and Athenian women, C.\u202fO.\nM\u00fcller says:\n\n The domestic relation of the wife to her husband among the Dorians was\n in general the same as that of the ancient western nation, described\n by Homer as universal among the Greeks, and which existed at Rome till\n a late period; the only difference being that the peculiarities of the\n custom were preserved by the Dorians more strictly than elsewhere.\n\n Amongst the Dorians of Sparta, the wife was honoured by her husband\n with the title of mistress (a gallantry belonging to the north of\n Greece, and also practised by the Thessalians), which was used neither\n ironically nor unmeaningly. Nay, so strange did the importance which\n the Laced\u00e6monian women enjoy, and the influence which they exercised\n as the managers of their household, and mothers of families, appear\n to the Greeks, at a time when the prevalence of Athenian manners\n prevented a due consideration for national customs, that Aristotle\n supposed Lycurgus to have attempted, but without success, to regulate\n the lives of women as he had regulated that of the men; and the\n Spartans were frequently censured for submitting to the yoke of their\n wives.\n\nIt has been truly said that nowhere else in Greece do we find traces of\nthat power exercised by women over their sons when arrived at manhood\nobserved among Spartan mothers. When a woman of another country said to\nGorgo, the wife of Leonidas, \u201cYou of Laced\u00e6mon are the only women in\nthe world that rule the men,\u201d she replied, \u201cWe are the only women that\nbring forth men.\u201d[212]\n\n[212] Plutarch\u2019s _Lycurgus_.\n\nWith our present knowledge respecting the influence and independence\nof the Spartan women, it is folly for certain writers to assert that\nmarried women were confined within the house and that only virgins\nappeared in public. There is some evidence going to prove that at\nCrete, at Sparta, and at Olympia, women were not only spectators at\nthe Olympian games, but that they engaged personally in the chariot\ncontests. According to an inscription in Della Cella, it is shown that\nwomen presided over the public gymnastic exercises in that town.\n\nOne very important fact going to show whence proceeded the reforms of\nLycurgus is that the mandates of the oracle were supreme. The oracles\ncontrolled the rulers, but women always controlled or interpreted\nthe oracles. The celebrated Rhetra of Lycurgus, in which unlimited\nauthority is given to the people to reject or adopt the proposals of\nthe king, was given according to the direction of the Pythian Apollo,\nwhose mandates were interpreted by women.\n\nIn an earlier age the chiefs of the gentes were elected by all the\npeople, and they held their office by virtue of their relationship\nto the leader of the gens, who was a woman. That the honour due to\nwomen was still recognized in Sparta is shown in the following from\nPlutarch in relation to the election of senators. The person who had\nreceived the loudest acclamations was declared duly elected, whereupon\nhe was crowned with a garland, and a number of young men followed him\nabout to extol his virtues. The women sang his praises and blessed\nhis life and conduct. Two portions were set before him, one of which\nhe carried to the gates of the public hall, where the women were in\nwaiting to receive him. To the one for whom he had the greatest esteem\nhe presented the portion, saying: \u201cThat which I received as a mark of\nhonour I give to you.\u201d The woman thus honoured \u201cwas conducted home with\ngreat applause by the rest of the women.\u201d[213]\n\n[213] Plutarch\u2019s _Lycurgus_.\n\nSpartan men were forbidden to marry foreign women, hence, contrary to\nthe customs of surrounding nations at this early period, wives as well\nas husbands were native-born. All were Spartans, which fact probably\naccounts in a measure for the exalted position occupied by women.\n\nBoth in Sparta and in Crete the form of marriage was by capture;\nthus, although in the time of Lycurgus the Spartan men and women both\nbelonged to the same stock, it is plain that originally they were of\ndifferent tribes. Of capture as practised in Sparta, M\u00fcller says that\nit was clearly an ancient national custom, founded on the idea that\n\u201cthe young woman could not surrender her freedom and virgin purity,\nunless compelled by the violence of the stronger sex.\u201d[214] According\nto Plutarch, after the arrangements for the wedding had been completed,\nthe bridegroom rushed in, seized the bride from among her assembled\nfriends, and bore her away.\n\n[214] _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race_, book iv., chap. iv.\n\nThe Dorian stock alone seems to have preserved the ancient customs,\nand among these peoples, wherever they are found, woman\u2019s influence is\nin the ascendency. According to Herodotus and Aristotle, the Spartans,\nthe Cretans, and the Lycians were related. The people of Crete still\npreserved their ancient usages, hence may be observed the reason\nwhy Lycurgus visited that country in quest of information before\nenunciating the laws which were to restore order among the Spartans.\nIn Lycia, as in Crete, woman\u2019s influence must still have been\nconsiderable. Of the Lycians Herodotus says:\n\n Their customs are partly Cretan, partly Carian.... They take the\n mother\u2019s and not the father\u2019s name. Ask a Lycian who he is, and he\n answers by giving his own name, that of his mother, and so on in the\n female line. Moreover, if a free woman marry a man who is a slave,\n their children are full citizens; but if a free man marry a foreign\n woman, or live with a concubine, even though he be the first person in\n the state, the children forfeit all the rights of citizenship.[215]\n\n[215] Book i.\n\nOn the manner of reckoning descent through women which prevailed in\nLycia, Curtius remarks that the usage extends far beyond the territory\ncommanded by the Lycian nationality. It is still extant in India; it\nwas practised in ancient Egypt, among the Etruscans, and among the\nCretans, who were closely related to the Lycians. This writer observes\nthat if\n\n Herodotus regards the usage in question as thoroughly peculiar to the\n Lycians, it must have maintained itself longest among them of all\n the nations related to the Greeks, as is also proved by the Lycian\n inscriptions.[216]\n\n[216] _History of Greece_, book i., Ward\u2019s translation.\n\nAs the Sabines who united with the Romans in founding Rome claimed\nrelationship with the Dorians, we may reasonably expect to find among\nthem somewhat of that womanly influence which characterized the\nSpartans, and some hint among their customs of an earlier age of female\nindependence. Although the Sabine women did not \u201cvoluntarily\u201d assume\nthe position of wives to the Romans but were captured by them, when the\ntwo nations united, the Sabines were regarded rather in the light of\nconferring honour upon Rome than as detracting from its dignity.\n\nOf the early Romans, Ortolan says:\n\n The _connubium_, or right of marriage, did not exist between males and\n females of different cities unless by special agreement between those\n cities. Thus it was that the primitive Romans, according to tradition,\n were compelled to resort to ambuscade and force in order to carry off\n their first wives.[217]\n\n[217] _History of Roman Law_, p. 79.\n\nThe Roman family, like the Roman state, began with slavery. Of the\nRomans it has been said that they acquired their territory, their\nproperty, and even their wives by the lance.\n\n With them the lance became the symbol of property, and even had a\n place in their judicial procedure. Their slaves were booty, their\n wives were booty, and their children, begotten of them, the fruit of\n their possessions.[218]\n\n[218] Ortolan\u2019s _History of Roman Law_, p. 42.\n\nThe right of fathers, under Romulus, to sell their sons, upon the\naccession of Numa the Sabine ruler, to the office of lawgiver, was\nwithdrawn, and the reason given for it was consideration for women.\nAccording to Plutarch, Numa \u201creckoned it a great hardship, that a woman\nshould marry a man as free, and then live with him as a slave.\u201d[219]\n\n[219] Numa and Lycurgus compared.\n\nIn the life of Numa by Plutarch we have a hint of a former age of\nuniversal freedom. It was one of this ruler\u2019s institutions, that once\na year the slaves should be entertained along with their masters at\na public feast, there to enjoy the fruits \u201cwhich they had helped to\nproduce.\u201d The same writer assures us that some are of the opinion that\nthis is a remnant of that equality which was in existence in the times\nof Saturn, when there was neither master nor slave, but all were upon\nthe same footing. Plutarch quotes from Macrobius, who says that this\nfeast was celebrated in Italy long before the building of Rome.\n\nFrom all the facts to be gathered relative to the relations of the\nsexes in the age of Numa, it is plain that that freedom of action\nexercised by women in a former age among the Dorians, was rapidly\ndeclining, and that the early independence which has characterized\nthe Sabine women was beginning to bring upon them the condemnation\nof their Roman lords. This is shown in the fact that it soon became\nNuma\u2019s arduous task to institute certain restrictions on their former\nliberties. In a comparison between Lycurgus and Numa, Plutarch, in\nreferring to this subject, observes:\n\n Numa\u2019s strictures as to virgins tended to form them to that modesty\n which is the ornament of their sex; but the great liberty which\n Lycurgus gave them, brought upon them the censure of the poets,\n particularly Ibycus.\n\nThe grossness which had been developed during the four or five hundred\nyears following the age of Lycurgus, and the jealousy with which the\nmovements of women had come to be regarded, are illustrated by the\nfollowing stanza from Euripides:\n\n  These quit their homes, ambitious to display,\n  Amidst the youths, their vigour in the race,\n  Or feats of wrestling, whilst their airy robe\n  Flies back and leaves their limbs uncovered.[220]\n\n[220] Quoted by Plutarch.\n\nIt is evident that not only in private life, but in their desire for\npublic activity also, the independence of the Sabine women failed to\ncomport with the ideas already in vogue among their Roman husbands\nregarding the \u201cproper sphere\u201d of women. Consequently their behaviour\nwas thought to be\n\n too bold and too masculine, in particular to their husbands; for\n they considered themselves as absolute mistresses in their houses;\n nay, they wanted a share in affairs of state, and delivered their\n sentiments with great freedom concerning the most weighty matters.[221]\n\n[221] Numa and Lycurgus compared.\n\nA woman even appeared in the Forum to plead her own cause, whereupon\nthe grave senators ordered that the oracles be consulted that the true\nimport of the singular phenomenon might be revealed.[222]\n\n[222] _Ibid._\n\nPlutarch, who lived in the first century of the Christian era, after\nhaving recounted these misdemeanours, assures us that \u201cwhat is recorded\nof a few infamous women is a proof of the obedience and meekness of\nRoman matrons in general.\u201d[223]\n\n[223] _Ibid._\n\nDoubtless, in Plutarch\u2019s time, Roman women had lost much of that\ninfluence which characterized the female sex in an earlier age; it\nis not, therefore remarkable that by this writer the Sabine women\nshould have been regarded as too forward and as altogether infamous.\nThat their conduct was not all that could be desired by the outlaws\nand bandits who founded Rome, and who had stolen them for wives, is\nevident; and the regulations of their rulers respecting them show\nplainly that much judicious training and a vast amount of repression\nwere required before they were fitted for the peculiar duties devolving\nupon them as sexual slaves.\n\nWe are told by Plutarch that the regulations established by Lycurgus,\ninstead of encouraging that licentiousness of the women which prevailed\nat a later period, operated to render adultery unknown amongst them;\nyet this writer forgets to mention the fact that in Sparta, in the time\nof this ruler, there was no demand for prostitution by a class who\nheld all the wealth and power, and who were therefore in a position\nto regulate this matter to suit their own tastes and inclinations.\nOn the contrary, the female sex was free, not only in the matter of\nsexual relations, but in the exercise of all their natural tendencies,\nand in the direction of all their movements. The idea of sex, which\namong later and more thoroughly sensualized nations became first and\nforemost, among the Dorians, so far as equal rights, obligations, and\nduties were concerned, was ignored or left to nature to regulate.\n\nPlutarch, like most writers who have dealt with the relations of the\nsexes, fails to observe the fact that just to the extent in the past\nhistory of mankind to which women have been free and independent,\nlicentiousness has disappeared, and that just in proportion as the\ninfluence of women has declined, in just such proportion have shame,\nprofligacy, disease, and infamy prevailed. To produce a state of\nsociety in which the animal instincts ruled supreme, and in which\npassion was the recognized god, women had first to become physically\ndependent and mentally enslaved.\n\nFor so long a time have women been judged by masculine standards, it\nis not perhaps remarkable that male writers of these later times can\ndiscern in the simplicity and chastity existing among the Dorians,\nin the age of Lycurgus, no evidence of a former era of female\nindependence. Neither is it singular, as for so many ages women have\nbeen subject to the pleasure and control of the opposite sex, that we\nshould be repeatedly told by writers who have dealt with the usages\nof the Spartans, that their women were \u201cpermitted\u201d to do this, and\n\u201callowed\u201d to do that, although the facts in the case prove that in all\ntheir movements they were guided by their own wills, exercised either\ndirectly, or through the oracles of the gods.\n\nWhen the customs of the ancient Dorians are viewed without prejudice,\nthe fact will doubtless be observed that they originated not in a\ndepraved and licentious state of society, but, on the contrary,\nthat they were the direct result of that freedom of action which\ncharacterizes purity of life and a high standard of thought and action.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nATHENIAN WOMEN\n\n\nAccording to Wilford, the Greeks were the descendants of the Yavanas\nof India. This writer observes that the Pandits insist that the words\n_Yavana_ and _Yoni_ are derived from the same root, _Yu_, and that when\nthe Ionians emigrated they adopted this name to distinguish themselves\nas adorers of the female, in opposition to a strong sect of male\nworshippers which had been driven from the mother country.[224] Under\nthe constantly increasing importance of the male, however, both in\nhuman affairs and in the god-idea, they subsequently became ashamed of\ntheir religious title and sought to abandon it. Of the aversion felt in\nGreece for this name Herodotus says:\n\n[224] See Hargrave Jennings, _Phallicism_.\n\n The Athenians and most of the Ionic states over the world went so far\n in their dislike of the name as actually to lay it aside; and even at\n the present day the greater number of them seems to me to be ashamed\n of it.[225]\n\n[225] Book i.\n\nWhenever in early historic times a country was subjugated, the\nconquerors either murdered or enslaved the men, and utilized the women\nfor wives, or sexual slaves. The Ionians who, according to Herodotus,\nsailed from Attica, without women, took for wives native Carians whose\nfathers they had slain; hence these captives made a law, which they\nbound themselves by an oath to observe, and which they handed down to\ntheir daughters after them, that \u201cnone should ever sit at meat with\nher husband, or call him by his name; because the invaders slew their\nfathers, their husbands, and their sons, and then forced them to become\ntheir wives.\u201d[226] The terms of the oaths sworn by them at the time\nof the capture seem, subsequently, to have been enforced by their\nimperious masters.\n\n[226] Book i.\n\nAs these women were foreigners they were entitled to little or no\nrespect from their captors. However, as they were to become the mothers\nof Greek citizens, they must necessarily be \u201cprotected,\u201d or, in other\nwords, they must be kept in seclusion. In the time of Solon, rape\ncommitted on a free-born woman was punishable by fine.[227]\n\n[227] Plutarch, _Solon_.\n\nFrom that stage in the history of Greek tribes, at which through\ncapture and appropriation of the soil by individuals women began to\nlose that influence which they had exercised under matriarchal usages,\nto the time of Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, when they had finally\ndescended to the lowest level of misery and sexual degradation, may be\nobserved a corresponding tendency gradually developing itself among the\npeople towards selfishness, usurpation of power, and the slavery of the\nmasses. In the age of Solon the limit of human wretchedness seems to\nhave been reached, and as the human race is never at a standstill, it\nmust at this time have either become extinct, or have begun gradually\nto lift itself from the condition of disgrace and ruin into which it\nhad fallen.\n\nThe character of Solon, as gathered from the facts at hand regarding\nhim, reflects in a measure the true condition of society at that\ntime. Although vain and morally weak, he was in a certain sense\nhumane; his humanity, however, extended only to those of his own sex.\nA large proportion of the women of Athens were imported foreigners,\nand were therefore so degraded that they had no rights which any one,\neven a lawgiver, was bound to protect. After his appointment to the\narchonship, Solon\u2019s first act was to cancel the debts against the lands\nand persons of the Athenians, and to establish a law that in future no\nman should accept the body of his debtor for security.[228] Many who\nhad been previously banished or driven out of the country for debt,\nand had remained so long from their native land as to forget their\nAttic dialect, were recalled as freemen, while others, who at home had\nsuffered slavery, were released and given their freedom.\n\n[228] Plutarch, _Solon_.\n\nPerhaps, however, in no position in life will a vain, morally weak\nman display to better advantage the defects in his character than in\nhis attempts to legislate for women; and under no circumstances will\nhis true inwardness of purpose stand more truly revealed than in his\nefforts to \u201cregulate\u201d the relations of the sexes. A brief notice of\nSolon\u2019s laws concerning women proves him to have been no exception to\nthe generally observed rule. It is recorded of him that in his extreme\nsolicitude lest their movements should not comport with his ideas of\nfemale propriety and decorum, he regulated their journeyings, and laid\ndown rules respecting their mournings, sacrifices, and the number of\ngowns which they were to take with them when they went out of town.\nThe provision for their journey and even the size of the basket in\nwhich it was to be conveyed were subjects not unworthy the attention of\nthe great Athenian lawgiver. Women\u2019s mode of travel by night was also\nprescribed as was also their conduct at funerals and various places of\namusement. In fact all their actions were subjected to that meddlesome\nespionage and control which characterize a weak and sensuous age.\nIndeed, we have something more than a hint of the degraded position\noccupied by women, in the fact that a man might not be allowed to sell\na daughter or a sister \u201cunless she were taken in an act of dishonour\nbefore marriage,\u201d in which case her accuser might sell her person for\nindividual gain; and this, too, notwithstanding the fact that he, as\nwell as nearly every other man in Athens, was steeped in infamy.\n\nThe measure adopted by Solon for the regulation of prostitution,\nand his division of women into classes for the convenience of all\nconditions of men, indicate clearly the disgrace and shamelessness\nwhich characterized the Athenians at this stage of their career, and\ndepict with unerring fidelity the depth of horror into which womanhood\nhad been dragged.\n\nThe condition of public morals during the three hundred years following\nthe age of Solon is plainly indicated not only in the laws but in the\nmythologies of Greece and Rome. Prostitution was enjoined by religion\nand when Draco, suddenly shocked by the degeneracy of his time, affixed\nthe penalty of death to rape, seduction, and adultery, it has been said\nthat by the performance of the prescribed religious rites within the\ntemple, the \u201crigour of his edicts was considerably softened.\u201d\n\nThe restraint imposed upon the Athenians by the Draconian regulations\nwas, however, of short duration; for when Solon, the successor of\nDraco, assumed the position of archon, he at once legally established\na sufficient number of houses of prostitution at Athens to supply the\ndemand, filling them with female slaves who had been taken captives\nin war, or who had been otherwise provided by the munificence of the\ngovernment.\n\n  But you did well for every man, O Solon;\n  For they do say you were the first to see\n  The justice of a public-spirited measure,\n  The Saviour of the State.[229]\n\n[229] Philemon. Quoted by _Athen\u00e6us_, book xiii.\n\nBy this time, so degraded had womanhood become, that the traffic in\nfemale captives for sexual purposes was regarded as a legitimate\nbusiness, and the revenue accruing from their services was considered\na lawful source of gain to the state, its use being devoted to the\nrearing of temples and to the carrying out of the various projects\nconnected with religious worship.\n\nThat the Athenians of this period were wholly given over to luxury and\nlicentiousness is shown by the fact that at their bacchanalian feasts,\nthe troops of women who were in attendance and who had been provided\nfor the occasion by the generosity of the state, performed all their\nduties under direct and explicit instruction of the government \u201cto\ndisobey no order of a guest\u201d; for which wise regulations Solon received\nthe praise and commendation of Athenian men.\n\nIn a former portion of this work the fact has been noted that until\nwell into the Latter Status of barbarism all women were protected;\nthat among the Kaffirs, the Fiji Islanders, and various other peoples\noccupying a lower stage in the order of growth, women, although\ndivested of their former influence, are still jealously guarded by the\ngens to which they belong; and that when maidens are bereft of home and\nnear relatives, they are adopted into some other gens within the tribe\nwhere they are invested with the same rights as are its own members.\nTherefore when contemplating the social condition of the Athenians five\nor six hundred years B.C., we are naturally led to inquire: What were\nthe causes which during one ethnical period had produced so marked a\nchange in the position of the female sex? For an answer to our question\nwe must recall the facts set forth in this volume relative to the\ncapture of wives, together with the feeling of hatred entertained by\nearly society for alien women.\n\nIn the time of Pericles, an age when Athens was at the height of its\nprosperity, the women of the city were divided into five classes as\nregarded their duties and uses. The first of these consisted of wives,\nwho, for the most part, were kept in seclusion and allowed to exist\nsolely for the purpose of propagating Greek citizens. These women were\nwithout influence, possessing no rights or privileges beyond the will\nof their \u201clords\u201d; while to such an extent were they considered merely\nin the light of household furniture that they were not permitted to\nappear in public, nor to sit at table with their masters.\n\nThe following dialogue between Socrates and Ischomachus, a man who had\nmanaged his household in such a manner as to be \u201cpointed out as a model\nfor all Athens,\u201d perhaps serves as a correct picture of the relations\nexisting between husband and wife in the Periclean age. \u201cI should like\nto know this particular from you,\u201d said Socrates, \u201cwhether you yourself\neducated your wife so as to make her what she ought to be, or whether\nyou received her from her parents with a knowledge of her duties?\u201d\u2014\u201cAnd\nhow could I have received her so educated, Socrates, when she came\nto me not fifteen years old, and had lived up to that time under the\nstrictest surveillance that she might see as little as possible, and\nhear as little as possible, and inquire as little as possible?\u201d\n\nOf the five classes to which reference has been made, wives only were\nnative-born, and as this particular class had specific duties to\nperform, severe penalties were attached to the crimes of seduction and\nrape when committed upon Athenian women. The remaining four classes\nwere arranged according to the dignity of their associates, the highest\nin rank and repute being the hetairai, the members of which comprised\nthe only free women in Athens. Themselves philosophers and stateswomen,\ntheir associates among males were of the same rank or station. They\nconstituted a highly intellectual class, and as such were able to\ncontrol not only their own movements, but to exercise a remarkable\ninfluence upon literature, art, and the affairs of state. Because of\nthe important position occupied by these women, they will be referred\nto later in this work.\n\nThe next in rank were the _auletrides_, or flute-players. Many of the\nmost fashionable of these were slaves who had been brought to Greece\nby speculators. We are informed that female musicians were a usual\naccompaniment to an Athenian banquet, and that flute-playing became an\nessential feature in the worship of several of their deities; hence,\nthe services of this particular class were in demand, not only to\nheighten the enjoyment of social intercourse, but to stimulate and\nencourage religious enthusiasm. At public gatherings, after the dinner\nwas over, and while the wine was flowing freely, these women made their\nappearance in a semi-nude condition, dancing and keeping time to the\nmusic by the graceful motion of their beautifully moulded figures.\nWhile the enthusiasm was at its height they were sold to the highest\nbidder. Fist fights, or hand-to-hand encounters for the possession of\nthese female flute-players, were not uncommon occurrences in the best\nsociety in Athens.[230]\n\n[230] _Athen\u00e6us_, book xiii.,\n\nThese scenes were performed under the sanction of religion and law;\nthey therefore serve to reveal the true inwardness of the Greek\ncharacter at this stage of development. It is reported that the finest\nhouses in Alexandria were inscribed with the names of famous Greek\n_auletrides_. Of all the flute-players of Greece, Lamia is said to\nhave been the most successful. For fifteen or twenty years she was\nthe delight of the entire city of Alexandria and of King Ptolemy.\nFinally, when the city was taken by Demetrius of Macedon, Lamia was\ntaken also. When she demanded that an immense tax be levied on the city\nof Athens for her benefit, it is recorded that although the people\nmurmured at the amount, they nevertheless found it to their interest to\ndeify her and erect a temple in her honour. According to the testimony\nof Plutarch, Lamia raised money on her own authority to provide an\nentertainment for the king.[231]\n\n[231] Demetrius.\n\nThe fourth class consisted of concubines, or purchased slaves who were\nin the service of Athenian gentlemen (?). This appendage to the Greek\nfamily was a member of the household of her master where she was kept\nwith the full knowledge of the wife, the latter occupying a position\nlittle if any superior to that of her rival. Indeed, as the purchased\nslave could be disposed of whenever the fancy or caprice of her master\nso dictated, and another installed in her place, it is reasonable to\nsuppose that so long as she did remain, she was the object of quite as\nmuch attention as was the wife.\n\nThe lowest class, or those who were allowed the least freedom of\naction, were those known as the _dicteriades_. They were compelled to\nreside at a designated place, and were forbidden to be seen upon the\nstreets by day. Nothing of a personal nature was allowed to interfere\nwith the duties which were imposed upon them by their imperious\nmasters. Their only duty was to obey.\n\nBy this time we are prepared to appreciate, to a certain extent, the\nmoral aspect of Greek society during the years intervening between the\nage of Solon and that of Pericles, a period of about a century and a\nhalf. That all women, wives and concubines, native-born and foreign,\nhad been dragged to the lowest depths of disgrace and shame and that\nthey were classified and arranged to meet the demands of those who\nthrough the unchecked tendencies inherent in the male nature had\nreached the lowest level of infamy to which it is possible for living\ncreatures to descend, are facts which are only too plainly shown by\nthose whose duty it has been to record the events connected with the\nhistory of the Greeks.\n\nAlthough under Draco, the predecessor of Solon, the political\ndegradation of the citizens of Greece may be said to have reached its\nheight, and although the uprising of the masses against the usurpation\nof power by the few marks an era in the history of the Greeks, it\nwas not until the dawn of the Periclean age that women had gained\nsufficient freedom to enable them to exercise any direct influence on\nthought, or on the principles underlying human conduct.\n\nWe must bear in mind the fact that for five or six centuries the\ninferiority of women had been systematically and religiously taught.\nEver since the rule of Cecrops, at which time doubtless the manner\nof reckoning descent began to be changed from the female to the\nmale line, woman\u2019s influence in Athens had gradually declined. The\nreligio-physiological doctrine that in the office of reproduction the\nmother plays only an insignificant part had not only been proclaimed\nby Apollo but had been sanctioned also by Athene. It is recorded of\nCecrops that \u201che instituted marriage and established a new religion.\u201d\n\nJust here may be observed the key to the gradually declining position\nof the female element in the deity, and to the finally accepted dogma\nthat the female is inferior to the male. Through the private ownership\nof land and the consequent dependency of women upon men, the way had\nbeen paved for this assumption\u2014an assumption which had the effect to\ncreate in Ionian men the supreme and lofty contempt for women which is\nobserved throughout their literature and laws. From the age of Solon\nto that of Pericles, the overwhelming degree of superiority assumed by\nAthenian men over women had uprooted in the former every vestige of\nrestraint, at the same time that it had deprived them of the last trace\nof that respect for womanhood which under earlier and more natural\nconditions had been entertained.\n\nIt has been frequently remarked that women took little or no part in\nthe intellectual development of Greece; that during the most rapid\nprogress of Greek men, there was no corresponding improvement in the\nposition occupied by Greek women.\n\nFrom what is recorded relative to Athenian women from the time of\nCecrops to that of Solon, one would scarcely expect to find them\ncompeting with men for the prizes of life. Later, however, that a\nconsiderable number of them did assert their independence, and that,\ndefying the customs and traditions by which they were bound, did prove\nthemselves the equals of men, may not be doubted.\n\nThere probably has never been a time since the dominion of man\nbegan when the more sensitive and better endowed among women have\nnot secretly rebelled against the tyranny exercised over them, and,\nthroughout the ages, whenever an opportunity has been offered,\nlarge numbers of these women, have never failed to make known their\ndiscontent. Greek women were no exception to this rule. Their first\nstep toward liberty was to free themselves from the galling chain\nimposed upon them by marriage, a position in which, as has been shown,\nwives were simply household slaves, tools of their imperious and\ndegenerate masters. Greek women, in the Periclean age, simply assumed\nthe control of their persons and by so doing provoked the maledictions\nof future ages, ages in which sensualism still reigned supreme.\n\nFor reasons which have already been explained, the foremost women\nin Greece, and in fact all women who during the Periclean age were\nengaged in art, literature, philosophy, and statesmanship, belonged to\nthe class known as the hetairai, a term which, through the excessive\ngrowth or sensuality and superstition, subsequently became a term\nof reproach. Whatever may have been the importance of the services\nrendered by these women to society, such services would have been\nignored, or, if not altogether ignored, would have been reflected upon,\nor appropriated by, the opposite sex.\n\nTo say that the hetairai were free is equal to saying that they\nhave been misunderstood, hence the calumnies which for more than\ntwo thousand years have been heaped upon them. That the hetairai of\nGreece in the Periclean age included a class of women who were the\nintellectual compeers of the ablest statesmen and philosophers is a\nfact which may not by those who have paid close attention to this\nsubject be denied. That they taught rhetoric and elocution, that they\nlectured publicly and established schools of philosophy at the same\ntime that they wielded a powerful influence on the state and on the\ndrift of current thought are facts which medi\u00e6val scholasticism has not\nbeen able to conceal.\n\nI think one may not investigate the various schools of philosophy\nwhich arose during the fourth and fifth centuries B.C., without noting\nthe peculiarly altruistic principles involved in them, and this, too,\nnotwithstanding the fact that, hitherto, extreme selfishness or egoism\nhad constituted the prevailing character observed in Athenian society.\n\nAccording to the principles of the Cyrenaics, the virtuous man is not\nnecessarily he who is in the possession of pleasure but he who is able\nto proceed rightly in quest of pleasure. \u201cVirtue is the only possible\nand sane way to happiness.\u201d The most eminent members of the Cyrenaics\nwere Arete the daughter of Aristippus and her son Aristippus the\nyounger, surnamed the mother-taught.[232] The fundamental doctrine of\nthe Cyrenes seems to have been that right-living or virtue constitutes\nthe only good. \u201cThe essence of virtue lies in self-control. Enjoyment\nsought as an end is evil.\u201d\n\n[232] Ueberweg, _History of Philosophy_, vol. i., p. 95. We are\ninformed by Ueberweg that there exists an early monograph on Arete by\nJ.\u202fC. Eck (Leipzig, 1776).\n\n\u201cVirtue is capable of being taught, and when once acquired cannot be\nlost. What is good is honourable, and what is bad is disgraceful.\u201d On\nexamination it is found that one of the most eminent members of this\nschool is Hipparchia. That she is not a mere listener, imbibing the\nideas of others, is shown in the fact that she lectured publicly and\nargued strongly before the philosophers of Athens. The founder of the\nCynic school of philosophy is said to have been Antisthenes, the son\nof a Thracian mother. One of the sayings of this philosopher is, that\n\u201cvirtue is the same in a man as in a woman.\u201d[233]\n\n[233] Diogenes La\u00ebrtius, _Life of Hipparchia_.\n\nThat the question of the position of women was a theme for discussion\nin the age under consideration is shown in a \u201csophism\u201d proposed by\nHipparchia to Theodorus. Once when she went to sup with Lysimachus, she\nsaid to Theodorus: \u201cWhat Theodorus could not be called wrong for doing,\nthat same thing Hipparchia ought not to be called wrong for doing.\u201d[234]\n\n[234] Diogenes La\u00ebrtius, _Life of Hipparchia_, iii.\n\nWhen we take into consideration the fact that Hipparchia was intimately\nassociated with Crates, a man for whom she entertained the tenderest\naffection, and when we remember that they were both engaged in teaching\na philosophy which \u201crecognized virtue as the supreme end of life,\u201d\nthe conversation at the house of Lysimachus between Hipparchia and\nTheodorus, as set forth by Diogenes La\u00ebrtius will be seen to admit of a\ndifferent interpretation than that which commonly prevails.\n\nOf the Epicureans it has been observed that they were a sort of\nPythagorean brotherhood, consisting of both men and women.\n\n The scandalous tongue of antiquity was never more virulent than it was\n in the case of Epicurus, but, as far as we can judge, the life of the\n Garden joined to urbanity and refinement a simplicity which would have\n done no discredit to a Stoic; indeed, the Stoic Seneca continually\n refers to Epicurus not less as a model for conduct, than as a master\n of sententious wisdom.\n\nAmong the most distinguished members of this school were Themistia,\nto whom Cicero refers in his speech against Pisa as a \u201csort of female\nSolon,\u201d and Leontium, who ventured to attack Theophrastus in an essay\ncharacterized, as we are assured, by much elegance of style.[235]\n\n[235] Mayor, _Ancient Philosophy_, pp. 181, 182.\n\nNo school of philosophy arose in Athens with which there was not\nclosely connected the name of one or another of the illustrious women\nof the time. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, was the pupil\nof Crates, the companion of Hipparchia.\n\nAspasia was the \u201cclever preceptress of Socrates,\u201d[236] the sage who\nsat for the portrait of the Stoic philosophy. According to the Stoic\nphilosophy, the supreme end of life is virtue, _i. e._, \u201ca life\nconformed to nature.\u201d The degree of self-restraint taught by Socrates\nis shown in the following lines:\n\n[236] _Athen\u00e6us._\n\n Is it not the duty of every man to consider that temperance is the\n foundation of every virtue, and to establish the observance of it in\n his mind before all things? For who, without it, can either learn\n anything good, or sufficiently practice it? Who, that is a slave to\n pleasure, is not in an ill condition both as to his body and his\n mind? It appears to me, by Juno, that a free man ought to pray that\n he may never meet with a slave of such a character, and that he who\n is a slave to pleasure should pray to the gods that he may find\n well-disposed masters; for by such means only can a man of that sort\n be saved.[237]\n\n[237] Xenophon, _Memorabilia of Socrates_.\n\nWhen the ablest statesmen and the first philosophers of Greece\nunited in sounding the praises of Alcibiades, the genius of Aspasia\ncommanded equal recognition. Not only did Socrates and Pericles receive\ninstruction and inspiration from this gifted woman, but we are assured\nthat she lectured publicly and that her \u201cacquaintances took their wives\nwith them to hear her discourse.\u201d[238] Indeed \u201cPericles threw all\nGreece into confusion on account of Aspasia, not the young one, but\nthat one who associated with the wise Socrates.\u201d[239]\n\n[238] Plutarch, _Pericles_.\n\n[239] _Athen\u00e6us_, book xiii.\n\n It is not to be imagined that Aspasia excelled in light and amorous\n discourses. Her discourses, on the contrary, were not more brilliant\n than solid. It was believed by the most intelligent Athenians, and\n amongst them Socrates himself, that she composed the celebrated\n funeral oration pronounced by Pericles in honour of those that were\n slain in the Samian War.[240]\n\n[240] Plutarch, _Pericles_.\n\nIt is recorded of her that many Athenians resorted to her lecture-room\non account of her skill in the art of speaking. Not only did she teach\nrhetoric, philosophy, and the proper relations of the sexes, but so\nrenowned was she for statesmanship that Pericles is said to have\nsurrendered to her the government of Athens then at the height of its\nglory and renown. On this subject Plutarch remarks: \u201cSome, indeed, say\nthat Pericles made his court to Aspasia only on account of her wisdom\nand political abilities.\u201d\n\nIt has been said that the expedition against the Samians was merely to\ngratify Aspasia. The Milesians and Samians who had been at war were\nordered to lay down their arms. When they refused to obey, Pericles, in\ncompany with Aspasia, sailed with a fleet to Samos and abolished the\noligarchical form of government. Although he was offered large sums of\nmoney, he \u201ctreated the Samians in the manner he had resolved on; and\nhaving established a popular government in the island, he returned to\nAthens.\u201d[241]\n\n[241] Plutarch, _Pericles_.\n\nPlutarch, quoting from \u00c6schines, says that Lysicles, who was \u201cof a\nmean, ungenerous disposition, by his intercourse with Aspasia after the\ndeath of Pericles, became the most considerable man in Athens.\u201d[242]\nNotwithstanding the scandalous reports which have come down to us\nof this woman\u2019s character, in view of the facts which it has been\nimpossible for sex-prejudice to conceal, we are constrained to ask:\n\u201cWhat manner of woman was this who was able to control statesmen,\nimpart instruction to world-renowned philosophers, and leave a name\nwhich even bigotry, envy, and malice may not efface from the history of\nhuman events?\u201d\n\n[242] _Ibid._\n\nIn seeking for an explanation of the exalted character of Aspasia,\nwe have something more than a hint in the fact that she is reported\nto have \u201ctrod in the steps of Thargelia,\u201d a woman who by her\nexceeding brilliancy had gained the sovereignty of Thessaly. Indeed,\nwe have found a key to the entire situation when we learn that\nthis Thargelia, in whose steps Aspasia trod, \u201cwas descended from\nthe ancient Ionians,\u201d[243] a people who, originally worshipped the\nfemale principle, and who still preserved the customs peculiar to the\nmatriarchal system, under which it will be remembered women, as aliens,\ndid not follow the fathers of their children to their homes. So soon\nas these facts are understood, we are not in the least surprised to\nlearn that Aspasia discountenanced the institution of marriage as it\nexisted in Athens. Neither is it remarkable, when we remember that\nthe underlying principles involved in the philosophy which she taught\nwere justice and equity, that she should be found using her great\ninfluence, as in the case of the Milesians and Samians, in substituting\ndemocracies in the place of oligarchies; nor that, in an age when women\nhad come to be regarded simply as the tools and slaves of men, she\nshould be found teaching the dignity of womanhood to her own sex, and\nthe principles of equality to males.\n\n[243] Plutarch, _Pericles_.\n\nAccording to Xenophon, Aspasia\u2019s efforts were to a great extent\ndirected to the duties of husbands and wives; indeed, her foremost\nobject seems to have been to educate Athenian women. During the\nPericlean age the position of women was one of the leading topics\ndiscussed in Athens. Socrates says to his companions that he has been\nof the opinion \u201cof a long time that the female sex are nothing inferior\nto ours, excepting only in strength of body or perhaps steadiness\nof judgment.\u201d[244] The coarse picture painted by Aristophanes, of\nwomen with beards going in male attire to the agora, \u201cto seize the\nadministration of the state so as to do the state some good,\u201d[245]\nalthough a vulgar attempt to ridicule the female philosophers of\nAthens, furnishes something more than a hint of the fact that the ideas\nsubsequently set forth in Plato\u2019s _Republic_ had been openly discussed\nby the philosophers of the Periclean age.\n\n[244] Xenophon, _Banquet_.\n\n[245] _Ecclesiazus\u00e6._\n\nThat the word hetairai was originally employed in no mean or\ncompromising sense is plain, since Sappho uses it in the sense of\n\u201cfemale companion (\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1) of the same rank and the same interests.\u201d\nWe are assured that these women were able to preserve a friendship\n\u201cfree from trickery.\u201d Of them even \u201cCynulcus does not venture to speak\nill.\u201d[246] They \u201cof all women are the only ones who have derived their\nname from friendship or from that goddess who is named by the Athenians\nVenus Het\u00e6ra.\u201d[247]\n\n[246] _Athen\u00e6us_, xiii.\n\n[247] _Ibid._\n\n\u201cAccordingly, even to this day,\u201d observes Athen\u00e6us, \u201cfree-born women\nand maidens call their associates and friends their \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1; as Sappho\ndoes where she says:\n\n  And now with tuneful voice I\u2019ll sing\n  These pleasing songs to my companions.\n\nAnd in another place she says:\n\n  Niobe and Latona were of old\n  Affectionate companions \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 to each other.\u201d[248]\n\n[248] _Athen\u00e6us_, xiii.\n\nThat medi\u00e6val scholasticism has not been able wholly to obscure the\ngreatness of the Greek hetairai is shown by the declaration of a\nrenowned writer of modern times who says: \u201cOf all the poets who have\nappeared on the earth Sappho was undoubtedly the greatest.\u201d\n\nNotwithstanding the aspersions which have been cast upon the name and\nfame of the hetairai of Greece, it is doubtful if the intelligent\nwomen of the present age who carefully examine the shreds and remnants\nconcerning them which have withstood the envy of mediocrity, and the\nbigotry of scholasticism, will be brought to believe that the excesses\nwhich are foreign to the female nature, and which belong to ruder\nand less highly developed structures, were practised by these gifted\nwomen. We must bear in mind that the hetairai were free, and therefore\nthat they were able to direct their movements according to the natural\ncharacters developed within the female,\u2014characters which it will be\nremembered are correlated with the maternal instinct.\n\nThe licentiousness, not only of Greek and Roman women, but of those in\ncertain portions of Asia as well, has been the favourite theme of many\nwriters of past ages; more especially has the lewdness of Lydian and\nBabylonian women been noted and commented upon. After referring to the\nannual sale of women in Babylonia, Herodotus says that the people\n\n have lately hit upon a very different plan to save their maidens\n from violence, and prevent their being torn from them and carried to\n distant cities, which is to bring up their daughters to be courtesans.\n This is now done by all the poorer of the common people, who since\n the conquest have been maltreated by their lords, and have had ruin\n brought upon their families.[249]\n\n[249] Book i.\n\nIt is recorded that the various classes of \u201ckept women\u201d in Greece were\nforeigners, that they were either bought or captured from surrounding\ncountries. As in the case of the Lydians and Babylonians, they were\ndoubtless carried from their homes at a tender age after having been\nreared to their profession. Many of the maidens thus taken to Greece\nsubsequently became philosophers, statesmen, and scholars, whereupon\nthey abandoned their former calling. Lysias mentions the fact that\nPhilyra gave up her former course when she was still quite young,\n\u201cand so did Scione, and Hippaphesis, and Theoclea, and Psamathe, and\nLagisca, and Anthea.\u201d[250]\n\n[250] _Athen\u00e6us_, book xiii.\n\nAs special mention is made of a woman who \u201cdid not cease to live a\nprostitute when she began to learn philosophy,\u201d[251] we may reasonably\ninfer that it was usual for these women to abandon the calling to which\nthey had been born and bred, so soon as from such teachers as Aspasia\nand Hipparchia they began to imbibe principles of self-respect and\nwomanly independence.\n\n[251] _Ibid._, book xiii.\n\nFrom the position occupied by the hetairai it is evident that by the\nphilosophers of Greece, they were regarded with that respect which is\never due to cultured womanhood; indeed, from the evidence at hand we\nmay believe that they were the most highly honoured citizens in Athens.\n\nAll women in Greece who prostituted themselves were forbidden to take\nsacred names; yet of Nemeas, Athen\u00e6us says: \u201cAnd we may wonder how it\nwas that the Athenians permitted a courtesan to have such a name, which\nwas that of a most honourable and solemn festival.\u201d[252]\n\n[252] _Ibid._, book xiii.\n\nOf Glycera it is related that Harpalus issued an edict that no one\nshould present him with a crown, unless the donor at the same time\npresented one to her. He erected a statue to her and permitted her\nto dwell in the palace of Tarsus where he allowed her \u201cto receive\nadoration from the people\u201d; he permitted her also to bear the title of\nQueen, and \u201cto be complimented with other presents which are only fit\nfor your own mother and your own wife.\u201d[253]\n\n[253] _Athen\u00e6us_, book xiii.\n\nTimotheus, who was a general of very high repute in the Athenian army,\nwas the son of a courtesan; we are informed, however, that she was \u201ca\ncourtesan of very excellent character.\u201d[254] The great Themistocles is\nsaid to have been the son of Abrotonum, a \u201ccourtesan.\u201d\n\n[254] _Ibid._, book xiii.\n\nIt is recorded that in response to an order issued by the people,\nPraxiteles made a solid gold statue of one of the hetairai, which was\nconsecrated in the temple of Delphi. Certainly the deathless models of\nGreek art formed by Praxiteles and Phidias are not representations of\ncoarse and sensualized womanhood.\n\nThat these women were a power in Athens during the Periclean age may\nnot, in view of the facts recorded in relation to them, be disputed. Of\nthem it has been said:\n\n None but they could gather round them of an evening the choicest\n spirits of the day, and elicit, in the freedom of unrestrained\n intercourse, wit and wisdom, flashing fancy and burning eloquence.\n What wonder that the hetairai should have filled so prominent a part\n in Greek society! And how small a compensation to virtuous women to\n know their rivals could not stand at the altar when sacrifice was\n offered, could not give birth to a citizen.\n\nIn this acknowledgment of the exalted position occupied by the Greek\nhetairai the author, like most writers upon the subject of the sexual\nrelations, measures virtue not by its antithesis to vice, but by the\nestablished masculine standards which have been set up for women to\nconform to. A Greek wife\u2019s life may have been one continuous scene of\nsubjection to the lowest appetites of a master for whom she may have\nhad not the least degree of respect or affection, and who regarded her\nonly in the light of an instrument for his convenience and pleasure;\nstill such an one would doubtless be accounted as a \u201cvirtuous\u201d woman in\ncontradistinction to one of the hetairai whose position enabled her to\ncontrol her own person and who was able to exercise her own will-power\nin protecting it against the excesses of Greek men. It is evident that\nthis class of women more than any other in Greece was able to direct\nits movements and manage its activities, and, therefore, if we bear\nin mind the characters correlated in the female constitution with the\nmaternal instinct, we may be assured that among the entire population\nof Athens, the lives of these women were the most pure and the least\naddicted to excesses.\n\nAspasia, the philosopher and statesman; Hipparchia, practical professor\nof Cynic philosophy and one of the most voluminous and esteemed writers\nof her time; Thargelia, the Milesian, whom Xerxes employed at the\ncourt of Thessaly, and many others scarcely less renowned, prove that\nthrough the exercise of that personal freedom enjoyed by the hetairai,\nwomen had at length risen to that position in which they were able to\nexert a powerful influence, not only on the affairs of state, but upon\nthe intellectual development of the Athenians and the entire world. To\nsay that these women have been written about in an age in which male\npower and male influence have been in the ascendency, is to say that\nthey have been misunderstood and their movements misinterpreted.\n\nBecause of the efforts put forth by scholastics for two thousand years\nto belittle or annul the importance of the services rendered by the\nhetairai, they will doubtless for some time continue to be judged not\nby their intellectual vigour nor by what they accomplished, but by\nthe social position into which, through the exigencies of masculine\ndomination, they had been jostled. The fact has been observed that less\nthan two centuries prior to the age of Aspasia and Socrates, Solon\nhad given to the calling of prostitution the sanction of religion and\nlaw; that he had purchased a sufficient number of young slaves from\nsurrounding countries to satisfy the demands of the men of Greece;\nand that he had made the calling of these girls a source of public\nrevenue for which services he had received the title of \u201cSaviour of\nthe State.\u201d We would scarcely expect, therefore, to find chastity\namong the prominent virtues of the Periclean age. I wish to emphasize\nthe fact that by the conditions of society at that time, the class\ndesignated as hetairai, although they were in a certain sense free,\nwere practically prevented, no matter what may have been their natural\ninclinations or aspirations, from rising to a higher plane of moral\naction, and furthermore that the existing conditions were wholly\nthe result of the supremacy gained by the lower propensities over\nthe higher forces developed in human nature. Had these gifted women\naccepted the position of wife, ignorance and seclusion would have been\ntheir portion, while their sexual degradation would have been none\nthe less complete or perfect; indeed it would have been all the more\nintolerable, for the reason that the degradation of their persons,\nwhich in the position of hetairai was sued for as a privilege, in the\nposition of wife would have been claimed as a right.\n\nBy most writers upon this subject the fact seems to have been\noverlooked, or, if observed, has not been acknowledged, that\nlicentiousness among women during a certain period of Greek life, about\nwhich so much has been written, was governed wholly by the demands\nof their masters; in fact, throughout the history of mankind since\nthe ascendency of the male over the female has been gained, the class\nwhich has controlled the means of support, and within which has resided\nall the power to direct the activities of women, has ever regulated\nthe supply of victims to be offered upon the altar of lust; and in\nall these regulations may be observed such an adjustment of women\u2019s\n\u201cduties\u201d to the \u201cnecessities\u201d of the male nature, that no alternative\nhas been left them but submission.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nROMAN LAW, ROMAN WOMEN, AND CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nThe far-reaching results of the various schools of philosophy which\nrose in Greece during the Periclean age will be noted in this chapter.\nThat the principles involved in this philosophy may not have been\nformulated by the hetairai of Athens is doubtless true, yet that the\ninception and development of these principles were largely due to\nthe freedom of these gifted women seems probable, especially when we\nremember the conditions under which this philosophy arose.\n\nA glance at the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy will show\nits thoroughly altruistic character. The sum of its tenets was to \u201clive\naccording to nature\u2019s laws,\u201d to subordinate one\u2019s self to the welfare\nof one\u2019s family, one\u2019s country, and the entire race, and to \u201crise\nabove the gross indulgences and pleasures of the vulgar\u201d to higher\nlaws of thought and action; it taught that to be just, and to live\naccording to the dictates of reason rather than to be governed by the\npromptings of blind passion and the desire of the appetites, should\nbe not only the duty but the highest pleasure of mankind. Possibly\nsome of the minor precepts of the Stoic philosophy were absurd; no\ndoubt in their desire for reform, its founders set up a canon of\nconduct which was severe and impracticable; but its fundamental\nprinciples, the subjection of the animal in man to the reasoning\nfaculties, as applied to future Roman law, Roman civilization, and\nRoman character, served to produce specimens of manhood which the women\nof all subsequent ages should delight to honour. So long as virtue is\napplauded and moral greatness is exalted, the enactments of the Roman\njurisconsults in the interest of women, prior to, and during the time\nof the Antonine C\u00e6sars, will stand forth throughout the ages as the\none single movement, during thousands of years, toward the removal\nof the legal disabilities of women. When we remember that the Stoic\nphilosophy took root and flourished during an age of unparalleled\nprofligacy which was stimulated and encouraged by the example of the\nmost opulent and luxurious personages among the Greeks, and at a time\nwhen licentiousness had for centuries been sanctioned by religion and\nupheld by laws made by the men of Greece, it is quite evident that some\npotent influence, which had hitherto been unfelt, had been in operation\nto produce it.\n\nIn order to understand the influence which the Stoic philosophy exerted\non civilization, and especially on the legal position of women, we\nmust first understand its effect upon Roman law. An inquiry into the\nchanges which had been wrought in Roman jurisprudence at the time of\nthe Antonine C\u00e6sars, by engrafting upon it the underlying principles\ncontained in the Stoic philosophy, discloses the fact that the\nemancipation of women had been practically accomplished in Rome.\n\nPerhaps there is no subject which at the present time possesses greater\ninterest for inquiring women than that concerning the status of their\nsex under the older Roman law; for, by an understanding of woman\u2019s\nlegal status, as fixed under this institution at a time when man had\ngained the summit of his power over her, is furnished a key whereby may\nbe unlocked many of the mysteries surrounding the still extant social\nand legal disabilities of women.\n\nThe thoroughly egoistic character of the principles underlying the\nolder Roman law has been noticed in a former portion of this work. We\nhave seen that in Rome the father, who was the sole representative of\nthe family, had drawn to himself not only all the authority over the\nchild which under the earlier gentile organization of society had been\nacknowledged as belonging exclusively to the mother, but, ignoring\nindividual liberty, and all the principles of personal freedom which\nhad been established under the matriarchal system, had proclaimed\nhimself absolute sovereign over all within the agnatic bond. The divine\noracle of Apollo, which had enunciated the doctrine that the soul of\nthe child is derived from the father, had at the same time declared\nthat the mother has to do only with furnishing the body. Thus the\nfather, as Creator, became the household god; his authority, as we have\nseen, being supreme even to the exercise of the power of life and death\nover its members.\n\nUnder ancient law, the father, as head of the household, really\nconstituted the family, the remaining members being merely ciphers\nwhich, from the peculiar position in which they were placed, were\nwithout significance except as vassals under the strictest tutelage of\ntheir master. Under this august system of father-worship, males as well\nas females had become enslaved. The bondage of men, however, differed\nsomewhat from the \u201cperpetual tutelage of women,\u201d in the fact that they\nthemselves in time might become heads of families, and in that imperial\nposition to assume the same authority and dominion over others as had\nbeen exercised over them. Women, however, could never become heads of\nfamilies, and therefore could never hope to be free. So long as they\nremained single they were under the tutelage of their blood-relations,\nor were subject to the authority of some individual whom the father,\nbefore his death, might choose to appoint over them as guardian. Thus\narose the law known as the Perpetual Tutelage of Women. Upon this\nsubject Sir Henry Maine says:\n\n Ancient law subordinates the woman to her blood-relations, while a\n prime phenomenon of modern jurisprudence has been her subordination\n to her husband. The history of the change is remarkable. It begins far\n back in the annals of Rome. Anciently, there were three modes in which\n marriage might be contracted according to Roman usage, one involving a\n religious solemnity, the other two the observance of certain secular\n formalities. By the religious marriage of _Confarreation_; by the\n higher form of civil marriage, which was called _Coemption_; and by\n the lower form, which was termed _Usus_, the husband acquired a number\n of rights over the person and property of his wife, which were on\n the whole in excess of such as are conferred on him in any system of\n modern jurisprudence. But in what capacity did he acquire them? Not\n as _Husband_, but as _Father_. By the _Confarreation_, _Coemption_,\n and _Usus_, the woman passed in _manum viri_\u2014that is, in law she\n became the _Daughter_ of her husband. She was included in his _Patria\n Potestas_. She incurred all the liabilities springing out of it while\n it subsisted, and surviving it when it had expired. All her property\n became absolutely his and she was retained in tutelage after his death\n to the guardian whom he had appointed by will.[255]\n\n[255] _Ancient Law_, p. 149.\n\nOn this subject of male supremacy in the family Mr. Maine remarks:\n\n The foundation of Agnation is not the marriage of Father and Mother,\n but the authority of the Father. All persons are Agnatically bound\n together who are under the same Paternal Power, or who have been under\n it, or who might have been under it if their lineal ancestor had\n lived long enough to exercise his empire.[256]\n\n[256] _Ancient Law_, p. 144.\n\nUnder this bond would be united all the children belonging to the\nhead of the household and all the descendants of the sons, but not of\nthe daughters; the daughters\u2019 children under this manner of reckoning\ndescent belonged to the families of their respective fathers. Although\nunder this system a man might adopt a stranger into his family, and\ninvest him with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto,\nno descendant of a daughter could claim any of the rights of agnation.\nUnder Hindu law, which is saturated with the primitive notions of\nfamily dependency, in the genealogies, the names of women are omitted\naltogether. We are assured by Mr. Maine that the exclusion of women\nfrom governmental functions certainly had its origin in agnation. Thus\nit is seen that paternity had come to involve the idea of a supreme\nruler or potentate, and that the overshadowing predominance of the\nmale over the female had paved the way to the future worship of one\nall-powerful male deity.\n\nWe have seen that the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy\nwere justice, equality, and the subjection of the appetites to the\ndictates of reason and conscience. So soon as Greece was subjugated\nby Rome, the ablest of the Romans espoused the principles embodied in\nthis philosophy, and notably among those who became interested in its\ntenets were the Roman lawyers, who began immediately to reconstruct the\ncivil law upon the principles underlying this system.\n\nThat it is only through a return to the archaic and natural principles\nof justice and right living, the acknowledgment of which at once\nestablishes the proper relations of the sexes, that women may ever hope\nto be free, is plain to all those who have given attention to this\nsubject. This fact was evidently observed by the Roman lawyers who,\nthrough the persistency with which only those labour who are engaged\nin establishing a principle, had so far succeeded in overcoming the\nprejudice against sex as to have established a legal code wherein was\npractically recognized the equality of women with men.\n\nDoubtless the Romans were as tenacious of their ancient customs,\nprejudices, and long-established privileges as have been the people\nof any other country; hence we may perhaps form a faint idea of the\nobstacles which presented themselves, and of the devices which must\nhave been resorted to by Roman jurists in an endeavour to remove the\nexisting legal restrictions upon the liberties of women.\n\nMr. Maine informs us that Gaius, a celebrated jurist who lived in the\nage of the Antonine C\u00e6sars, devoted an entire volume to descriptions of\nthe ingenious expedients devised by Roman lawyers to evade the letter\nof the ancient law, and that it was through this source that the fact\nfinally became known that in the age of the Antonine C\u00e6sars the legal\ndisabilities of women had been practically annulled.\n\nFrom the facts at hand it is observed that the object of the Roman\nlawyers was to frame an edictal jurisprudence which should supersede\nthe older law, or which in effect should annul its power. We are\ninformed that the pr\u00e6tor was not only the chief equity judge, but that\nhe was also the common-law magistrate. So soon, therefore, as the edict\nhad passed through the necessary formalities enabling it to become a\nlaw, the pr\u00e6tor\u2019s court began to apply it in place, or by the side of\nthe civil law, \u201cwhich was directly or indirectly repealed without any\nexpress enactment of legislation.\u201d In reference to the legal status of\nwomen in the age of the Antonine C\u00e6sars, Henry Maine observes: \u201cLed by\ntheir theory of natural law, the jurisconsults had at this time assumed\nthe equality of the sexes as a principle of their code of equity.\u201d[257]\n\n[257] _Ancient Law_, p. 149.\n\nAlthough the seed, sown in Greece during the Periclean age when\nconveyed to Rome, produced a golden harvest, the fact will doubtless\nbe remembered that the Roman lawyers had but just completed their work\nof establishing the legal equality of the sexes when the agencies\nwhich for years had been at work to destroy the Empire culminated; and\nfinally, when Christianity, in the person of Constantine ascended the\nthrone, the results of four centuries of civilization were destroyed,\nor for more than sixteen hundred years were practically annulled.\n\nRegarding the changes which had been wrought in the legal status of\nwomen in the age of the Antonine C\u00e6sars, we are informed that whereas\nunder the older Roman law a woman at marriage came under the Patria\nPotestas of her husband, under the later law, as influenced by the\nprinciples involved in the Stoic philosophy, she remained as a member\nof her own family, or was placed under the protection of a guardian\nappointed by her parents, whose jurisdiction over her, although\nsuperior to that of her husband, was not such as to interfere with\nher personal liberty; thus, the same as under matriarchal usages, the\nsituation of the Roman woman, whether married or single, was one of\ngreat influence. Of this freedom exercised by women in the time of the\nAntonine C\u00e6sars, Mr. Maine remarks:\n\n But Christianity tended somewhat from the very first to narrow this\n remarkable liberty.... The latest Roman Law, so far as it is touched\n by the Constitutions of the Christian Emperors, bears some marks\n of a reaction against the liberal doctrines of the great Antonine\n jurisconsults. And the prevalent state of religious sentiment may\n explain why it is that modern jurisprudence, forged in the furnace of\n barbarian conquest, and formed by the fusion of Roman jurisprudence\n with patriarchal usage, has absorbed, among its rudiments, much more\n than usual of those rules concerning the position of women which\n belong peculiarly to an imperfect civilization.[258]\n\n[258] _Ancient Law_, p. 150.\n\nConcerning the influence of ecclesiasticism on that portion of Roman\njurisprudence relating particularly to women, Mr. Lecky observes:\n\n Wherever the canon law has been the basis of legislation, we find laws\n of succession sacrificing the interests of daughters and of wives, and\n a state of public opinion which has been formulated and regulated by\n these laws.\n\nBy means of a formulated ecclesiastical jurisprudence the complete\ninferiority of the sex was maintained,\n\n and that generous public opinion, which in Rome had frequently\n rebelled against the injustice done to girls in depriving them of\n the greater portion of the inheritance of their fathers, totally\n disappeared.\n\nIn comparing the Roman law with the canon or ecclesiastical code, the\nsame writer says that the pagan laws during the Empire were constantly\nrepealing the old disabilities of women; but that it was the aim of\nthe canon law to substitute enactments which should entail on the\nfemale sex the greatest personal restrictions and the most stringent\nsubordination.[259]\n\n[259] _European Morals_, vol. ii., p. 358.\n\nThose who have paid attention to the history of the English Common\nLaw, which forms the basis of our present system of jurisprudence, and\nwho have noted the part played by ecclesiasticism in fixing the status\nof women therein, will not be surprised at the attitude which the\nso-called Christian Church has assumed toward women. Referring to the\nCommon Law, an able writer has said:\n\n This imperishable specimen of human sagacity is, strange to say, so\n grossly unjust toward women that a great writer upon that code has\n well observed that in it women are regarded not as persons but as\n things; so completely were they stripped of all their rights, and held\n in subjection to their proud and imperious masters.[260]\n\n[260] Buckle\u2019s _Essays_.\n\nIt has been remarked that in no one particular does the canon law\ndepart so widely from the spirit of secular jurisprudence as in the\nview it takes of the relations created by marriage. Although the leaven\nof civilization preserved from Roman institutions was the codified\njurisprudence of Justinian, as the chapter of law relating to women\nwas read by the light of canon law, the altruistic principles which\nhad characterized the later Roman code soon became extinct. Upon this\nsubject Mr. Maine remarks:\n\n This was in part inevitable since no society which preserves any\n tincture of Christian institutions is likely to restore to married\n women the personal liberty conferred on them by the middle Roman law.\n\nAnd this is doubtless true for the reason that the entire Christian\nsuperstructure rests on the dogma of female weakness and female\ndepravity. The doctrine of Original Sin, which depends entirely on the\nstory of the fruit-tree of Genesis being taken in a literal sense, had\nby canonists been accepted. On her first appearance upon the scene of\naction, woman is labouring under a curse pronounced upon her by an\nall-powerful male God for the mischief she had wrought on innocent man;\nit is only reasonable, therefore, that human law should unite with\nthe divine decree in establishing her complete and final degradation;\nhence, the return to the ancient Hindu law and the older Roman code for\nmodels of legislation concerning her.\n\nOn this subject Mr. Maine remarks:\n\n I do not know how the operation and nature of the ancient Patria\n Potestas can be brought so vividly before the mind as by reflecting on\n the prerogatives attached to the husband by the pure English Common\n Law, and by recalling the rigorous consistency with which the view of\n a complete legal subjection on the part of the wife is carried by it,\n where it is untouched by equity or statutes, through every department\n of rights, duties, and remedies.[261]\n\n [261] _Ancient Law_, p. 154.\n\n\n NOTE.\u2014As the position of women among the early German hordes was one\n of great dignity and respect, it may scarcely be argued that the\n sentiments embodied in the English Common Law relative to wives were\n in any degree the result of innate Teutonic prejudice against the\n female sex. #/\n\nNotwithstanding the efforts which for several centuries were put forth\nin Rome to secure to women that independence which under the earlier\nRoman law had been denied them, in the code of Justinian, which was\ncompiled in the early part of the sixth century, no word respecting\nthe remarkable degree of liberty which under the later Roman law was\naccorded to women appears; and but for the discovery of the manuscript\nof Gaius, to which reference has already been made, we would never\nhave become acquainted with the changes which had been wrought in\nthis particular branch of Roman jurisprudence. In the Justinian code,\ninstead of the humane edicts of the later, or middle Roman law,\nappeared the Canon or ecclesiastical law, by means of which women were\ncondemned to a state of servitude even more degrading than that which\nhad been imposed on them by the older law.\n\nHad medi\u00e6val scholasticism succeeded in concealing from the world the\ninformation contained in the manuscript of Gaius, still there would\nhave remained sufficient evidence left to prove that in the second\ncentury of the present era woman\u2019s freedom had been practically won.\nThat women themselves were claiming absolute legal equality with men\nmay not be doubted. Honoria, a Roman matron, first enunciated the\nprinciple: Taxation without representation is tyranny.[262] Cato\u2019s\ncelebrated oration in which he passionately exclaims: If you allow\nyour women to be your equals how long will it be before they become\nyour superiors?[263] shows that a certain type of men were becoming\nalarmed over the growing independence of women.\n\n[262] Roman History. Appian, London, 1913.\n\n[263] The History of Rome. Titus Livius, p. 172.\n\nThe freeing of women from the bondage entailed on them by the older\nRoman law, an achievement which had required more than three centuries\nto accomplish, was a triumph for civilization unparalleled during the\nhistoric period. That this triumph over tyranny was of short duration\nis shown in the sequel to this movement.\n\nThat the coming of Jesus at a time when the principles of justice and\nequality were becoming the recognized rule of life among the better\nclass of Romans is not surprising. No one may study Greek philosophy\nwithout noting the similarity between it and the teachings of Christ.\nJustice, self-restraint, and regard for the rights and feelings of\nothers, principles which when applied to Roman law had liberated women\nfrom the tyranny of the past, were also the principles taught by Jesus.\nIt seems to have been the mission of the latter to convey these lofty\ndoctrines to the multitude. Do unto others as you would have others do\nunto you was not however understood by the masses who knew no other\nrule of life than that of selfishness and ungoverned lust. Hence in\nprocess of time the new movement came to have no other effect than to\nadd to the already established evils another quite as contemptible,\nnamely\u2014hypocrisy.\n\nAmong the earliest Christians theological disputes were unknown.\nOriginal sin and the doctrine of a vicarious atonement whereby a man\nis \u201csaved\u201d not from sin but from the penalty for sin were unheard of.\nTo spread the simple principles enunciated by Jesus and by so doing to\nkindle into life the divine spark in man, seem to have constituted the\nobject and aim of the earliest Christians. The activities necessary for\nthe propagation of these principles were shared alike by both sexes.\nWomen exhorted, prophesied, and prayed in the churches. They baptized\ntheir own sex. One of them wrote a gospel which, so long as woman\u2019s\ninfluence continued, was in use among the Christians.\n\nSuch were the conditions when Paul, a Jew who had espoused the new\nreligion, first appeared on the scene. An extant legend describes this\nman as small in stature and of ignoble bearing. According to this\nlegend Paul was bald-headed and bow-legged. As to his intellectual\nability we have the following Corinthians x., 10: \u201cFor his letters\nthey were weighty and strong but his speech is of no account.\u201d It is\nelsewhere recorded of him that \u201chis speech was contemptible.\u201d From\nwhat is known of this man Paul it is evident that he was domineering,\nself-sufficient, and aggressive. He quarrelled with Peter and was\nintolerant of the ideas of his associates. His forceful character, his\nuntiring energy, his zeal for the cause which he had espoused and above\nall his capacity for organization soon gained for him the leadership of\nthe new movement.\n\nNowhere is it recorded that during the earlier years of Paul\u2019s\nChristian career he attempted to discourage, or curtail, the activities\nof women. On the contrary he refers to them as co-workers, acknowledges\nthem as prophets, and praises their ministrations. In his writings, the\nname of Priscilla occurs many times. Ph\u0153be, Claudia, Julia and others\nare regarded as worthy of mention by him. As his influence and power\nincreased, however, his egoism began to assert itself. It is evident\nthat Paul\u2019s strong masculine nature could no longer tolerate a religion\nwhich might with some degree of consistency be regarded as a feminine\nmovement. The old doctrine enunciated by Apollo during the reign of\nCecrops namely that man is a divine emanation while woman is only human\nmust be revived.\n\nThe following from Paul\u2019s writings shows that his aim was to crush the\ninfluence and power exercised by women, and the means employed was to\nsubject them to the dominion of their husbands.\n\n The head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the\n man and the head of Christ is God.\n\n For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man. Neither was\n the man created for the woman but the woman for the man.\n\n Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted\n unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience.\n\n And if they would learn anything let them ask their husbands at home.\n\nThat women were no longer to be the equals and companions of their\nhusbands but that they were to become sexual slaves is indicated by the\ncommand, \u201cWives subject yourselves unto your husbands.\u201d\n\nIt must be remembered that these commands of Paul were not, as has\nbeen frequently asserted, delivered to and about weak, ignorant women\ndevoid of influence, but were directed against those whose position of\nequality in the new religion had not before been questioned, and whose\nlegal disabilities had at that time been well-nigh removed.\n\nBefore the close of the second century, the simple, ethical teachings\nof Jesus were forgotten. Christianity had disappeared and Paulism had\ntaken its place. A century later, after the Empire had come under the\ncontrol of so-called Christian rule, woman\u2019s influence, as we have\nalready seen, entirely disappeared. All that had been gained by means\nof the middle Roman law had been annulled by the decrees of the Canon\nlaw.\n\nPauline Christianity in the fourth century A.D. was an attempt to\nre-establish that form of Paganism which had prevailed prior to the\nrise of Greek philosophy. This older religion, which had its origin\nin Sun worship, or in the worship of the two fecundating principles\nthroughout nature, had as early as the Periclean age ceased to claim\nthe attention of the educated classes among the Greeks. \u00c6schylus\nbarely escaped being stoned to death for heresy, and as is well known,\nSocrates the founder of the Stoic philosophy was forced to drink of\nthe fatal cup because of his unbelief in the prevailing superstitions.\nNot to destroy Paganism itself but to exterminate the last vestige of\nGreek philosophy was the task which the Pauline Christians had set\nthemselves to perform. Jesus now became the new Solar Deity and all\nthe forms observed under the older Paganism were now attached to his\nworship. He was born at the winter solstice, or at the time when the\nsun had reached its zenith and was about to return. He died and was\nburied, but at the vernal equinox, Easter, the time at which all nature\nis revived\u2014he arose from the dead and became the Saviour of mankind.\nThe entire Christian calendar is copied from the ancient Pagan worship.\nA medal was struck on which appeared the figure of a man on a cross,\non the obverse side of which was the representation of a blazing sun.\nChrist was the new Sun of Righteousness, the giver and preserver of\nlife.\n\nEvery page in the history of the Pauline religion reveals its masculine\norigin. The Deities worshipped are a Father and a Son. All the angels\nand archangels are men. All extant Gospels and Epistles have been\nwritten and expounded by men. It is true that in response to a popular\ndemand in the fifth century for a recognition of the female principle,\nthe Virgin Mary, an ancient Deity, reappeared. The lateness of her\ncoming, however, shows that she was an afterthought. Moreover, it must\nbe borne in mind that, true to the ancient doctrine which was revived\nby Paul relative to the divinity of man and the material nature of\nwoman, the Mother of Jesus was human while the Father and the Son were\ndivine. She was matter. They were spirit.\n\nAmong the discussions of the early Pauline \u201cFathers\u201d none was more\nimportant than these. Ought women to be allowed to learn the alphabet?\nAnd has woman a soul? It is recorded that a few of these pious leaders\nentertained the opinion that because of the great power and goodness\nof the Almighty \u201cwomen may possibly be permitted to rise as men at the\nresurrection.\u201d\n\nAs we have seen, to destroy Greek philosophy was the slogan of the new\nmovement. The destruction of the Alexandrian library by a fanatical\nmob led by Archbishop Theophilus is an example of the fury with which\nall institutions not directly connected with the new religion were\nattacked. As is well known, this library contained the accumulated\nknowledge of a highly civilized people, extending over a period of\nseveral thousands of years. Among the priceless treasures stored\nin this library were the records of astronomical observations\nscientifically registered during a period of not less than three\nthousand years.\n\nThe lectures delivered by Hypatia in Alexandria during the latter part\nof the fourth century were the last attempt made to stem the tide of\nfanaticism which was destined to sweep over a large portion of the\nhabitable globe. The fate of Hypatia who was foully murdered by a mob\nled by St. Cyril was a forecast of the fate which awaited any and all\nwho should henceforth dare to think or act independently of the new\nreligion.\n\nWhen Greek philosophy was no longer taught, the principles of equality\nand liberty which had been incorporated into the middle Roman law were\nannulled or practically forgotten; and when the doctrine of woman\u2019s\ninferiority and total depravity became crystallized not only in\nreligion but in law and in all the customs of the time, women sank to a\ndegree of degradation never before witnessed in the history of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE RENAISSANCE\n\n\nIf the theory that the higher faculties and the moral sense originated\nin the female and that these qualities are by her transmitted to\noffspring, then the conditions existing in the first half of the\nsixteenth century are easily explained; or if, as is clearly proved by\nthe facts brought out by scientists, woman represents the constructive\nand combining element in human society without which organized society\nwould have been impossible, the degeneracy observed after thirteen\nhundred years during which time women were wholly without influence\nand power is exactly what might be expected. Indeed it is not singular\nthat with the disintegrating or destructive forces in command over the\nconserving or constructive elements that war and religion should have\nbecome the business of the world and that a state of society should\nhave prevailed which was in strict accord with these conditions.\n\nHowever, that the constructive element was not dead is shown by the\nmental and moral unrest which began to manifest itself in the latter\nhalf of the sixteenth century. Women began to learn the alphabet and\nin a weak way to demand concessions hitherto denied them. Many men of\ngenius who like the jurisconsults of Rome had not been submerged by\nthe degeneracy of their time defied their persecutors and secretly\npromulgated the scientific theories which were to revolutionize human\nthought.\n\nThe demand for freedom of conscience and for the release of the\nintellect and reason from the domination of bigotry and superstition\nconstituted one of the first steps toward reform. Galileo, Bruno,\nCopernicus, and Harvey are notable examples of the revolt against the\nintellectual tyranny which prevailed.\n\nIt is not a little singular that at this time the throne of England\nwas occupied by a woman and that her reign should have been the most\nbrilliant that that country has ever enjoyed. It has frequently been\nsaid that the success of Elizabeth\u2019s reign was due not to her greatness\nbut to that of the statesmen whom she called about her. But even were\nthis true, which it is not, it would not detract from her greatness.\nThe innate qualities developed within Queen Elizabeth, namely genius\nand intuition, can alone explain the brilliancy of her reign.\n\nIt is to be doubted if the progressive principle has ever been wholly\ndead. That even during the darkest period of the Middle Ages the\nconstructive element was still alive in Europe is shown in the fact\nthat as early as the year 1215 the idea of individual human liberty had\nalready been formulated. In the Magna Charta wrested from King John at\nRunnymede appears the following:\n\n No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed or outlawed or\n banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him or upon him\n send except by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the\n land. To no one will we sell; to no one will we deny or delay right or\n justice.\n\nAlthough a few attempts were made during the sixteenth century\nto better the conditions of the masses of the people, as all the\ninstitutions for the perpetuation of the slavery of the masses were\nfirmly established, little was accomplished in this direction. That\nreforms move slowly is shown in the fact that as late as the beginning\nof the nineteenth century of the Christian era, the greater portion\nof the human race was in a state of bondage. Slavery existed in every\nquarter of the globe. In Russia, in 1855, there were forty-eight\nmillions of serfs, and in Austria and Prussia the peasantry were nearly\nall slaves. In Hungary nine millions of human beings belonged to a\nsubject class.\n\nAlthough no slaves were owned in England, slavery still existed in her\ncolonies. In the West Indies the whip was freely used, and prior to the\nyear 1820 no voice had been raised against the flogging of women on\nthe plantations. In Scotland, down to the last year of the eighteenth\ncentury, colliers and salters were slaves and bound to their service\nfor life, being bought and sold with the works at which they laboured.\nAlthough America had put down the slave-trade, she still owned slaves,\nand continued to traffic in them until the year 1863.\n\nThe history of legislation during the historic period shows that\nit has ever been in the interest of the rich against the poor, the\nstrong against the weak. In France, at the beginning of the nineteenth\ncentury, liberty was extinct. \u201cThe rich man could purchase for money\nthe power to destroy those whom he hated.\u201d[264]\n\n[264] Robert Mackenzie, _The Nineteenth Century_, p.\u202f9.\n\nThe lawmakers of the age which we are considering were gentlemen\nlandowners, and as such were able to exercise their cupidity in a\ndegree which precluded all idea of justice to the poorer classes. The\nabuses of government, the corn-laws, the enormous tax on salt and on\nthe various necessities of life, show somewhat of the extent to which\nthe poor were systematically robbed by the rich.\n\nThe law passed in 1350, at Bannockburn, regulating the movements of the\nBritish workingmen, and which prohibited combinations among them, was\nin force until 1824. The evident object of this law was to repress the\nlabourer and deprive him of his just earnings. Although this enactment\nwas known to be oppressive, the working-classes were not possessed of\nsufficient influence to cause its repeal.\n\nIn England, women with their children worked in coal pits, and in the\ndarkness, on hands and feet, dragged about wagons fastened to their\nwaists by chains. Of this Mr. Mackenzie says:\n\n Children of six were habitually employed. Their hours of labour were\n fourteen to sixteen daily. The horrors among which they lived induced\n disease and early death. Law did not seem to reach to the depths\n of a coal-pit, and the hapless children were often mutilated and\n occasionally killed with perfect impunity by the brutalized miners\n among whom they laboured. There was no machinery to drag the coals to\n the surface, and women climbed long wooden stairs with baskets of coal\n upon their backs.\n\nIn the factories, also, as late as 1832 children of six years of age\nworked from thirteen to fifteen hours daily. If they fell asleep they\nwere flogged. Sometimes through exhaustion they fell upon the machinery\nand were injured\u2014possibly crushed,\u2014an occurrence which caused little\nconcern to any except the mothers, who had learned to bear their pangs\nin silence. These children, who were stunted in size and disposed to\nvarious acute diseases, were also scrofulous and consumptive. In 1832\nthe recruiting surgeon could find no men to suit his purpose in the\nmanufacturing districts.\n\nThroughout Europe, the prevailing idea concerning the management of\ncriminals seems to have been vengeance. One would scarcely believe,\nexcept on trustworthy authority, that at the beginning of the\nnineteenth century the English criminal law recognized 223 capital\noffences. Indeed, so strong was the feeling in favour of severity that\nEdmund Burke said he could obtain the assent of the House of Commons\nto any law imposing the penalty of death. If one shot a rabbit he was\nhanged; if he injured Westminster Bridge he was hanged; if he appeared\ndisguised on a public road he was hanged, and so on. The hanging of\nsmall groups was a common occurrence\u2014children of ten years being\nsometimes among the condemned.[265]\n\n[265] Robert Mackenzie, _The Nineteenth Century_, p. 77.\n\nA visit to the Five-Sided Tower in Nuremberg, in which are still\npreserved various instruments of human torture, will give an idea of\nthe extreme cruelty practised upon political offenders and heretics a\ncentury ago.\n\nThe \u201cHoly Alliance\u201d of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, which was formed\nostensibly to insure peace and establish justice, but which in reality\nwas entered into to suppress free speech, check the growing liberties\nof the people, and strengthen the belief in the \u201cdivine right of\nkings,\u201d shows the obstacles which had to be overcome before any\nprinciple of justice and humanity could take root.\n\nThe history of industrial and economic conditions since the beginning\nof the eighteenth century is largely the history of the common people.\nThe change from the Feudal system to that of the wage-earning r\u00e9gime\nmay not, as far as the working class is concerned, be regarded as\nan unmixed blessing. Under Feudalism the \u201clord of the soil\u201d was\nresponsible for the maintenance and well-being of his vassals, while\nunder the wage system the \u201ccaptains of industry\u201d assume no such\nresponsibility. If the labourer chooses to accept the terms offered\nwell and good, if he refuses he may starve; it is a matter of no\nconcern to the employer, for, are there not plenty of labourers who\nstand ready to take his place?\n\nThat the labourer was no less a slave under the wage-earning system\nthan he had been under Feudalism is shown in the fact that under the\nfirst named as well as under the latter he had not the right of free\ncontract. He must take what was offered him or starve.\n\nAs is well known the repression of the mental activities and the\nlow physical condition which for more than thirteen centuries had\nprevailed, prevented the seed sown in the sixteenth century from\ntaking root among the masses of the people. Their instincts were\nthose of the slave and two centuries were required to waken them from\ntheir lethargy. Finally, however, even among the class mentioned the\nconstructive forces began to assert themselves. Free thought and to\na certain extent free speech were established. With the further\ndevelopment of liberal ideas a belief in the Divine Right of Kings and\nin the principles underlying monarchial institutions became somewhat\nweakened. A few attempts were even made to establish republics. Because\nof the glimmering light of scientific truth put forth in the sixteenth\ncentury, ecclesiastical authority was no longer supreme.\n\nAlthough many important steps had been taken to free men from the\nthraldom of the past, so firmly had the idea of woman\u2019s inferiority\nbeen established that no thought of including her in the new r\u00e9gime was\never entertained.\n\nJustice, equality, and liberty are subjects upon which man descants\nloudly and long. He talks glibly of his free institutions and even\ndesignates a number of his one-sided governments as republics, and this\ntoo notwithstanding the fact that women are still denied representation\nin the governments to which they owe allegiance, and that a large\nproportion of men are still within the grasp of economic slavery; all\nof which shows the extent to which the moral sense and the judgment\nhave been dwarfed by prejudice and selfishness. Democracy is still a\nmeaningless term\u2014an ideal yet to be realized.\n\nAt the beginning of the nineteenth century such were the conditions\nsurrounding women that an attempt on their part to extricate themselves\nfrom their legal and social bondage would have proved utterly futile.\nAt that time women had practically no legal rights; even the right\nto control their own bodies was denied them. As woman was dependent\nupon man for support her sex-functions were controlled by him and the\nchildren which she bore belonged exclusively to him. He constituted the\nfamily\u2014wife and children did not count. To a considerable extent these\nconditions still prevail.\n\nMasculine law, masculine religion, and masculine ideas concerning the\nduties and uses of the female sex had made of woman a nondescript\u2014a\ncreature neither male nor female. Her mental constitution had become\natrophied, the diluted reflections of men\u2019s opinions having been\nsubstituted for the natural feminine instincts and ideas. Among the\ngreat mass of women the original feminine type had disappeared.\n\nIn process of time, however, women began slowly to awaken from the\nhideous nightmare which threatened to destroy the last remaining\nvestige of the instincts and ideas peculiar to the female constitution.\nIn the beginning of the nineteenth century some of the educational\nadvantages enjoyed by men began to be appropriated by women. Thus began\nthe unrest which now extends over the entire earth.\n\nAbout seventy years ago a movement was started by women to secure for\nthemselves the right to self-government. Immediately all the prejudice\nwhich characterizes a sex-aristocracy was aroused. Ridicule, calumny,\nand even personal abuse were directed against all those who were\nintelligent enough or fearless enough to stem the tide of popular\nindignation.\n\nFor forty years, little or no progress was made toward securing the\nright of self-government for women. As late as 1870 a woman who\nopenly avowed herself a suffragist was regarded not only as \u201cbold and\nunwomanly\u201d but as a dangerous person. The most strenuous opposition\nto the movement came from the clergy and the flocks over which they\npresided. Whenever church women were asked to consider the question of\nthe equality of the sexes their unvarying reply was: \u201cMy bible forbids\nit.\u201d Now that the history of Pauline Christianity is better understood\nits attitude toward the freedom of women needs no further explanation.\n\nWhen the then existing mental conditions are recalled and especially\nwhen the religious prejudices of the time are considered the attitude\nmanifested toward the proposed enfranchisement of women is not perhaps\nremarkable.\n\nAlthough forty years ago biological science was in its infancy enough\nfacts had at that time been discovered clearly to indicate the position\nwhich Nature intended woman to occupy. By the scientists of that time,\nhowever, the logical and unavoidable inferences to be drawn from\nthese facts were wholly ignored. During the ages of man\u2019s undisputed\nsupremacy so deeply rooted had the idea of woman\u2019s inferiority become\nthat these newly discovered facts concerning her development could not\nbe accepted\u2014the old prejudices could not at once be uprooted.\n\nWe have already observed that whenever and wherever Mr. Darwin and\nother scientists of his time felt called upon to compare the relative\nimportance of men and women such comparison has invariably been to the\ndisadvantage of the latter and this too notwithstanding the fact that\nthe evidence which they themselves have elaborated warrants no such\nconclusions.\n\nForty years ago the doctrine that woman has no independent existence,\nbut that she is simply an appendage to man, was everywhere accepted and\ntaught not only by ecclesiastics but by scientists as well. Woman was\nonly a \u201crib\u201d taken from the side of man.\n\nNone of the doctrines elaborated for the guidance of women was so\nexplicit as those relating to the duties of wives. The cause for this\nis obvious. Earlier in this work the fact has been noted that our\npresent form of marriage originated in force\u2014that no other principle\nwas involved in it than coercion on the one side and unwilling\nsubmission on the other.\n\nSo long as the original idea underlying marriage is retained, or so\nlong as woman is recognized as the property of her husband and subject\nto his control, no matter what may be achieved by individual women, the\nbelief in the inferiority of women as a class will continue. In other\nwords so long as women remain economic slaves dependent upon their\nhusband for support so long will their status remain unchanged.\n\n\u201cShe is my goods, my chattels, my household stuff.\u201d\n\nThere are in this country at the present time more than nine millions\nof women engaged in earning their own livelihood. Many of these women\nhave families dependent upon them for support. The disadvantages under\nwhich they labour are realized when we remember that their competitors\nare their political and economic superiors and are therefore able to a\nconsiderable extent to dictate the conditions under which these women\nwork; yet notwithstanding these unfavourable conditions this change in\nwoman\u2019s environment represents an important step in the evolutionary\nprocesses. By it women are learning that only through independence is\nself-respect possible.\n\nWe have already seen that whenever during the historic period, women\nhave had an opportunity to rise they have never failed to rebel\nagainst the conditions imposed upon them. The women of Athens during\nthe Periclean age, the Spartan women under Lycurgus, and the women of\nRome during the time of the Antonine C\u00e6sars are notable examples of\nthis fact. Even the Chinese women are claiming the right to govern\nthemselves. In these later years they are unbinding their feet and in\nother ways are defying the forces which in the past have prevented\nthem from asserting their independence. The various examples of revolt\namong women have hitherto been carried on by single nations or by\ncountries widely separated from one another. At the present time,\nhowever, the women of the entire world have risen to demand the freedom\nof their sex. However much those who favour the subjection of women may\ndeplore this movement even the most stupid among them will surely not\nfail to recognize its importance.\n\nThe history of human society during the last four hundred years has\nfor the most part been a struggle between the constructive elements\ndeveloped in human society and the destructive or disintegrating forces\nwhich are the result of the unchecked egoism or selfishness developed\nin man during the ages in which woman has been subject to his will.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nScientific investigation has proved the great age of the earth and the\nenormous length of time which has elapsed since the first appearance of\nhuman beings upon its surface. Concerning the career of man during the\ncountless millions of years which followed his advent upon the earth,\nlittle is known down to a comparatively recent time\u2014a time commonly\ndesignated as the historic period.\n\nWhen considering the past one is inclined to ask the question: \u201cDoes\nthe history of mankind represent an unbroken line of progress, or,\non the contrary, does it reflect a series of alternating periods of\ndevelopment and decay?\u201d\n\nWe have observed that in recent times through the study of tribes\nand races in the various stages of development much has been learned\nconcerning the origin of organized society and the development of human\ninstitutions. We have also seen that through the legends, traditions,\nand myths of the earliest historic peoples much reliable information\nhas been gained regarding the conditions which prevailed at a still\nearlier period of human existence.\n\nNotwithstanding the proofs which in recent times have been obtained\nrelative to the law of periodicity which has thus far regulated human\nprogress the idea prevails that in our own time mental activity has\nreached a stage never before witnessed. It is assumed that throughout\nthe entire history of mankind material and intellectual development has\nnever attained to such colossal proportions. It is evident that our\negoism has obscured our normal vision. We lack perspective.\n\nThere is no evidence to prove that the present brain capacity of human\nbeings exceeds that of the earliest ages of human history, neither is\nthere any proof that the moral sense has been in the least reinforced.\nThe lofty moral and spiritual precepts which abound in the Upanishads\nhave never been surpassed\u2014possibly never equalled. We are heirs of all\nthe ages. The accumulated knowledge of the past is responsible for\npresent achievements.\n\nThose who have made a study of tribes and races in the various stages\nof development find much evidence going to prove that extant savage\ntribes do not represent man as he first emerged from the animal type,\nbut, on the contrary, that they are the degenerate descendants of an\nextinct civilized race differing little from our own. If this be true,\nif human development which thus far seems to have been wholly material\ncontain within itself the seeds of its own destruction, would it not\nbe wise for the present generation to examine existing conditions in\norder to ascertain if we too have not already entered upon the path of\ndegeneracy or decay?\n\nPossibly this will be regarded as a pessimistic suggestion, but as has\nalready been observed, a comparison between the conditions existing in\nprehistoric times and those which prevail under the present so-called\ncivilized r\u00e9gime fully justifies this suggestion.\n\nThose persons who have acquainted themselves with the available facts\nunderlying the growth of organized society and the development of\nexisting institutions, and who have co-ordinated these facts with\nthe present situation are able to trace not only the growth of the\ndestructive principle in human affairs but are able to forecast with\na considerable degree of accuracy the results which must inevitably\nfollow. Without a knowledge of the past it is impossible to understand\nor interpret the present.\n\nWe are living in a remarkable age. It is to be doubted if throughout\nthe entire historic period there has been a time when passing events\nmoved so swiftly or when they assumed the magnitude of those now taking\nplace. Causes which were set up during prehistoric times have reached a\nclimax. The inevitable results from those causes are upon us.\n\nIn order to compare the past and the present it becomes necessary\nbriefly to recall some of the already recorded facts relative to\nexisting conditions under early organized society.\n\nWhen human beings lived closer to nature and before the natural checks\nto the lower or disintegrating forces had been withdrawn, the basic\nprinciples underlying human action were equality and liberty. No member\nof a communal group could claim any right or privilege not enjoyed\nby all. There was no poverty and no crime. Disease as we know it was\nunknown. As the lands were held in common, women were absolutely free\nand independent. They chose their mates and were responsible for the\nwell-being of their offspring. As women controlled the sexual relation\nand themselves regulated prenatal conditions, the children inherited\nstrong bodies and healthy minds. Dissensions over property did not\noccur, and jealousy and a desire for personal aggrandizement had not\nbeen developed.\n\nThe religious worship of primitive people consisted for the most\npart in invocations to the Great Mother, the fructifying principle\nthroughout nature, from whom were derived all earthly benefits. Later\nthe Great Mother came to be worshipped under various appellations,\nnamely, Cybele, or Astarte, in Asia Minor, Athene in Greece, Minerva\nin Rome, and Isis or Neith in Egypt. Finally, as is well known,\nthese goddesses were dethroned by an all-powerful male God, an\nanthropomorphic deity whose chief attribute was virile might. This\nchange in the god-idea was coincident with, and dependent upon, a\ncorresponding change in the relations of the sexes which took place at\na certain period in human history. The god-idea is now and ever has\nbeen in strict accord with the existing conceptions concerning the\nrelative importance of the sex-functions in human beings.\n\nDuring thousands of years of life on \u201cearth\u201d the mother was the\nonly recognized parent. As the giver of life and the protector of\noffspring she was regarded as the Creator and Preserver of the race.\nShe represented the constructive element in human society. Later,\nhowever, when man began to contest the supremacy of woman, her hitherto\nunquestioned prerogatives began to be claimed by him. It was at this\njuncture in human affairs that the contention arose over the relative\nimportance of the sexes in the processes of reproduction. Not only\nin the traditions and legends of early historic peoples but in their\nhistories as well there is much evidence given to prove that this\ncontention was as fierce as that which at the present time is going\non between the sexes. As a result of this contention both female and\nmale gods were worshipped. Those who recognized the mother as the giver\nof life continued to worship the female principle, while those who\naccepted the new doctrine enunciated by Apollo, namely, that the soul\nof the child is derived from the father and the mother is only a nurse\nto his heaven-born offspring, accepted the new religion. When the\ndominion of man over woman was complete the female principle throughout\nnature and in the god-idea was practically unrecognized or wholly\nignored. Throughout the historic period male power has been supreme not\nonly on the earth but also in heaven. Classical history is not wanting\nin references to this change in the relations of the sexes and in the\ngod-idea which took place at a certain stage of human development.\n\nWe are informed that in Greece, probably about 1100 years B.C., Cecrops\n\u201cinstituted marriage and established a new religion.\u201d The new religion\ninstituted by Cecrops was the doctrine that the father is the only\nparent, that the soul of the child is derived from him, and that the\nmother performs simply the office of nurse to his offspring. Woman\nwas no longer the creator or giver of life. She was matter while man,\nwho was henceforth to be her lord and master, was spirit. Marriage as\ninstituted by Cecrops was the natural and inevitable outcome of the\nnew religion. It was the first attempt of the Greek tribes to legalize\nand control the sex-functions of women. The deeper one delves into the\nmysteries of the past the more apparent does it become that the sexual\ndegradation of women is deeply rooted in religion.\n\nFor untold ages early organized society proceeded along the line of\nuninterrupted evolutionary progress. Although humanity was traversing\nan unknown path the arts of life steadily increased. The production of\nfarinaceous food by means of which an exclusive meat diet was avoided\nwas an achievement of the utmost importance to the race. The idea of\ngovernment which at first included only the members of related groups\nwas extended to the tribe and even to the nation.\n\nEquality, freedom, and justice constituted the fundamental principles\nof early organized society. Finally, however, through causes which have\nalready been set forth in these pages, this system gradually gave place\nto a regime founded on selfishness, or egoism. At this time in human\naffairs related groups could no longer defend themselves against the\naggressions of powerful hostile foes; jealousies arose and alien tribes\nbegan to make war upon one another, the stronger appropriating the\nlands of the weaker and making slaves of the people. The women of the\nsubjugated groups became the sexual slaves of the conquerors. As native\nwomen were free, foreign women who could be controlled were greatly in\ndemand. Therefore frequent attacks were made on foreign groups for the\nsole purpose of \u201ccarrying off\u201d the women.\n\nThe lands which had been held in common by all the members of the tribe\nwere now parcelled out among individual chieftains. The prestige given\nto these \u201clords of the soil,\u201d and the advantage gained by them through\nthe control of the natural resources and the means of subsistence,\nsoon gave rise to a privileged class\u2014a class which in process of time\nbecame masters of the masses of the people. When wars for conquest\nand spoliation became general and when the communal system under\nwhich the principles of liberty and equality had been established\ngave place to a system founded on force the entire habitable globe\nbecame a battle-ground upon which each and every individual struggled\nfiercely with every other individual not only for place and power,\nbut for the means of subsistence as well. When the principles of\ndemocracy established under gentile institutions gave place to a system\nof governmental control under which only the rights of the few were\nrecognized, and when the unchecked disruptive forces had gained the\nascendency over the constructive elements developed in human nature,\nthe degeneracy of the race began. It is not difficult to trace the\nsteps by which this degeneracy has been accomplished.\n\nAlthough we of the present boast of our material achievements,\nand although we arrogate to ourselves a most remarkable degree of\nintelligence, enlightenment, and even culture, it is evident that we\nhave not risen above a plane of the grossest materialism, and that\nin the truly human qualities, those which distinguish man from the\nanimal, we are sadly deficient. That in these later days the moral\nsense has become atrophied is shown in the fact that our present tooth\nand claw system, under which each individual must array himself against\nevery other individual in his struggle for existence, is regarded as\na practical exemplification of the principle of the \u201cSurvival of\nthe Fittest.\u201d According to this interpretation, not those who are\nbest endowed, physically, mentally, and morally are the fittest to\nsurvive, but on the contrary those who are best able to appropriate to\nthemselves the opportunities and advantages which belong to others. In\nother words it is claimed that by the Survival of the Fittest is meant\nthe survival of those who because of their material advantages are able\nto exploit their fellowmen. A few of the processes involved in the\ncontrol of the many by the few have already been mentioned. To maintain\nthe authority of the privileged class and to strengthen their hold on\nthe liberties of the people, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Ecclesiasticism\nwere established and the Divine Right of Kings proclaimed. Intrenched\nbehind these mighty bulwarks the position of the usurpers has been\nimpregnable. Through enforced ignorance and superstition the \u201ccommon\npeople\u201d came to regard their situation not only as natural and\nunavoidable but as representing the will of the Almighty. If they were\nfaithful to their masters in this world, in the world to come they\nwould be furnished with free transport to Fields Elysian. Strange to\nrelate this belief still prevails.\n\nAt the present time the principle of human freedom is still struggling\nfor recognition, but the great mass of human beings, although boasting\nof their civilization and enlightenment, continue to uphold the\nprinciple that the few should rule the many. They regard their rulers\nas superior beings whose authority may not be questioned. At the\npresent time we have before us the dismal spectacle of half a dozen\nhereditary monarchs who with their satellites claim the right to\nrule over nearly the whole of Europe and a large portion of Asia.\nTwenty-five millions of men are now engaged in a deadly conflict to\nfurther the commercial and territorial interests of their masters.\n\nWhen we compare present conditions with those which existed under early\norganized society at a time when every individual member of a group was\nequal in responsibility and power with every other member of the same\ngroup we are enabled to perceive the path which mankind has taken on\nits onward course.\n\nWhen one reflects on the peculiar trend of human development one may\nfeel no surprise over the fact that at this juncture in human affairs\nthere should arise a ruler in whom the desire for world-dominion is\nclearly apparent. That such a potentate has already appeared is shown\nin the following from Emperor William II. of Germany.\n\n\u201cOn me as Germany\u2019s Emperor the spirit of God has descended. I am His\nweapon, His sword, his vicegerent. Woe unto the disobedient. Death to\nthe unbeliever.\u201d Here it is observed that this ruler aspires not only\nto earthly dominion but also to divine recognition.\n\nTo strangle the growing principles of liberty and to establish a system\nfounded on force under which the individual was to become only an\ninstrument to do the bidding of his lord and master was doubtless the\noriginal object of those who instigated the present war.\n\nDuring the ages since the establishment of the authority of the few\nover the many, the latter until a comparatively recent time have\noffered little resistance to the tyranny exercised over them. Mentally\ndwarfed the proletariat have not yet reached the degree of intelligence\nnecessary for a combination of interests. They have therefore remained\nlike dumb driven cattle subject only to the will of their masters.\n\nAbout sixty years ago through the efforts of a few leaders who had\nbegun to realize the situation, a certain degree of unrest began to\nmanifest itself among them, and forty years later the proletariat\nsucceeded in establishing an international organization ostensibly for\ntheir own benefit as opposed to the interests of the ruling class.\nThey, however, lacked solidarity. The natural tendency of their sex\ntoward separateness or disintegration was not easily overcome. This\nis shown in the case of the present European conflict. When the war\nbroke out instead of standing together they at once hastened to obey\nthe mandates of their respective rulers, and with no higher idea than\npatriotism or nationality they at once began their brutal assault\nupon one another. It was evident from the beginning that the German\nsocialists, they who had been the most conspicuous in the international\nmovement, were first, last, and all the time Germans and that after all\nthey were actuated only by one desire, namely, national aggrandizement.\nSo lacking are men in the principle of solidarity, and so deeply rooted\nwithin them is the idea of separateness, that it is to be doubted if,\nwithout the aid of woman, they will ever be able to free themselves\nfrom the tyranny of the past.\n\nIn very recent times a foe has arisen which threatens to be a greater\nmenace to the liberties of the masses of the people than were the foes\nby which they were originally enslaved. I refer to the money power, or\nplutocracy.\n\nDuring the last few years, through the application of scientific\nmethods to industry, and through mechanical inventions by means of\nwhich the power and efficiency of labour have been greatly increased,\nthe accumulation of wealth has reached a point never before witnessed\nin the history of the world, yet strange to relate, along with this\nenormous increase in wealth there has been a corresponding increase in\npoverty and crime. This immense wealth has not been shared by those who\nproduced it but has gone into the pockets of those who exploit labour\nfor profits. Along with this enormous increase in wealth is observed a\ngeneral lowering of standards both in private and public life. There\nare in this country alone ten millions of people who are deprived\nof the necessary food, clothing, and shelter to insure a healthful\nexistence. In the public schools of New York City it is reported that\nsix hundred thousand children are victims of malnutrition. In winter\nthousands of hungry men and women go up and down the streets of our\nlarge cities begging for an opportunity to earn a living. Our jails and\nprisons are filled to overflowing. Our almshouses and insane asylums\nare insufficient to meet the demands. Imbecility and other forms of\nmental degeneracy are increasing at an alarming rate. Epilepsy and\nother congenital diseases prevail among all classes and conditions of\nthe people. Five-sixths of the children born are diseased at birth.\n\nThe basic principle underlying our present economic system is profits.\nTo secure large profits labour must be cheap and plentiful, and that\nlabour may be cheap and plentiful an enormous population must be\nproduced. In order to produce this enormous population women must\nbe enslaved. Although existing conditions are such as to make life\na curse instead of a blessing, the cry for \u201cbabies, more babies\u201d is\nheard on every hand, and this notwithstanding the fact that a large\nproportion of the children born die before the age of five because this\nenvironment is unfavourable to life.\n\nThe clamour for an ever increasing birth-rate never ceases. It is\nbelieved that Providence alone is responsible for human ills. Poverty\nand disease are accepted as natural and unavoidable evils.\n\nThe fears expressed lest the human race fail to perpetuate itself\nwould be pathetic were the reason for these fears less obvious. When\nwe reflect that the labour market must be constantly supplied with\ncheap labour, and that millions of soldiers must be produced to protect\nthe commercial and territorial interests of the ruling class the true\ninwardness of this insatiate cry for constantly increasing numbers is\nrevealed.\n\nEcclesiasticism, the faithful ally of Plutocracy, mindful of the fact\nthat its strength lies in an excess of numbers, has ever jealously\nguarded the injunction to increase and multiply. No doctrine of\nthe so-called Christian church has been so fondly cherished and so\nfaithfully preserved as has that of the subjection of women. Woman\u2019s\nglorification under the Christian system has been exactly commensurate\nwith her obedience to man. No offering from her to the Almighty is so\nacceptable as unrestrained reproductive energy.\n\nThe report of a declining birth-rate in any country of the globe is a\nsignal for instant alarm, but although publicists and politicians have\nattempted to control the birth-rate not only by threats and promises\nbut by legal enactments regulating marriage, still it is observed that\nin all countries of Europe, with the exception of Ireland, Bulgaria,\nand Roumania, the birth-rate during the last twenty-five years has\nsteadily declined. Although numberless causes have been suggested\nto account for this phenomenon, and although various remedies have\nbeen proposed to lessen this \u201cevil,\u201d the actual cause underlying the\ndeclining birth-rate of our time remains unrecognized. Politicians,\npublicists, and ecclesiastics all refuse to acknowledge the obvious\nfact that the increasing economic independence of women is alone\nresponsible for this phenomenon.\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that during the last twenty-five years marked\nprogress is observed in the social and economic conditions of women,\nstill the sexual position of the great mass of women has steadily\ndeclined. The fact that so far as her sex relations are concerned\ncivilized woman occupies a lower position than that occupied by the\nfemale animal has already been noted in these pages. The traffic in\nwomen is carried on in every country on the earth.\n\nThe existing sexual conditions are the direct result of the\noverstimulation of the disruptive characters inherited by man from his\nmale progenitors among the lower orders of life, characters which among\nanimals have been checked by the constructive forces developed in the\nfemale. Our sexual conditions and our present economic and industrial\nsituation loudly proclaim the degeneracy of our time.\n\nWhen the principles of equality and liberty, which were established by\nearly organized society, gave place to a system founded on force and\nthe control of the many by the few, and when through the subjection of\nwomen the natural checks to the disruptive tendencies developed in the\nmale were withdrawn, the conditions now existing in so-called civilized\nsociety were foreshadowed.\n\nA crisis has been reached in human affairs. The old regime has run its\ncourse and is about to disappear. A new era is about to dawn on the\nhuman race. The war which is now devastating Europe, and which will\ndoubtless spread over the entire earth, is the beginning of the end.\nThe effects of the causes which were set up in prehistoric times have\nreached their full measure of development and can no more be postponed\nor averted than can the thunderbolt which follows an electrical\nexplosion. A thoroughly material civilization founded on selfishness\nand sensuality must be destroyed root and branch before the higher\nplanes of activity for which humanity is destined may be reached. The\npresent conflict therefore should not be regarded simply as a horrible\ncalamity but as a necessary preliminary to these higher conditions. If\nthe birth of the new regime can come only through blood and tears, if\nonly through the throes of war is deliverance possible, then it is not\nonly unwise but useless to bewail the present crisis.\n\nThrough the cleansing process involved in the present revolution,\nhumanity will doubtless return to the legitimate path of evolutionary\ndevelopment. Either liberty and justice, the cardinal principles\nunderlying early organized society will be re-established or the\nprocesses of disruption will complete the work of degeneration now\nso well under way. In the transformation which is to take place it\nis not likely that a vestige of the institutions which have produced\nthe present regime will remain. The conflict now going on between the\nhigher and lower forces developed in human life represents the struggle\nof Omnipotent Life for higher expression in matter.\n\nIt has been shown in this work that during the development of life on\nthe earth two forces have been steadily at work, the one a conserving,\ncohesive element, the other a disruptive, disintegrating energy.\nThe one tends toward combination or solidarity, the other toward\nseparateness or individual sufficiency. The one is constructive, the\nother destructive. Had the constructive processes in human society been\nallowed their legitimate expression the scenes now being enacted in\nEurope would have been impossible.\n\nThe principal force which has been employed in the development of our\npresent civilization has been male energy. In the past this enormous\nforce has been necessary to subdue the earth and make of it a suitable\nhabitation for civilized humanity. In later times, however, the\ndiscovery of hitherto unknown forces in nature, the application of\nscientific methods to industry, and the invention of mechanical devices\nfor the lessening of human toil have done away with the necessity for\nan excess of human brawn. In other words the excessive male energy\nwhich has in the past been required for the development of our present\ncivilization has become not only useless but an actual hindrance to\nfurther progress. As this enormous power is no longer needed for\nuseful purposes it has been turned into channels of wantonness and\ndestruction. It has become disruptive and dangerous to a degree which\nmay be appreciated when we reflect on the present conditions not only\nin Europe, but over the entire earth. Among the cleansing processes\ninvolved in the present crisis is the elimination of a considerable\nnumber of the useless elements described above\u2014elements which being no\nlonger necessary for the maintenance of the common good have become a\nmenace to society.\n\nAccording to our narrow human conceptions by which passing events are\nregarded only in relation to their present effects, the eliminating\nprocesses now going on are cruel and inhuman. Nature, however, pays\nlittle heed to human suffering, but although she ignores human misery\nshe will nevertheless demand an exact accounting for the deeds of\nselfishness and ignorance which are responsible for the present\ndisorder. She will inaugurate no scheme of salvation; no \u201cVicarious\nAtonement\u201d will be provided to save mankind from the consequences of\ntheir own folly.\n\nThe struggle now going on in nearly every quarter of the globe marks\nthe beginning of the eliminating process. The useless elements in human\nsociety are wearing themselves out, destroying themselves by their own\nrashness and folly. Impelled by a desire which they do not understand\nand which they are unable to resist, these victims of a decaying\ncivilization rush madly on to destruction. Those men who voluntarily\nseek war represent a dissatisfied or discontented class. True to the\nprimitive instincts of the race they crave the peculiar excitement\nwhich war brings. It is not unlikely that many of them understand\ninstinctively that something is wrong with the present regime, but they\nseem not to be able to analyse the situation.\n\nDoubtless very many of those engaged in the present European struggle\nare actuated by patriotism. They want to maintain the existing\nterritorial boundaries presided over by their respective rulers. They\ndesire also to retain the institutions, social, political, economic,\nand religious which have grown up under a system where the few control\nthe many. Evidently the idea of human liberty has not yet dawned upon\nthem. If universal freedom awaits the birth of the new regime, which\nis being heralded by the present upheaval, then it is plain that the\nmen in the trenches are quite unmindful of the significance of the\nconflict in which they are engaged. The belligerent countries of Europe\nmay consent to a truce and there may be a lull in the universal unrest,\nbut there will be no genuine peace until the principle of human\nliberty has been established on a firm and lasting basis.\n\nThat the removal of these superfluous men from their usual vocations\nwill not materially interfere with the useful industries of Europe is\nshown in the fact that although 25,000,000 of them have been called\nto the war their withdrawal from the industrial field has not greatly\ndisturbed the industrial situation, and this too notwithstanding the\nfact that many new occupations have been created by the war. The work\nformerly done by these men has been largely taken up by women.\n\nIt should be borne in mind that under the new conditions which are\napproaching, the constructive element developed in human society is\nagain to assume command over the destructive forces which have been in\ncontrol since the beginning of the historic period. As this element has\nbeen confided to women and as it is by them transmitted to offspring,\nit is not difficult to forecast the position which the women of the\nfuture will occupy.\n\nThe institution of marriage as it now exists will disappear. Only the\nmost robust among women will propagate the race. These women, as did\nthe women under early organized society, will choose their mates. They\nwill exercise absolute control over the sex-functions. Thus will be\navoided the terrible consequences which have resulted from the present\nform of marriage.\n\nThe numerical preponderance of women over men under the new regime\nis probable. Nor will the devastating processes of war be wholly\nresponsible for this condition. Science informs us that not only among\nthe lower orders of life but among human beings as well, certain\nconditions of nutrition produce more females than males. The more\nnutritious and wholesome the food the greater the excess of females\nover males. Under higher conditions, when the laws of health and\nlife are better understood and especially when the subject of proper\nnutrition has received the attention which its importance deserves, it\nis not unreasonable to suppose that the excess of female births over\nthose of males will be considerable.\n\nAlthough there have doubtless been long lapses of time during which the\nhuman race has seemed to go backward, it is believed that the trend of\nhumanity is now and ever has been upward. If, as is believed, human\nevents move in cycles, if the civilizations which have risen in the\npast represent a spiral, each of these civilizations reaching a higher\nstage of development than its predecessor, then it may be inferred that\nthe era which is now dawning will surpass in grandeur anything which\nthe world has ever witnessed. If, as many persons believe, a stage of\ndevelopment has been reached in which human beings are to be endowed\nwith a sixth sense, if the intuitive faculties which are closely\nallied to the constructive element and which mark a still greater\ndistinction between man and the animal are to come into play it may\nbe assumed that the mental and spiritual faculties will reach a stage\nof development scarcely dreamed of in our own time. Humanity will have\ncome into its own, the animal in man will have been left behind.\n\nThe co-ordination of science and history not only illumines the past\nand explains the present, but the inevitable results of the natural\nsequence of events point unerringly to the conditions which must\nprevail in the future.\n\nThe philosophy of history proves to the earnest seeker after truth that\nthe door of the future is not wholly closed.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  A\n\n  Abipones, their customs, 148;\n    independence of women among, 186\n\n  Abrotonum, 342\n\n  Adoption, among early races, 144, 145, 324;\n    symbol of, 146, 147\n\n  Affection in primitive groups, 126\n\n  Agamemnon, 256\n\n  Agnation, 351\n\n  Ainos, 49\n\n  Altruism, its development in the female, 17, 67, 86;\n    its development in society, 124, 140\n\n  Amazonianism, 208\n\n  Andromache, 283\n\n  Arabia, organization of society in, 129, 177;\n    marriage in, 179, 181, 182\n\n  Arawaks, their customs, 147, 174\n\n  Archonship, 259;\n    its close, 264\n\n  Areta, 332\n\n  Aristocracy, its growth among the Greeks, 251, 265-267\n\n  Aristophanes, his picture of female philosophers, 338\n\n  Aspasia, preceptress of Socrates, 334;\n    her genius, her teachings, 337-338\n\n  Assembly of the people, 156;\n    development of the, 251;\n    its duties, 259;\n    its disappearance in Greece, 264;\n    its powers among the Spartans, 293\n\n  Atavism, 52\n\n  Athene, her decision concerning paternity, 272\n\n  Athenian men, their policy, 285;\n    ashamed of their name, 318;\n    their wives Carians, 319;\n    their moral degradation, 323-326\n\n  Athenian women, imported foreigners, 319;\n    their degradation, 323;\n    their division into classes 324;\n    decline of influence among, 329;\n    their reputed licentiousness, 339\n\n  Auletrides, 325\n\n  Australians, 230\n\n\n  B\n\n  Babylonian women, 234, 340\n\n  _Basileus_, germ of present king, 156;\n    does not correspond to modern monarch, 156, 255, 257;\n    elected by a constituency, 253;\n    abolition of the office of, 259\n\n  Birds, their courtships, 20-21;\n    aversion of females for certain males among, 20;\n    the female among, chooses her mate, 20, 23, 25, 108;\n    efforts of the male to please the female among, 21;\n    eagerness of the male among, 21, 26, 30;\n    powers of the female among, 27;\n    inheritance of the female among, 29;\n    inheritance of the male among, 29;\n    constancy of the female among, 108\n\n  Burgesses, 272\n\n\n  C\n\n  Captives, not enslaved in early groups, 145;\n    as sexual slaves, 163, 276\n\n  Cecrops, 262, 272, 329, 362\n\n  Chastity of early races, 110, 113, 114, 306\n\n  Clisthenes, 249, 261\n\n  Codrus, 249, 259, 264\n\n  Colour-blindness, 55\n\n  Common law, the, woman\u2019s position under, 357\n\n  Communal marriage, 225\n\n  Concubines, 327\n\n  _Couvade, la_, its extent, 148\n\n  Crates, 334\n\n  Cuckoos, character of, 69\n\n  Cynic philosophy, the, its principles, 332\n\n\n  D\n\n  Dana\u016bs, daughters of, 274\n\n  Deme, establishment of, 249, 260\n\n  Democracy, of early races, 127;\n    of the early Greeks, 250-251;\n    decay of, 264-265, 267;\n    in ancient Italy, 313\n\n  Descent, traced through men, 128, 135, 281;\n    in Arabia, 131;\n    in Greece, 133\n\n  Descent, traced through women, 141, 142, 157, 222;\n    its universality, 228, 311;\n    among the Iroquois Indians, 249;\n    law of, 253;\n    in Lycia, 310\n\n  Desires, primary, of the male, 20\n\n  _Dicteriades_, 327\n\n  Differentiation, 8, 10, 16, 65\n\n  Diseases of women, 61;\n    not constitutional, 54\n\n  Dorians, their conservatism, 285\n\n  Draco, 266;\n    his laws, 322\n\n\n  E\n\n  Early Christianity, 361\n\n  Ecclesia, 251\n\n  Ecclesiasticism, its effect on the position of women, 356-357\n\n  Egoism, its development in males, 17, 86;\n    not pronounced among earliest races, 125, 140;\n    its development in later ages, 155\n\n  England in the nineteenth century, 370\n\n  Epicureans, 333\n\n  Eupatrids, their cupidity, 264\n\n  Evolution, individual and historic, 15\n\n\n  F\n\n  Family, the, not the basis of the gens, 246\n\n  Female, conditions which produce the, 39\n\n  Fijians, their customs, 116-117;\n    parental affection among, 118\n\n  Foreign women, as wives, 188, 192, 219;\n    as concubines, 283, 327, 348\n\n  France, marriage customs in, 172;\n    in the nineteenth century, 370\n\n\n  G\n\n  Gaius, 353\n\n  Genealogies traced through fathers, 271\n\n  Gentile organization, the, universality of, 124;\n    principles established by, 124;\n    democratic character of, 127, 138, 139, 152;\n    unity of, 128;\n    government under, 137, 152, 156, 247;\n    property belonging to, 140;\n    altruistic character of, 140, 157;\n    in Greece, 245;\n    its decay, 260;\n    its final overthrow, 261;\n    in Athens, 262\n\n  Glycera, 341\n\n  Government, development of, 248\n\n  Greek society, its construction, 243, 245\n\n\n  H\n\n  Hairy covering for the body, 49-51\n\n  Hand, the female, 59\n\n  Hercules, tradition of, 273\n\n  Hetairai, a term of reproach, 329;\n    their renown, 330;\n    origin of the word, 338;\n    honoured citizens, 341;\n    judged by masculine standards, 344\n\n  Hindu law, 352\n\n\n  I\n\n  Infanticide, McLennan\u2019s theory of, 217;\n    not practised by early races, 220;\n    Sir J. Lubbock\u2019s theory of, 226-227\n\n  Insects, nutrition determines sex, 40;\n    males appear first, 42\n\n  Iroquois Indians, 137\n\n\n  J\n\n  Justinian Code, 357, 359\n\n\n  L\n\n  Lamia, 326\n\n  Lance, symbol of property, 181, 312\n\n  Leontium, 334\n\n  Life, origin of, 4;\n    earliest forms hermaphrodite, 11, 15\n\n  Lydian women, 340\n\n  Lysicles, 336\n\n\n  M\n\n  Magna Charta, 369\n\n  Man, shorter-lived than woman, 45, 53;\n    imperfections in the organization of, 55-59;\n    superior to woman, Darwin\u2019s theory, 75;\n    assumes the duties of maternity, 147;\n    superior to woman according to edict of Apollo, 199\n\n  Marriage, origin of, 161;\n    in India, 163;\n    _Racshasa_, 163;\n    in Arabia, 164, 179, 181, 182;\n    by _Confarreatio_ and _Usus_, 164, 351;\n    among the Israelites, 165;\n    in Afghanistan, 165;\n    in Greenland, 170;\n    in Nubia, 171;\n    in Sparta, 173;\n    _sadica_, 179;\n    _beena_, 180;\n    _mot\u0103_, 181;\n    _ba\u2019al_, 181, 188, 193;\n    laws of Mohammed, 183, 188;\n    in Japan, 185;\n    in Rome, 189;\n    of the future, 399;\n    rise of the present system of, 197;\n    ceremonies among the Spartans, 310\n\n  Matter, conservation of, 6\n\n  Mother-in-law, the, her aversion to sons-in-law, 174, 236\n\n\n  N\n\n  Names, adoption of, 144\n\n  Nemeas, 341\n\n\n  O\n\n  Ontogeny, 7\n\n  Oracles of the Greeks controlled by women, 309\n\n  Organization of society, 123\n\n\n  P\n\n  Pangenesis, 29\n\n  Parthenogenesis, 38, 40\n\n  Paternal affection, absence of, among lower orders, 69, 71;\n    not a primary character, 71;\n    absence of, among lower races, 149;\n    absence of, among the Romans, 189, 191\n\n  Pericles, 335\n\n  Perpetual tutelage of women, 350\n\n  Political society, establishment of, 249, 260-261\n\n  Polyandry, not practised among lower orders, 107\n\n  Polygamy, rise of, 106, 189\n\n  Poverty of the masses in Greece, 266\n\n  Primitive races, promiscuity among, 107, 115, 211;\n    chastity of, 108, 110, 112, 116, 306, 307;\n    morality of, 112, 115, 118;\n    humanity of, 145\n\n  Property, control of, 140, 221;\n    inheritance of, 141;\n    in early Greece, 250\n\n  Protection of women in early groups, 112, 117, 146, 178, 186\n\n\n  Q\n\n  Quadrupeds, constancy of the female among, 24-25, 106-107;\n    unions of, not left to chance, 25\n\n\n  R\n\n  Religion of Mohammed, 183\n\n  Religious idea, 150, 211\n\n  Reversion, 48, 52\n\n  Rights of Roman fathers, 191, 313\n\n  Roman family, the, 312, 349, 352\n\n  Roman lawyers, 352-353\n\n  Roman society, its constitution, 243\n\n  Roman women, 178, 189, 314\n\n  Rotifera, 38\n\n\n  S\n\n  Sabine women, capture of, 312\n\n  St. Paul, 361\n\n  Selection, natural, 7\n\n  Selection, sexual, Darwin\u2019s theory of, 18;\n    compared with artificial selection, 36;\n    processes of, reversed, 82;\n    lower characters eliminated through, 90\n\n  Sexes, origin of, 11, 14-15;\n    numerical proportion of, 39, 43, 52\n\n  Slavery, 145;\n    its extent in the nineteenth century, 369\n\n  Socialism, 390\n\n  Socrates, 334-335\n\n  Solon, his legislation, 320-321;\n    his character, 320, 322\n\n  Spartan women, their power, 298, 308;\n    they controlled the land, 298;\n    they resisted the laws of Lycurgus, 299;\n    they originated the exercises of the youth, 300, 302;\n    their dress, 303, 305;\n    their influence, 303, 304, 310, 361\n\n  Spartans, their government, 156;\n    democratic character of their institutions, 252-253;\n    their senate, 286;\n    their morality, 302, 304;\n    adultery unknown among them, 307, 316;\n    election of senators among the, 309, 310\n\n  Stoic philosophy, the, its principles, 334, 347-348;\n    its effect on Roman law, 348\n\n  Struggles for mates, 22-23, 64\n\n  Survival of the fittest, 388\n\n  Symbols in marriage ceremonies, among the Circassians, 171;\n    in Abyssinia, 172;\n    in Arabia, 172;\n    in Scandinavia, Wales, and Ireland, 173;\n    in Central Africa, 175;\n    in Italy, 176;\n    as explained by McLennan, 216\n\n  Sympathy, development of, 67\n\n\n  T\n\n  Thargelia, 337\n\n  Themistia, 334\n\n  Themistocles, 342\n\n  Theseus, 260, 271;\n    united the Attic tribes, 262\n\n  Timotheus, 342\n\n  Tribe, the, its formation, 126, 153;\n    growth of the governmental idea within, 247\n\n  Tribes named after women, 273\n\n  Tyrannies established among the Greeks, 263\n\n\n  U\n\n  Union of tribes in Athens, 262\n\n  Unisexual forms, development of, 15\n\n\n  V\n\n  Variability denotes low organization, 36\n\n  Variations in the human body, 47-48\n\n  Vital force, expenditure of, 32\n\n\n  W\n\n  Wife-capture, among the Israelites, 164;\n    among the Arabians, 177;\n    its extent, 177;\n    McLennan\u2019s theory to account for, 215;\n    Lubbock\u2019s theory of, 224-227;\n    among the Spartans, 310\n\n  Women, in excess of men, 52;\n    of Greenland, 54;\n    their intuitions, 78;\n    their apparel, 80;\n    of Australia, 111;\n    among the Kaffirs, 111, 146, 187;\n    of early German tribes, 112;\n    of Nubia, 111;\n    of Sumatra, 112;\n    of Tahiti, 116;\n    among the Fijians, 117, 186;\n    among the North American Indians, 139;\n    head of the family, 139, 144, 154;\n    of Arabia, 178-179, 188;\n    of Rome, 178, 190;\n    in Japan, 185;\n    among the Abipones, 186;\n    among the Greeks, 272, 276, 277, 279, 283;\n    under the ancient Roman law, 350;\n    under the middle Roman law, 352-354\n\n\n  Y\n\n  Yavanas, 318\n\n\n  Z\n\n  Zeno, 334\n\n  Zulus, marriage customs among, 173","title":"The Sexes in Science and History: An inquiry into the dogma of woman's inferiority to man","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":93900}