FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

These unusual proprietary rights of the Egyptian wife can be explained only as being traceable toan early period of mother-right. Without proof of any absolutely precise text, we have an accumulation of facts that render it probable that, at one time, descent was traced through the mother. It is significant that the wordhusbandnever occurs in the marriage deeds before the reign of Philometor. This ruler (it would appear in order to establish the position of the father in the family) decreed that all transfers of property made by the wife should henceforth be authorised by the husband. Up to this time public deeds often mention only the mother, but King Philometor ordered the names of contractors to be registered according to the paternal line. Besides this, the hieroglyphic funeral inscriptions frequently bear the name of the mother, without indicating that of the father.[183]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:[180]Herodotus, Book II, p. 35.[181]Starcke,The Primitive Family, p. 67.[182]Diodorus, Book I, p. 27.[183]For a fuller account of the position of women in Egypt, see the chapter on this subject inThe Truth about Woman, pp. 179-201.[184]H. Ellis,Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI, p. 393.[185]Letourneau,Evolution of Marriage, p. 335.[186]Golden Bough, Part I.The Magic Art, Vol. II, pp. 270, 289, 312.[187]Müller and Bachofen, cited by Giraud-Teulon,op. cit.pp. 283-284.[188]The Truth About Woman, pp. 227-242.[189]Grote,History of Greece, Vol. III, p. 95.[190]Letourneau,op. cit.pp. 335-336.[191]Herodotus, Book I, p. 172.[192]See pp.129-131, alsoThe Truth about Woman, pp. 199-201.[193]Gladstone,Homeric Studies, Vol. II, p. 507. Donaldson,Woman, pp. 18-19.[194]McLennan, “Kinship in Ancient Greece”; Essay inStudies in Ancient History, pp. 195-246.[195]Plutarch,Apophthegms of the Lacedæmonians, LXV.[196]Pausanias, III, 20 (10), (Frazer’s translation).[197]Herodotus, III, 119.[198]Sophocles,Antigone, line 905et seq.[199]Iliad, VI, 429-430.[200]The Truth about Woman, pp. 210-227.[201]Gen. xxx, 18-30; xxxi, 14, 41.[202]Gen. xxxi, 43.[203]Gen. xxiv, 5, 53.[204]Judges xv, 1.[205]Numb., xxxii, 8-11. See Letourneau,Evolution of Marriage, p. 326.[206]Gen. xxiii, 13.[207]Numb. xxxvi, 4-8.[208]Gen. xii, 10-20.[209]2 Sam. xiii, 13-16 and 37.[210]Exod. vi, 20.[211]Gen. xi. 26-29.[212]See pp.156-161.[213]Letourneau,op. cit.328.[214]See in this connection my book,Spain Revisited, pp. 291-304.[215]See pp.107-109.[216]Spain Revisited; Things Seen in Spain; Moorish Cities.[217]Mutterrecht und Raubehe und ihre Reste im Germanischen Recht und Leben, Vol. XVI, quoted by Starcke,The Primitive Family, pp. 103et seq.[218]De moribus Germanorum, XX. See also K. Pearson,The Chances of Death, Vol. II, p. 132.[219]Grimm,Mythologie, Vol. I, p. 248.[220]K. Pearson,The Chances of Death, Vol. II, p. 102.[221]Starcke,op. cit.p. 105, citing Dargun and Grimm. See also Letourneau,op. cit.pp. 339-340.[222]Giraud-Teulon,op. cit.pp. 41-42.[223]Bede, II. 1-7.[224]McLennan,Studies, p. 46.[225]See Frazer,Golden Bough, Part I.The Magic Art, Vol. II, 282-283.[226]Letourneau,op. cit.p. 338. Maine,Early Institutions, pp. 113et seq.[227]Rhys and Brynmor-Jones,The Welsh People.[228]By E. Andrews, p. 18.[229]I would refer the reader to a most interesting article on “Old English Clans” (Cornhill, Sept. 1881); this I had not read when I wrote this chapter. The author holds that the clan system was once common to the whole Aryan race. In the Teutonic stock its memory died out in an early stage of development, owing to the strong individuality of the Teutonic mind. Yet it has left behind it many traces. Numerous examples are given. Perhaps the most interesting is the evidence showing that totemism seems to have existed; the clan names being taken from animals or plants.

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

[181]Starcke,The Primitive Family, p. 67.

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

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

[184]H. Ellis,Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI, p. 393.

[185]Letourneau,Evolution of Marriage, p. 335.

[186]Golden Bough, Part I.The Magic Art, Vol. II, pp. 270, 289, 312.

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

[188]The Truth About Woman, pp. 227-242.

[189]Grote,History of Greece, Vol. III, p. 95.

[190]Letourneau,op. cit.pp. 335-336.

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

[192]See pp.129-131, alsoThe Truth about Woman, pp. 199-201.

[193]Gladstone,Homeric Studies, Vol. II, p. 507. Donaldson,Woman, pp. 18-19.

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

[195]Plutarch,Apophthegms of the Lacedæmonians, LXV.

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

[197]Herodotus, III, 119.

[198]Sophocles,Antigone, line 905et seq.

[199]Iliad, VI, 429-430.

[200]The Truth about Woman, pp. 210-227.

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

[202]Gen. xxxi, 43.

[203]Gen. xxiv, 5, 53.

[204]Judges xv, 1.

[205]Numb., xxxii, 8-11. See Letourneau,Evolution of Marriage, p. 326.

[206]Gen. xxiii, 13.

[207]Numb. xxxvi, 4-8.

[208]Gen. xii, 10-20.

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

[210]Exod. vi, 20.

[211]Gen. xi. 26-29.

[212]See pp.156-161.

[213]Letourneau,op. cit.328.

[214]See in this connection my book,Spain Revisited, pp. 291-304.

[215]See pp.107-109.

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

[217]Mutterrecht und Raubehe und ihre Reste im Germanischen Recht und Leben, Vol. XVI, quoted by Starcke,The Primitive Family, pp. 103et seq.

[218]De moribus Germanorum, XX. See also K. Pearson,The Chances of Death, Vol. II, p. 132.

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

[220]K. Pearson,The Chances of Death, Vol. II, p. 102.

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

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

[223]Bede, II. 1-7.

[224]McLennan,Studies, p. 46.

[225]See Frazer,Golden Bough, Part I.The Magic Art, Vol. II, 282-283.

[226]Letourneau,op. cit.p. 338. Maine,Early Institutions, pp. 113et seq.

[227]Rhys and Brynmor-Jones,The Welsh People.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next