"The whole phenomena of so-called male superiority bears a certain stamp of spuriousness and sham. It is to natural history what chivalry was to human history; ... a sort of make-believe, play, or sport of nature of an airy unsubstantial character. The male side of nature shot up and blossomed out in an unnatural, fantastic way, cutting loose from the real business of life, and attracting a share of attention wholly disproportionate to its real importance."[87]
This may, I think, be regarded as a picturesque over-statement of what is in the main true. Male efflorescence has drawn upon itself an excessive importance, through what we may call its dramatic insistence upon our notice. It is plain, too, that the more we examine the question the more we are forced to the one conclusion. It is certainly very suggestive, as Professor Ward points out, that those mammals and birds in which the process of male differentiation has gone farthest, such as lions, buffaloes, stags and sheep among mammals, and peacocks, pheasants, turkey-cocks and barn-door-cocks among birds, do practically nothing for their families. Among the gallinaceæ it is the female who undertakes the whole burden of incubation, and feeding and caring for the young; during this time the male is running after adventures, in some cases he returns when his offspring are old enough to follow him and form a docile band under his government.[88] The conduct of the male turkey is much worse, and he often devours the eggs, which have to be hidden by the mother, while later the offspring are only saved from his attacks by large numbers of females and the young uniting in troops led by the mothers.[89] The polygamous families of monkeys are always subject to patriarchal rule. The father is the tyrant of the band—an egoist. Any protection he affords to the family is in his own interest, frequently he expels the young males as soon as they are old enough to give him trouble, the daughters, in some cases, he adds to his harem; only when old age has rendered him powerless are the tables turned, and the young, for so long oppressed, rebel and sometimes assassinate their tyrannous father. There is very little evidence of paternal affection among mammals. Even among monogamous species, where the male keeps with the female, he does so more as chief than as father. At times he is much inclined to commit infanticides and to destroy the offspring, which, by absorbing the attention of his partner, thwart his amours. Thus among the large felines the mother is obliged to hide her young ones from the male during the first few days after birth to prevent his devouring them.[90]
It is important to note that among birds the fathers devoid of affection generally belong to the less intelligent species. We may, therefore, see that these violent polygamous amours of the male, which result in the development of the more extravagant of the second sexual characters, are not really favourable to the development of the species. They belong to a lower grade of sexual evolution. And a further proof, it seems to me, is furnished as we note that, in spite of this tyranny, the females show considerable affection for these tyrant males—the chimpanzee, for example, proving this by zealously plucking the lice from her master's coat, which with monkeys is a mark of very special attention.[91] The most oppressed females are, as a rule, the most faithful wives. Thus the females of the guanaco lamas, if their master chances to be wounded or killed, do not run away; they hasten to his side, bleating and offering themselves to the shots of the hunter in order to shield him, while, in sharp contrast, if a female is killed, the male makes off with all his troop—he thinks only of himself.[92] Must we say, then, that the female animal likes servitude? It is, of course, because the aggressive male, being the one to arouse her sexual passions, enables her to fulfil her work of procreation. This may be. But, granting this explanation, it must be allowed that love under such conditions evidences a deterioration, not alone in the size and strength of the female, but in mental capacity—love at a much lower level than those beautiful cases in which the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity, and co-operate together in the race work.
Yet in justice it must be added that even the most polygamous males are not always devoid of affection. I once saw on a Derbyshire high-road a cock show evident signs of sorrow over the death of one of his wives, who had been killed by a passing motor. He refused to leave the spot where her body lay, and walked round and round it, uttering sharp cries of grief. Nor are sexual lapses confined to the males; a female will take advantage of a moment when the attention of the old cocks is entirely absorbed by the anxiety of a fight, to run off with a young male.[93] Even among species noted for their conjugal fidelity this sometimes happens. Female pigeons, for example, have been known to fall violently in love with strange males, and this is especially common if the legitimate spouse is wounded or becomes weak.[94] Darwin records a very curious case of a sudden passion appearing in a female wild-duck, who, after breeding with her own mallard for a couple of seasons, deserted him for a stranger—a male pintail.
"It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for she swam about the newcomer caressingly, though he appeared evidently alarmed and averse to her overtures of affection. From that hour she forgot her old partner. Winter passed by, and the next spring the pintail seemed to have become a convert to her blandishments, for they nested and produced seven or eight young ones."[95]
I am tempted to wait to consider the immense significance of such cases as these in the analogy they bear to our own sudden preferences in love. The question as to the moral conduct of this duck opens up suggestions of those cases of exceptional love-passions, which all our existing institutions, laws and penalties have never been able to crush. The desire for sexual variety is the ultimate cause of all sexual lapses and irrationalities. It is a mistake to think that this is a condition peculiar to mankind and the result of civilisation. If this were so it would be easier to deal with; but before these deeply-rooted instincts of sexual hunger we are often powerless. I know of no question that needs to be faced by women more than this one. I would like to say more about it. But already this first section of my book has exceeded its limits. I must, therefore, pass on, to draw attention to the fact, clearly proved by the case of this wild-duck's love, as well as by many other examples, that it is the females, who, exercising their right of selection much more than the males, introduce individual preference into their sexual relationships. The difficulty is that such preference, of profound biological importance, is often thwarted among civilised people by considerations of property and the accepted morality. From this standpoint permanent marriage may often fail to do justice to the sexual needs both of the individual and the wider needs of the race. Nature has no care for sex-morals as we understand them, any mode of sexual union is equally right so long as it serves the race-process. But men have set up a whole host of prohibitions and conventions—the "thou shalt nots" of society and religion. Which are we to follow? Which is the wheat and which the tares, that must be garnered or sifted from our loves?
It is important to notice that among mammals, as among men, conjugal fidelity is modified by the conditions of life. An animal belonging to a species habitually monogamic may easily change under the pressure of external causes and adopt polygamy, and, in some cases, polyandry. The shoveler duck, though normally monogamic, is said[96] to practise polyandry when males are in excess; two males being in constant and amicable attendance on the female, without sign of jealousy. Wild-ducks, again, which are strictly monogamous, good parents, and very highly developed in social qualities when in a wild state, become loosely polygamous and indifferent to their offspring under domestication. Civilisation, in this case, depraves the birds, as often it does men.
But enough has now been said. We shall find later how far the facts we have learnt of the position of the female and the sexual relationship, as we have studied them in these examples from the animal kingdom, will apply to us and to our loves. We have now to study marriage and the family as it exists among primitive peoples. We shall find a close resemblance in the courtship customs and the sexual and familial associations to those we have seen to be practised by our pre-human ancestors. The same resemblance will persist when, lastly, we come to investigate the same institutions among civilised races, up to our own. Indeed, we may have to admit that, in some directions, love is not even yet as finely developed with us humans as it is among birds. It is in the loves of birds, as I believe, that we must seek hints to that evolution in fineness, which has still to come in our love.
One thing more. It refers to the disputed question of the differentiation of the sexes by the action of love's-selection. It is a truth that I wish as strongly as I am able to emphasise. We cannot learn to know love's selective powers by enclosing its action within the narrow circle of our preconceived ideas. Instead of limiting its power we should extend it without hindrance of any form—to the female as well as the male; to the woman as to the man. We should regard nothing as impossible, no development of either sex too great to be accomplished, knowing that all progress is possible to love's power. Exceptional cases, then, irregularities, it may be, in sexual expression will henceforth no longer surprise us; they will find their place in the infinite order of life. Such examples may come to be regarded as filling in the chain; they form intermediate stages and also mark the reappearance of earlier manifestations of the sexual hunger. The new morality of love, which is having its birth amongst us to-day, will be deeper and wider than the old morality, because it will be founded on surer knowledge.
FOOTNOTES:
[50] Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 422.
[51] Evolution of Sex, p. 8.
[52] Animal Behaviour, p. 265, quoted by Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. p. 28.
[53] Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), Chapters on Human Love, pp. 17-18.
[54] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 16.
[55] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 12.
[56] Evolution of Sex, pp. 7-8.
[57] Epinas, Soc. Animales, p. 326; Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 433.
[58] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 27.
[59] Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 422.
[60] One of the most charming accounts of the loves of birds is given in a chapter on "Music and Dancing in Nature," in a volume entitled, The Naturalist in La Plata, by W.H. Hudson.
[61] Audubon, Scènes de la Nature, Vol. I. p. 350.
[62] Audubon, Scènes de la Nature, Vol. II. p. 50.
[63] E. Selous, Bird Watching, pp. 15-20; Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. p. 25.
[64] The jay is the only bird I know whose habits in this respect are different. Noisy and active during the winter the male becomes exceedingly quiet with the approach of the pairing season. This may possibly be explained by the fact that the two sexes of these beautiful birds are practically alike; thus there may be less temptation for the male to show off as the handsomer bird.
[65] J. Lewis Bonhote, The Birds of Britain, p. 272. It is from this work I have taken many facts relating to birds. See also A.R. Wallace, Darwinism, p. 287.
[66] Wallace states that these love-movements are more commonly performed by birds with dull plumage who have no special beauties to display to their mates, but the custom, as we have seen, is by no means confined to such birds.
[67] Notes of a Naturalist on the "Challenger," quoted by Wallace, Darwinism, p. 287.
[68] "The Ostrich," Zoölogist, March 1897; quoted by Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. p. 34.
[69] Audubon, Scènes de la Nature, Vol. I. p. 317.
[70] J. Lewis Bonhote, The Birds of Britain, p. 39.
[71] Audubon, Scènes de la Nature, Vol. I. p. 383.
[72] Epinas, Sociétés Animales, p. 299.
[73] Argentine Ornithology, Vol. I. p. 148; quoted by Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. p. 33.
[74] Wallace, Darwinism, p. 284; also J. Lewis Bonhote, The Birds of Britain, p. 319.
[75] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, pp. 14-15.
[76] Wallace, Darwinism, p. 287.
[77] H.O. Forbes, A Naturalist's Wanderings, p. 131; quoted by Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. pp. 33-34.
[78] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 438.
[79] Epinas, Soc. animales, p. 326; and Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 14.
[80] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 438; Letourneau, op. cit., p. 13.
[81] Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale di Genova, t. IX. fasc. 3-4, 1877, quoted by Letourneau, whose account I give; op. cit., p. 14.
[82] Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. pp. 18-24, has discussed this question at some length. The brief account I have given is a summary of his view. I take this opportunity of gratefully acknowledging the great help I have gained from the illuminating and valuable works of Mr. Ellis.
[83] These facts are taken from Mr. J. Lewis Bonhote's British Birds. I may add that in many species where the sexes are alike the young are quite different from the parents, a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of those who say that the young birds resemble the female. A very curious instance is furnished by the greater spotted woodpecker, where the sexes are similar, but the female lacks the red crown of the male; and yet the young of both sexes have this red crown.
[84] This seems to be the position taken by Professor Geddes and J.A. Thomson in Evolution of Sex, pp. 4-5.
[85] Several examples are mentioned by Wallace, Darwinism, p. 281. He, however, brings them forward in quite a different connection to prove his theory of the protective duller colours of the female birds.
[86] My facts of the phalaropes are taken from J. Lewis Bonhote's British Birds, pp. 314-315.
[87] Pure Sociology, p. 331.
[88] Epinas, Soc. animales, p. 422.
[89] Audubon, Scènes de la Nature, t. Ier, p. 29. I may say, that at the time of writing this, while staying in the country, I have had an opportunity of watching these bands of female turkeys with their young. Their fear at the approach of the strutting noisy male is very manifest. On such occasions they at once seek shelter. I once saw them fly into a church. The females invariably keep together. I have never seen a single mother with her young.
[90] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, chapter on the "Family among Animals," pp. 29-34, from which these cases are taken.
[91] Epinas, Soc. animales, p. 443. In this connection I may mention the fact that in Southern Spain, where the women are noted for their love of their children, I have often seen mothers sitting at their doors for several hours, extracting lice from the heads and bodies of their children. I once saw a beautiful flamenca (Sevillian gipsy) performing this task for her lover.
[92] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 32.
[93] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 399.
[94] Ibid., p. 234.
[95] Ibid., p. 455.
[96] J.G. Millais, Natural History of British Ducks, pp. 8, 13.
PART II
HISTORICAL SECTION
CONTENTS OF CHAPTER VI
THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION
I.—Progress from Lower to Higher Forms of the Family Relationship
Primitive human love—The same domination of sex-needs in man as among the animals—Different conditions of expression—Acquisition of a new element—The individuation of love—Sex uninterruptedly interesting—The human need for sexual variety—The personal end of passion—Primitive sex-customs and forms of marriage—Superabundance of evidence—An attempt to group the periods to be considered—An early period in which man developed from his ape-like ancestors—Illustrations from primitive savages—First formation of tribal groups—Second period—Mother-descent and mother-rights—The position of women—The importance of this early matriarchate—The transitional period from mother-right to father-right—The assertion of the male force in the person of the woman's brother—This alien position of the husband and father—The formation of the patriarchal family—The change a gradual one and dependent upon property—Civilisation started with the woman as the dominant partner—Traces of mother-descent found in all parts of the world—Evidence of folk-lore as legends—Examples of mother-descent in the early history of England, Scotland, and Ireland—The freedom enjoyed by women—Survival of mother-right customs among the ancient Hebrews.
II.—The Matriarchal Family in America
Traces of mother-descent frequent in the American continent—Mother-rule still in force in some districts—Morgan's description of the system among the Iroquois—The customs of Iroquois tribes—Communal dwellings—The authority of the women—The creeping in of changes leading to father-right—The system of government among the Wyandots—Further examples of the sexual relationships—The interesting customs of the Seri tribe—The probation of the bridegroom—His service to the bride's family—Stringent character of the conditions imposed—The freedom granted to the bride—A decisive example of the position of power held by women—The Pueblos—The customs of these tribes—Monogamic marriage—The happy family relationship—This the result of the supremacy of the wife in the home—Conclusions to be drawn from these examples of mother-rights among the Aboriginal tribes of America—Women the dominant force in this stage of civilisation—Why this early power of women has been denied—A meeting with a native Iroquois—He testifies to the high status and power of the Indian women.
III.—Further Examples of the Matriarchal Family in Australia, India and other Countries
The question of the position of women during the mother-age a disputed one—Bachofen's opinion—An early period of gynæocracy—This view not accepted—Need for unprejudiced opinion—Women the first owners of property—Their power dependent on this—Further examples of mother-right customs—The maternal family in Australia—Communal marriage—Mother-right in India—The influence of Brahmanism—Traces of the maternal family—Some interesting marriage customs—Polyandry—Examples of its practice—Great polyandrous centres—The freedom enjoyed by women—The causes of polyandry—Matriarchal polyandry—The interesting custom of the Nayars—The Malays of Sumatra—The ambel-anak marriage—Letter from a private correspondent—It proves the high status of women under the early customs of mother-descent—Traces of the maternal family among the Arabs—The custom of beena marriage—Position of women in the Mariana Islands—Rebellion of the husbands—Use of religious symbolism—The slave-wife—Her consecration to the Bossum or god in Guinea.
IV.—The Transition to Father-right
The position of women in Burma—The code of Manu—Women's activity in trade—Conditions of free-divorce—Traces of mother-descent in Japan—In China—In Madagascar—The power of royal princesses—Tyrannical authority of the princesses of Loango—In Africa descent through women the rule—Illustrations—The transition to father-right—The power passing from the mother into the hand of the maternal uncle—Proofs from the customs of the African tribes—The rise of father-right—Reasons which led to the change—Marriage by capture and marriage by purchase—The payment of a bride-price—Marriage with a slave-wife—The conflict between the old and the new system—Illustration by the curious marriage customs of the Hassanyeh Arabs of the White Nile—Father-right dependent on economic considerations—Résumé—General conclusions to be drawn from the mother-age—Its relation to the present revolt of women—The bright side of father-right.
CHAPTER VIToC
THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION
I.—Progress from Lower to Higher Forms of the Family Relationship
"The reader who grasps that a thousand years is but a small period in the evolution of man, and yet realises how diverse were morality and customs in matters of sex in the period which this essay treats of" (i.e. Mother-Age Civilisation), "will hardly approach modern social problems with the notion that there is a rigid and unchangeable code of right and wrong. He will mark, in the first place, a continuous flux in all social institutions and moral standards; but in the next place, if he be a real historical student, he will appreciate the slowness of this steady secular change; he will perceive how almost insensible it is in the lifetime of individuals, and although he may work for social reforms, he will refrain from constructing social Utopias."—Professor Karl Pearson.
Our study of the sexual associations among animals has brought us to understand how large a part the gratification of the sex-instincts plays in animal life, equalling and, indeed, overmastering and directing the hunger instinct for food. If we now turn to man we find the same domination of sex-needs, but under different conditions of expression.[97] Man not only loves, but he knows that he loves; a new factor is added, and sex itself is lifted to a plane of clear self-consciousness. Pathways are opened up to great heights, but also to great depths.
We must not, therefore, expect to take up our study of primitive human sexual and familial associations at the point where those of the mammals and birds leave off.[98] We have with man to some extent to begin again, so that it may appear, on a superficial view, that the first steps now taken in love's evolution were in a backward direction. But the fact is that the increased powers of recollection and heightened complexity of nervous organisation among men, led to different habits and social customs, separating man radically in his love from the animals. Man's instincts are very vague when compared, for instance, with the beautiful love-habits of birds; he is necessarily guided by conflicting forces, inborn and acquired. Thus precisely by means of his added qualities he took a new and personal, rather than an instinctive, interest in sex; and this after a time, even if not at first, aroused a state of consciousness in love which made sex uninterruptedly interesting in contrast with the fixed pairing season among animals. Hence arose also a human and different need for sexual variety, much stronger than can ever have been experienced by the animals, which resulted in a constant tendency towards sexual licence, of a more or less pronounced promiscuity, in group marriage and other forms of sexual association which developed from it.
This is so essential to our understanding of human love, that I wish I could follow it further. All the elaborate phenomena of sex in the animal kingdom have for their end the reproduction of the species. But in the case of man there is another purpose, often transcending this end—the independent significance of sex emotion, both on the physical and psychical side, to the individual. It seems to me that women have special need to-day to remember this personal end of human passion. This is not, however, the place to enter upon this question.
I have now to attempt to trace as clearly as I can the history of primitive human love. To do this it will be necessary to refer to comparative ethnography.[99] We must investigate the sex customs, forms of marriage and the family, still to be found among primitive peoples, scattered about the world. These early forms of the sexual relationship were once of much wider occurrence, and they have left unmistakable traces in the history of many races. Further evidence is furnished by folk stories and legends. In peasant festivals and dances and in many religious ceremonies we may find survivals of primitive sex customs. They may be traced in our common language, especially in the words used for sex and kin relationships. We can also find them shadowed in certain of our marriage rites and sex habits to-day. The difficulty does not rest in paucity of material, but rather in its superabundance—far too extensive to allow anything like adequate treatment within the space of a brief and necessarily insufficient chapter. For this reason I shall limit my inquiry almost wholly to those cases which have some facts to tell us of the position occupied by women in the primitive family. I shall try to avoid falling into the error of a one-sided view. Facts are more important here than reflections, and, as far as possible, I shall let these speak for themselves.
In order to group these facts it may be well to give first a rough outline of the periods to be considered—
1. A very early period, during which man developed from his ape-like ancestors. This may be called the pre-matriarchal stage. With this absolutely primitive period we are concerned only in so far as to suggest how a second more social period developed from it. The idea of descent was so feeble that no permanent family groups existed, and the family remains in the primitive biological relation of male, female and offspring. The Botocudos, Fuegians, West Australians and Veddahs of Ceylon represent this primitive stage, more or less completely. They have apparently not reached the stage where the fact of kinship expresses itself in maternal social organisation.[100] A yet lower level may be seen among certain low tribes in the interior of Borneo—absolutely primitive savages, who are probably the remains of the negroid peoples, believed to be the first inhabitants of Malaya. These people roam the forests in hordes, like monkeys; the males carry off the females and couple with them in the thickets. The families pass the night under the trees, and the children are suspended from the branches in a sort of net. As soon as the young are capable of caring for themselves, the parents turn them adrift as the animals do.[101]
It was doubtless thus, in a way similar to the great monkeys, that man first lived. With the chimpanzee these hordes never become large, for the male leader of the tribe will not endure the rivalry of the young males, and drives them away. But man, more gregarious in his habits, would tend to form larger groups, his consciousness developing slowly, as he learnt to control his brute appetites and jealousy of rivals by that impulse towards companionship, which, rooted in the sexual needs, broadens out into the social instincts.
It is evident that the change from these scattered hordes to the organised tribal groups was dependent upon the mothers and their children. The women would be more closely bound to the family than the men. The bond between mother and child, with its long dependence on her care, made woman the centre of the family. The mother and her children, and her children's children, and so on indefinitely in the female line, constituted the group. Relationship was counted alone through them, and, at a later stage, inheritance of property passed through them. And in this way, through the woman, the low tribes passed into socially organised societies. The men, on the other hand, not yet individualised as husbands and fathers, held no rights or position in the group of the women and their children.
2. This leads us to the second period of mother-descent and mother-rights. It is this phase of primitive society that we have to investigate. Its interest to women is evident. Just as we found in our first inquiry that, in the beginnings of sexuality the female was of more importance than the male, so now we shall find society growing up around woman. It is a period whose history may well give pride to all women. Her inventive faculties, quickened by the stress of child-bearing and child-rearing, primitive woman built up, by her own activities and her own skill, a civilisation which owed its institutions and mother-right customs to her constructive genius, rather than to the destructive qualities which belonged to the fighting male.
3. But again we find, as in the animal kingdom, that step by step the forceful male asserts himself. We come to a third transitional period in which the male relatives of the woman—usually the brother, the maternal uncle—have usurped the chief power in the group. Inheritance still passes through the mother, but her influence is growing less. The right to dispose of women and the property which goes with them is now used by the male rulers of the group. The sex habits have changed; endogamous unions, or kin marriages within the clan, have given place to exogamy, where marriage only takes place between members of different groups. But at first the position of the husband and father is little changed; he marries into the wife's group and lives with her family, where he has no property rights or control over his wife's children, who are now under the rule of the uncle.
4. It is plain that this condition would not be permanent. The male power had yet to advance further; the child had to gain a father. We reach the patriarchal period, in which descent through the male line has replaced the earlier custom. Woman's power, first passing to her brother or other male relative, has been transferred to the husband and father. This change of power did not, of course, take place at once, and even under fully developed father-right systems many traces of the old mother-rights persist.
What it is necessary to fasten deeply in our minds is this: the father as the head of the woman and her children, the ruler of the house, was not the natural order of the primitive human family. Civilisation started with the woman being dominant—the home-maker, the owner of her children, the transmitter of property. It was—as will be made abundantly clear from the cases we shall examine—a much later economic question which led to a reversal of this plan, and brought the rise of father-right, with the father as the dominant partner; while the woman sank back into an unnatural and secondary position of economic dependence upon the man who was her owner—a position from which she has not even yet succeeded in freeing herself.
The maternal system of descent is found in all parts of the world where social advance stands at a certain level. This fact, added to the widespread traces the custom has left in every civilisation, warrants the assumption that mother-right in all cases preceded father-right, and has been, indeed, a stage of social growth for all branches of the human race.[102]
I shall not attempt to give the numerous traces of mother-descent that are to be found in the early histories of existing civilised nations, for to do this would entail the writing of the whole chapter on this subject. For the same reason I must reluctantly pass over the abundant evidence of mother-right that is furnished in folk-lore, in heroic legends, and in the fairy stories of our children. These stories date back to a time long before written history; they are known to all of us, and belong to all countries in slightly different forms. We have regarded them as fables; they are really survivals of customs and practices once common to all society. Wherever we find a king ruling as the son of a queen, because he is the queen's husband, or because he marries a princess, we have proof of mother-descent. The influence of the mother over her son's marriage, the winning of a bride by a task done by the wooer, the brother-sister marriage so frequent in ancient mythologies, the interference of a wise woman, and the many stories of virgin-births—all are survivals of mother-right customs. Similar evidence is furnished by mother-goddesses, so often converted into Christian local saints. I wish it were possible to follow this subject,[103] whose interest offers rich rewards. Perhaps nowhere else can we gain so clear and vivid a picture as in these ancient stories and legends of the early powerful position of woman as the transmitter of inheritance and guardian of property.
It may interest my readers to know that mother-descent must once have prevailed in Britain. Among the Picts of Scotland kingship was transmitted through women. 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.[104] 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 matrilineal descent was, or had been, recognised.[105] In Ireland (where mother-right must have been firmly established, if Strabo's account of the free sexual relations of the people[106] is accepted) women retained a very high position and much freedom, both before and after marriage, to a late period. "Every woman," it was said, "is to go the way she willeth freely," and after marriage "she enjoyed a better position and greater freedom of divorce than was afforded either by the Christian Church or English common law."[107]
Similar survivals of mother-right customs among the ancient Hebrews are made familiar to us in Bible history. To mention a few examples only: 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 to her mother and brothers. Jacob had to serve Laban for fourteen years before he was permitted to marry Leah and Rachel,[108] and six further years of service were given for his cattle. Afterwards when he wished to depart with his children and his wives, Laban made the objection, "these daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children."[109] Such acts point to the subordinate position held by Jacob, which is clearly a survival of the servitude required from the bridegroom by the relatives of the woman, who retain control over her and her children, and even over the property of the man, as was usual under the later matriarchal custom. The injunction in Gen. ii. 24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife," refers without any doubt to the early marriage under mother-right, when the husband left his own kindred and went to live with his wife and among her people. We find Samson visiting his Philistine wife, who remained with her kindred.[110] Even the obligation to blood vengeance rested apparently on the maternal kinsmen (Judges viii. 19). The Hebrew father did not inherit from his son, nor the grandfather from the grandson,[111] which points back to an ancient epoch when the children did not belong to the clan of the father.[112] Among the Hebrews individual property was instituted in very early times (Gen. xxiii. 13); but various customs show clearly the ancient existence of communal clans. Thus the inheritance, especially the paternal inheritance, must remain in the clan. 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 not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe."[113] We have here an indication of the close relation between father-right and property.
Under mother-descent there is naturally no prohibition against marriage with a half-sister upon the father's side. This explains the marriage of Abraham with Sara, his half-sister by the same father. When reproached for having passed his wife off as his sister to the King of Egypt and to Abimelech, 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."[114] In the same way Tamar could have married her half-brother Amnon, though they were both the children of David.[115] The father of Moses and Aaron married his father's sister, who was not legally his relation.[116] Nabor, the brother of Abraham, took to wife his fraternal niece, the daughter of his brother.[117] It was only later that paternal kinship became recognised among the Hebrews by the same title as the natural kinship through the mother.[118]
Other examples might be added. All these survivals of mother-descent (and they may be discovered in the early history of every people) have their value; they are, however, only survivals, and their interest rests mainly in comparing them with similar facts among other peoples among whom the presence of mother-right customs is undisputed. To these existing examples of the primitive family clan grouped around the mother we will now turn our attention.