The Truth About Woman C. Gasquoine Hartley 1240 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Truth About Woman
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: The Truth About Woman

Author: C. Gasquoine Hartley

Release date: September 14, 2009 [eBook #29981]
Most recently updated: January 5, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29981

Credits: Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Jeannie Howse and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH
ABOUT WOMAN ***

Transcriber's Note:

Inconsistent hyphenation in the original
document has been preserved.
Obvious typographical errors have been
corrected. For a complete list, please see the
end of this document.

THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

BOOKS ON ART

A RECORD OF SPANISH PAINTING
PICTURES IN THE TATE GALLERY
The Prado (Spanish Series)
El Greco (Spanish Series)
Velazquez (Spanish Series)

BOOKS ON SPAIN

MOORISH CITIES IN SPAIN
THINGS SEEN IN SPAIN
SPAIN REVISITED: A Summer Holiday in
Galicia
SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA (Mediæval
Towns Series)
CATHEDRALS OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN
SPAIN

THE TRUTH
ABOUT WOMAN

BY

C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY

(MRS. WALTER M. GALLICHAN)

NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD & COMPANY
1914

DEDICATION
TO

LESLIE, MY LITTLE ADOPTED SON

In writing at last this book on Woman, which for so many years has had a
place in my thoughts, one truth has forced itself upon me: the predominant
position of Woman in her natural relation to the race. The mother is the main
stream of the racial life. All the hope of the future rests upon this faith in
motherhood.
To whom, then, but to you, my little son, can I dedicate my book? You came to
me when I was still seeking out a way in the futility of Individual ends; you
reconciled my warring motives and desires; you brought me a new guiding
principle. You taught me that the Individual Life is but as a bubble or cluster of
foam on the great tide of humanity. I knew that the redemption of Woman rests
in the growing knowledge and consciousness of her responsibility to the race.

"The social revolution which is impending in Europe is chiefly concerned with
the future of the workers and the women. It is for this that I hope and wait, and
for this I will work with all my powers."—Ibsen.

PREFACE

It is very difficult to write a preface to a work which is expressly
intended as a revelation of the faith of the writer. The successive stages of
thought and emotion that have been passed through are still too near, and
one feels too deeply. I have made several futile attempts to concentrate into
a short note the Truths about Woman that I have tried to convey in my book.
I find it impossible to do this. The explanation of one's own book would
really require the writing of another book, as Mr. Bernard Shaw has proved
to us in his delightful prefaces. But to do this one must be freed altogether
from the limits of length and time. The fragments of what I wish to say
would be of no service to any one.
I then tried to place myself, as it were, outside the book, and to look at it
as a stranger might. But the difficulties here were even greater. I grew so
interested in criticising my own opinions that my notes soon outran the
possibilities of a preface. In this spirit of genuine discrimination, I became
aware how easy it would be for any one who does not share my faith to find
apparent contradictions of statement and errors in thought—much that is
feeble here, extravagant there; to notice some salient fault and to take it as
decisive of the writer's incompetence. I am tempted to point these out
myself to guide and protect the reader.
Now that my book is done I feel that I have touched only the veriest
fringe of a vast subject. But one thing I may say, I have tried to express the
truth as I have come to see it. The conception I have of Woman is not new;
it is very old. And for that reason it will be rejected by many women to-day.
At present the inspiration towards freedom in the Woman's Movement has
involved a tendency to follow individual paths, without waiting to consider
to what end they lead. There has arisen a sort of glamour about freedom. No
one of us can be free, for no one of us stands alone; we are all members one
of another. And woman's destiny is rooted in the race. This, rightly
considered, is the most vital of all vital facts. I appeal to women to realise
more clearly their true place and gifts, as representing that original racial

motherhood, out of which the masculine and feminine characters have
arisen.
My book is a statement of my faith in Woman as the predominant and
responsible partner in the relations of the sexes. To such a belief my opinion
was driven, as it were, not deliberately set from the beginning. The time
when the resolve to write a book upon Woman first took a place in my
thoughts goes back for many years. The child of a Puritan father, who died
for the faith in which he believed, the desire to teach was born in my blood.
Our character is forged in the past, we cannot escape our inheritance. I
began my work as the head-mistress of a school for girls. I was young in
experience and very ignorant of life. In my enthusiasm I was quite
unconscious of my own limitations, I believed that I was able to train up a
new type of free woman. Of course I failed. Looking back now I wonder if I
ever taught my pupils one-hundredth part of what they taught me. Perhaps
if any of them, separated from me by time and circumstances, chance to
read my book, they may be glad to know that it was largely due to them and
what I learnt from them that it has come to be written. Certainly it was in
those days, when saddened by my own failures, that the purpose came to
me, dimly but insistently, to seek out the Truth about Woman and the
relations of the sexes. I began to read and to collect material at first for my
own guidance and instruction, and as a necessary preparation for my work.
I needed it: I must have been slow to learn. For a long time I wandered in
the wrong path. My desire was to find proofs that would enable me to
ignore all those facts of woman's organic constitution which makes her
unlike man. I stumbled blindly into the fatal error of following masculine
ideals. I desired freedom for women to enable them to live the same lives
that men live and to do the same work that men do. I did not understand that
this was a wastage of the force of womanhood; that no freedom can be of
service to a woman unless it is a freedom to follow her own nature. I am
very glad that the book that is now finished was not written in that period of
my belief. I have waited and I have lived.
Five years ago I took up definitely the task of writing the book. At that
time the plan of the work was made and the first Introductory chapter
written. Circumstances into which I need not enter caused the work again to
be put aside. I am glad: I have learnt much in these last years.
There is little more that I need to say.

The book is divided into three parts—the first biological, the second
historical. These two parts are preliminary to the third part, which deals
with the present-day aspects of the Woman Problem, the differences
between woman and man, and the relations of the sexes.
This arrangement of my inquiry into three parts was necessary. It may
seem to some that I should have done better to confine my investigations to
the present. But the claim of woman for freedom is rooted deep in the past.
This fact had to be established. I have tried to give the earlier sections such
lighter qualities and interest as would commend them to my readers. It is
hardly necessary for me to say I can make no claim to personal scientific
knowledge. Probably I have made many mistakes.
It is perhaps foolish to make apologies for work that one has done. But
the inclusion of so wide a field has had a disadvantage. My investigations
may be objected to as in certain points not being supported by sufficient
proof. I know this. My stacks of unused notes remind me of how much I
have had to leave out. This is especially the case in the final part. The
subject of every chapter treated here could easily form a volume in itself. I
hope that at least I have opened up suggestions of many questions on which
I could not dwell at length.
Some remarks may be necessary as to the nature of my material. It has
been drawn from a variety of sources. I have tried to acknowledge in
footnotes the great amount of help I have received. But my notes have been
taken during many years, and if any acknowledgment has been forgotten, it
is my memory that is at fault, and not my gratitude. The Bibliography
(which has been drawn up chiefly from the works I have consulted, and is
merely representative) will show how many fields there are from which the
student may glean. In particular I am indebted to the works of Havelock
Ellis, of Iwan Bloch and Ellen Key. To these writers I would express my
warmest thanks for the help and guidance I have gained from their work.
The opinions expressed are in all cases my own. I say this without any
apology of modesty. I hold that the one justification of writing a book at all
is to state those truths one has learnt from one's own experience of life. For
we can give to others only what we have received ourselves; the vision
rising in our own eyes, the passion born in our own hearts.
C. Gasquoine Hartley.

7, Carlton Terrace,
Child's Hill, N.W.
March, 1913.

CONTENTS
N.B.—A complete synopsis of contents will be found at the beginning of each
chapter

CHAP. PAGE
I Introduction—The Starting-
Point of the Inquiry 1
PART I—BIOLOGICAL SECTION
II The Origin of the Sexes 31
III Growth and Reproduction 45
I The Early Position of the Sexes.
II Two Examples—The Beehive
and the Spider.
IV The Early Relationship of the
Sexes 71
V Courtship, Marriage, and the
Family 85
I Among the Birds and
Mammals.
II Further Examples of Courtship,
Marriage, and the Family
among Birds.

PART II—HISTORICAL SECTION
VI The Mother-Age Civilisation 117
I Progress from Lower to Higher
Forms of the Family
Relationship.
II The Matriarchal Family in
America.
III Further Examples of the
Matriarchal Family in
Australia, India, and other
Countries.
IV The Transition in Father-right.
VII Woman's Position in the Great
Civilisations of Antiquity 177
I In Egypt.
II In Babylon.
III In Greece.
IV In Rome.

PART III—MODERN SECTION:
PRESENT-DAY ASPECTS OF THE
WOMAN PROBLEM
VIII Sex Differences 245
IX Application of the Foregoing
Chapter with Some Further
Remarks on Sex Difference 271
I Women and Labour.
II Sexual Differences in Mind and
the Artistic Impulse in
Women.
III The Affectability of Woman—
Its Connection with the
Religious Impulse.

X The Social Forms of the Sexual
Relationship 329
I Marriage.
II Divorce.
III Prostitution.
XI The End of the Inquiry 375

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION—THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY

The twentieth century the age of hurrying progress—The change
in the position of women—Reasons for the revolution—First
efforts towards emancipation—Outlook of the Woman
Movement—Its fundamental error—Possibilities of future
development—Motherhood and the Woman Movement—
Schopenhauer's view of woman—He asserts an absurdity—
The predominance of man over woman not to be regarded as
a natural and inviolable law—An examination of the
mastery of the male—Can we look forward to a remedy?—
Our own time a turning-point in the history of women—
Assumed inferiority of the female sex—Necessity for
biological knowledge in forming an estimate of the present
sex-relationship—Two kinds of influences to be considered
—Nature and Nurture—The different play of the
environmental forces, or Nurture, upon women and upon
men—The importance of Nature—Galton's Law of
Inheritance—Woman's responsibility as race-bearer—
Sexual differences between the female and the male—

Primitive woman and her position in early civilisations—
Remarks and conclusion—The immense importance of
motherhood.

CHAPTER IToC

INTRODUCTION—THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY

"The method of investigating truth commonly pursued at this time, therefore,
is to be held erroneous and almost foolish, in which so many inquire what others
have said, and omit to ask whether the things themselves be actually so or
not."—William Harvey.

The twentieth century will, we may well believe, be stamped in the
records of the future as "the age of hurrying change." In certain directions
this change has resulted in a profounder transformation of thought than has
been effected by all the preceding centuries. Never, probably, in the history
of the world were the meanings and ambitions of progress so prevalent as
they are to-day. An energy of inquiry and an endless curiosity is sweeping
away the complacent Victorian attitude, which in its secure faith and
tranquil self-confidence accepted the conditions of living without question
and without emotion. Stripped of its masks, this phase of individual egoism
was perhaps the most villainous page of recorded human history; yet, with
strange confidence, it regarded itself as the very summit of civilisation. It
may be that such a phase was necessary before the awakening of a social
conscience could arise. Old conceptions have become foolish in a New Age.
A great motive, an enlarging dream, a quickening understanding of social
responsibility, these are what we have gained.
Above all, this common Faith of Progress has brought a new birth to
women. Many are feeling this force. There are two, says Professor Karl

Pearson,[1] and it might almost be said only two great problems of modern
social life—they are the problem of woman and the problem of labour.
Regarded with fear by many, they are for the younger generation the sole
motors in life, and the only party cries which in the present can arouse
enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, and a genuine freemasonry of class and sex.
There is something almost staggering in the range and greatness of the
changes in belief and feeling, in intellectual conclusions and social habits,
which are now disturbing the female part of humankind. How complete is
the divorce between the attitude of the woman of this generation towards
society and herself, and that of the generation that has passed—yes, passed
as completely as if hundreds and not units represent the years that separate
it from the present.
It is instructive to note in passing what was written about woman at the
time immediately preceding the present revolt of the sex. The virtue upon
which most stress was laid was that of "delicacy," a word which occurs with
nauseous frequency in the books written both by women and men in the two
last centuries.[2] "Propriety," wrote Mrs. Hannah More, "is to a woman what
the great Roman citizen said action is to an orator: it is the first, the second,
and the third requisite."[3]
"This delicacy or propriety," it has been well said,[4] "implied not only
modesty, but ignorance; and not only decency of conduct, but false decency of
mind. Nothing was to be thoroughly known, nothing to be frankly expressed.
The vicious concealment was not confined to physical facts, but pervaded all
forms of knowledge. Not only must the girl be kept ignorant of the principles of
physiology, but she must also abstain from penetrating thoroughly into the
mysteries of history, of politics, of science, and of philosophy. Even her special
province of religion must be lightly surveyed. She was not required to think for
herself, therefore she was deprived of all training which would enable her to
think at all. The girl must appear to be dependent upon the mental strength of a
man, as well as upon his physical strength."

It is necessary to remember this attitude if we are to understand the
direction that woman's emancipation has largely—and, as some of us think,
mistakenly—taken in this country. It explains the demand for equality of
opportunity with men, which has become the watch-cry of so many women,
thinking that here was the way to solve the problem. A cry good and right in
itself, but one which is a starting-point only for woman's freedom, and can
never be its end.

Little more than fifty years have passed since Miss Jex-Blake undertook
her memorable fight to obtain medical training for herself and her
colleagues at the University of Edinburgh.[5] At about the same time arose
women's demand for the right of higher education, and colleges for women
were opened at Oxford and Cambridge. These were the practical results
which followed the revolt of Mary Wollstonecraft, and later, the great
revival due to the publication of John Stuart Mill's epoch-marking book, the
Subjection of Women.
During the first period of the woman's movement the centre of
restlessness was amongst unmarried women, who rebelled at the old
restrictions, eager for self-development and a more intellectually active life.
These women undertook their own cause, insisting that their humanity came
before their sex. They were picked women, much above the average
woman, and to a certain extent abnormal in so far as they denied the
important factor of sex. To them the average male was not a subject of
overwhelming interest, and marriage and motherhood were not of
prominent importance in their thought. For them "equality of opportunity
for women with men" seemed to solve the problem of woman's
emancipation. The constructive result of their campaign was the winning of
the higher education of woman, the right to work, and the rush of women
into the professions. Much, indeed, was gained, though it may be said with
equal truth that much was lost. With this solution—the increased power of
self-realisation in a narrow class of picked women, chiefly unmarried
women of the middle-class—the woman's movement might well begin, but
in this alone it can never end. The movement was incomplete as far as
woman's emancipation went, because it was won by ignoring sex. In spite
of the great advance in freedom and in scope of activity of life, the stigma
attached to woman was not removed. To-day we have arrived at a point
where instead of ignoring sex we must affirm it, and claim emancipation on
the ground of our sex alone. Our mothers taught acceptance, and asked for
privileges; the pioneers of revolt raised the cry "acceptance is a sin and all
privilege evil"; we, the blood in our veins beating more strongly and
understanding at last the true inwardness of our power, found our claim for
complete emancipation upon that special work in the world and for the
State which our differentiation from men imposes upon us. This
differentiation is our potentiality for motherhood, and is the endowment of

every woman, whether realised or not. We claim as our glory what our
mothers accepted as their burden of shame.
No sudden causeless changes ever happen, or ever have happened. And
the question, Why? arises. What is this dynamic force which has been, and
is still sweeping in a great wave of emancipation across the civilised world,
joining women in one common purpose? On the outside the revolutionary
character of women's modern thought and modern practice means nothing
more than that they claim the rights of adult human beings—political
enfranchisement, the right of education and freedom to work. But the facts
are far too complex to enable us thus to rush hastily to an answer. There is a
pitiful monotony in much that is written and spoken about women's
emancipation. The real causes are deep to seek, and not infrequently they
have been missed even by those who have been most instrumental in
bringing a new hope to women. The most advanced women champions, the
martyrs of revolt, show no greater sense of the meanings and issues of the
struggle in which they are engaged than the complaisant supporters of the
worn-out customs they combat. They exhibit only the energies of an
admirable impulse, without the control of a guiding law. Speculation, which
should be carried to a comprehension of general facts, is concentrated upon
the immediate gain of the hour. The tendency is to trifle with truth, and to
disguise its reach and consequences. We have read, and spoken, and thought
so much about the special character of woman that we have become almost
wearied of the subject. Like Narcissus, we stand in some danger of falling
in love with our own image. Perhaps the truth is we speculate too much
instead of trying to find out the facts. The woman question is as old as sex
itself and as young as mankind.
The future position of woman in society is a question that carries with it
biological and psychological, as well as social and practical, issues of the
widest significance, and further, it is bound up intimately with the
profoundest riddles of existence. The problems remain to a great extent
unsolved. But the conviction forces itself that the emancipation of woman
will ultimately involve a revolution in many of our social institutions. It is
this that brings fear to many. Yet we must remember that woman's
emancipation is no new movement, but has always been with us, although
with varying prominence at different times in history. In the past,
civilisations have fallen, in part at least, because they failed to develop in

equal freedom their women with their men. It is also certain that no
civilisation in the future can remain the highest if another civilisation adds
to the intelligence of its male population the intelligence of its women. This
in itself is enough to condemn all ideas of sex inequality.
The struggle for the Suffrage has intensified many problems which it will
take all the intellectual and emotional energy of both men and women to
solve. Up till now there has been little more than a fight for mere rights
against male monopolies. In the near future this struggle must lead to a
realisation of the duties of woman, founded on a level-headed facing of the
physiological realities of her nature. It is a complete disregard of
sexualogical difficulties which renders so superficial and unconvincing
much of the talk which proceeds from the "Woman's Rights" platform. All
efforts made to understand the sex problem, which is the woman question,
must be based on the full knowledge of the physical capacity of woman and
the effect that her emancipation will have on her function of race
production. All effort ought to be directed towards the future welfare and
happiness of the children who are to follow us. This is the goal of woman's
struggle for progress, it is the sole end worthy of it.
To assume as Schopenhauer and so many others have done, down to Sir
Almroth Wright's recent hysterical wail in The Times, that woman, on
account of her womanhood is incapable of intellectual or social
development, paying her sole debt of Nature in bearing and caring for
children, is really to state a belief in decay for humankind. Any stigma
attached to women is really a stigma attached to their potentiality as
mothers, and we can only remove it by beginning with the emancipation of
the actual mother. No sharp cleavage can be made between qualities that are
good and masculine on the one side, and all that is feminine on the other.
The view is entirely erroneous. How, for instance, can ignorance and
weakness constitute at once the perfection of womankind, and the
imperfection of mankind? The matter is not so simple. Man must fall with
woman, and rise with her.
My first purpose is to make this clear.
To-day we are faced with the question whether the predominance of man
over woman is to be regarded as a natural, and therefore inviolable, law of
the male and female. Some will deny this mastery of the male. It may be

said that woman sways man more than he rules her. This is true. The
influence of woman is important—fearfully important. Yet the fitting
answer to such glossing—if it be necessary really to point out that sexual
privilege is not personal power—is that such government is exercised in
one direction alone, and arises not from woman's strength, but out of her
subjection. Women have rendered back to men the ill that this long sex
domination has wrought upon them. None the less have we to reckon with
the despotism of the male side of life. "The softening influence of woman!"
... It is a pretty phrase; but all the same women and men have been doing
their best to degrade each other to a pitiful mediocrity. It is not the purifying
influence of women—the theory of chivalrous moralists—but an unguided
and therefore deteriorating sexual tyranny that regulates society. Let us have
done with this absurd catch-phrase of "Woman's Influence." No influence
worth naming as such can be exercised but by an independent mind.
Women need better fields for the exercise of their love of power. The sexual
sphere, which has shaped an impalpable prison around them, has barred
them from that part of life which is social and broadly human; the falsely
feminine has been developed to the loss of the womanhood in them. It is
only in obedience to man that woman has gained her power of life. She has
borne children at his will and for his pleasure. She has received her very
consciousness from man: this has been her womanhood, to feel herself
under another's will. There is no possible hiding of the truth; if women
influence men, men command life.
But is it possible, looking forward to new conditions of society, now
approaching like a long-delayed spring, to foresee a remedy? Can the
woman of the future belong to herself? What are her natural disabilities, and
to what extent are they modifiable by new arrangements of social and
domestic life? Must she be content for the future with that dependence on
the individual man which has been her fate in the past; or, on the other
hand, can she take up her economic and social position in society and work
therein for her own maintenance as free from considerations of her sex as a
man can? These are the questions which must be faced when united
womanhood begins to formulate their wants and to realise their power. It is
almost idle in the present transition to speculate as to what women should
or should not be, or the work they should or should not do. Women do not
yet know what they want. All that can be done is to note the changes that
are taking place, for we cannot, even do we wish, now change the

revolutionary forces. We must seek to understand their causes, so that we
may be able to direct them in the future in such ways as will tend to the
greater solidarity and happiness of women and men.
In the everlasting controversy as to woman's place in Nature the majority
of arguments have been based on an assumed inferiority of the female sex.
Appeal has been made to anatomy to establish the difference between the
natural endowment of men and women in the hope of fixing by means of
anatomical measurements and tests those characters of males and females
that are unalterable, because inborn, and those that are acquired, and
therefore modifiable. But the obstacles in the way of anatomical
investigations are very great, if only on account of the complexity of the
material. Often and often it has happened that old conclusions have been
overthrown by new knowledge. Indeed, it may be said that such appeal has
resulted in uncertainty, and in many instances in confusion. The chief
source of error has been the careless acceptance of female inferiority, which
has maimed most investigations and seriously retarded the attainment of
useful results. And though it is very far from my purpose to wish to deny
the fundamentally different nature of the masculine and feminine character,
it is still true that a blank separation of human qualities into male qualities
and female qualities is no longer possible. In no instance have the
anatomists succeeded in determining with absolute distinction between the
characters that belong separately to the sexes. Moreover, it has been shown
that there is no such thing as a fixed woman character, but that women
differ according to the circumstances under which they live, just as men
differ. This brings us directly against the old problem, inferiority cannot be
accepted as the sole reason of woman's present restricted position in society.
Other causes must be sought for.
Many features of the social and psychic as well as the physical
phenomena of human life have what we may call an organismal mainspring,
and become more intelligible when traced back to these. No one, for
instance, can appreciate the social significance of sex, or account for the
existing sexual relationships in human societies, who does not know
something of their biological antecedents. Take again the sex differences,
which attain to such complexity and importance in the human civilised
races, these can be explained only if their origin is recognisable. To
comprehend the higher forms of life we must gain an acquaintance with the

lower and more formative types. In this way we shall begin to see
something of that continual upward change under the action of love's-
selection that has developed the female and the male. Many problems that
have brought sorrow and perplexity to us to-day will become recognisable
as we ascertain their causes, and then we can do much to remove them.
Thus the problem of woman must first be considered from a biological
point of view. Explorations must be made into the remote and obscure
beginnings of sex. We must carry our investigations back beyond the cycle
of man, and trace the growth and uses of the differentiation of the sexes
from the lowest forms of life.
Biology, a science hardly more than a century old, is still in the
descriptive and comparative stage; it is the scientific study of the present
and past history of animal life for the purpose of understanding its future
history. It is of vital importance to human welfare in the future that we
should learn by this comparative study of origins and of the potent past
what are the lines along which progress is to be expected.
This, then, will be the first path of our discovery. We shall have to
traverse many past ages of life and to consider certain humble organisms,
before we shall be able really to understand woman in her true position in
the sexual relationship as we find it to-day.
But the possibility of applying biological results to sociology with any
hope of enlightenment depends on an understanding of the questions, How?
and Why? It is important to know what the phenomena are, but it is yet
more important to know how? and for what reason? they have come about.
Thus we are led forward always from facts to their efficient causes. Women
are found to differ from men in this or that respect. But this in itself decides
nothing. As soon as we are informed as to any one difference, we must seek
out its cause; and this we must do over and over again. Hundreds of women
must be interrogated, observed and reported upon—and then what? Shall
we know the answer to our problem? Certainly not. In each case we must
ask: Is this difference we have found between the sexes a natural inborn
quality of woman, whether it be physical or psychical, that must be
regarded as a right and unalterable part of her woman character, or is it an
acquired, and therefore changeable, modification that has been
superimposed upon her through the artificial sexual, social and economic

circumstances of her environment? The mere asking of this question will
give many new discoveries.
Life is a relation between two forces: on the one hand the organism and
on the other the external conditions that form the environment. These two
processes are known as Nature and Nurture, they are complementary and
inseparable, and they act together. Thus the organism modifies its
surroundings, and is in turn modified by them. But every life possesses in
great degree the power of self-adaptation, and, broadly speaking, it is true
that no matter under what conditions it may be compelled to live, it will
mould its own life into harmony with those conditions and thus continue its
existence, and this whether it is compelled to adopt a more perfect or a less
perfect character. It becomes evident that an appropriate environment is
necessary if the Nature is to be expressed, or expressed fully; otherwise life
cannot realise development. The environment is constantly checking and
modifying the inheritance. Nurture supplies the liberating stimulus to the
inheritance, and growth is limited, in exact measurement by the Nurture
stimuli available. Human advancement is, of course, widely different from
the slow progress in the lower forms of life, but it is fundamentally the
same. Experience is continually spreading over new fields and bringing
about a more wide and exact relation between the individual and the
external world. It follows that any change in the environment will cause a
change in the individual. To live differently from what one had been living
is to be different from what one has been. These are simple biological facts.
Now, how does woman stand in this respect? No one can deny the
difference of environment that in the past has acted on women and on men.
Speaking from a biological standpoint, it would seem that any present
inferiority of woman is mainly social, due to her adaptation to an arbitrary
environment. It has been truly said[6] that "man, in supporting woman, has
become her economic environment." By her position of economic
dependence in the sex relation, sex distinction has become with her "not
only a means of attracting a mate, as with all creatures, but a means of
gaining her livelihood, as is the case with no other creature under heaven."
Can we wonder that the differences between the sexes assume such great
and, in certain directions, such unnatural importance? Woman to a far
greater extent than man is in process of evolution; her powers dormant for
want of liberating Nurture stimuli. We know that Alpine plants brought

from their natural soil change their character and become hardly
recognisable, and these marked modifications will reappear in many
generations of plants, but as soon as the plants are taken back to grow in
their natural environment they are transformed to their original Alpine
forms. May we not then entertain as a possibility that woman's modern
character, with all its acknowledged faults—all its separation from the
human qualities of man—is a veneer imposed by an unnatural environment
on succeeding generations of women? If the larger social virtues are
wanting in her, may it not be because they have not been called for in a
parasitic life? How splendid a hope for women rests here! There is a
biological truth, not usually suspected by those who quote it, in the popular
saying: "Man is the creature of circumstance." And this is even more true of
women, who are less emancipated from their surroundings than are men—
more saturated with the influences and prejudices of their narrowed
environment.
It would seem, then, that Nurture is more important than Nature in
seeking to explain the character of woman to-day. Yet, let me not be
mistaken, nor let it be thought for one moment that I do not realise the
importance of Nature. The first right of every human being is the right of
being well-born. This is the goal of all our struggles for progress—it is the
sole end worthy of them.
Let me try to make this clearer.
Reproduction carries life beyond the individual. Haeckel has said that the
process is nothing more than the growth of the organism beyond its
individual mass. But this process in the higher forms of life has become
exceedingly complex. All living beings are individual in one respect and
composite in another, for the inheritance of each individual is a mosaic of
ancestral contributions. Galton's Law of Inheritance makes this abundantly
clear. Briefly stated, the law is as follows: The two parents of each living
being contribute on the average one-half of each inherited quality, each of
them contributing one-quarter of it. The four grand-parents furnish between
them one-quarter, or each of them one-sixteenth; and so on backwards
through past generations of ancestors. Now, though, of course, these
numbers are purely arbitrary, applying only to averages, and rarely true
exactly of individual cases, where the prepotency of any one ancestor may,
and often does, upset the balance of the contributions made by the other

ancestors, it may certainly be accepted as the most probable theory that
biology has given us to explain the difficult problem of Nature—that is the
inheritance we receive from our ancestors.
We see that the heredity relation is an extremely complex affair. It is not
merely dual from the parents; but it is multiple, through them reaching back
to the grand-parents, great-grand-parents, great-great-grand-parents, and so
on backwards indefinitely. It is, indeed, a mosaic of many, yes, of
uncountable, contributions. The Life Force gathering within itself these
multiple sets of heredity contributions is like capital ever growing at
compound interest. The importance of this is abundantly clear. For as we
come to understand the continuity of our inheritance from generation to
generation we realise more vividly how the past has a living hand on and in
the present, and how that present will be carried on to the future. We are all
links in the one mighty Chain of Life, and on us, and upon women
especially, rests a high responsibility. We must hand on our past inheritance
unimpaired, so that the new link forged by us may strengthen and not
weaken the chain. It is the duty of every woman as a potential mother of
men to choose a fitting father for her children, having first educated herself
for a freer and more capable maternity. In the past she has done this blindly,
following the Life Force without understanding, or hindered from her
purpose by the artificial conditions of society. In the future such blindness
and such failure of her powers will alike be regarded as sin. With full
knowledge, woman will fulfil her great central purpose of breeding the race
—ay, breeding it to heights now deemed impossible, not dreamt of even by
those of us who look forward through the darkness to the clear sunlight of
that time when the sex relation shall be freed from economic pressure and
from all coercion of a false morality, and the universal creative energy, no
longer finding gratification alone in personal ends, shall at last reach its
goal and give birth to a race of new women and new men.
But to come back from this dream of the future.
Certain facts now become evident. In the inheritance of each individual
are many latent qualities that do not find expression. It is as if in every life
the separate heredity qualities, or groups of qualities, wait in competition,
and those that succeed and find an expression in each life owe their success
to an incalculable number of small and mostly unknown circumstances.
One is tempted to speculate as to a possible direction in the future of

women that may arise from the liberating of these unknown forces; but as
yet we have not a sufficient basis of facts. But one truth must not be lost
sight of; the unsuccessful qualities that do not find their expression in an
individual life may remain to be handed on for new competition to a new
generation. No one of the forces of our inheritance, be it for good or for
evil, is dead; rather it sleeps till that time when the liberating powers of
Nurture call it into active expression. There is real biological truth in the
saying, "Every man is a potential criminal"; but it is equally true that every
one is a possible saint. And there is one point further; we know that those
qualities which do succeed in the competition of the inheritance, and which
form at birth the character of the individual, are very different from their
actual expression in the development of life, where perforce such qualities
are modified to the environment. What we are is no certain criterion of what
we are capable of becoming. For every item of our inheritance requires an
appropriate growth-soil if it is actively to live. Each life is an adjustment of
internal character to external conditions. A garden that has been choked
with weeds may remain flowerless for many succeeding years, but dig that
garden, and sleeping flowers, not known to live within the memory of man,
may spring to life. May it not be that in the garden of woman's inheritance
there are buried seeds, lying dormant, which at the liberating touch of
opportunity may reawaken and assert themselves as forgotten flowers? Yes,
to-day this seems a practical fact that already is being accomplished, and
not a futile speculation. The re-birth of woman is no dream. At last she is
realising the arrest in her development that has followed the acceptance of a
position which forces her to be a parasite and a prostitute.
Every one admits the differences of function that separate the female
from the male half of humankind. But to assume that the physical, mental,
and moral disabilities of women, of which we hear so much, are a necessary
part of their inheritance—the debt they pay for being the mothers of the
race—is an absurdity it would be difficult to explain except for that strange
sex bias, which seems always to colour all opinions as to women, their
character and their place in society. Havelock Ellis, who in his admirable
work Man and Woman has made an exhaustive examination of all the
known facts with regard to the real and supposed secondary sexual
differences between women and men, comes to this conclusion in his final
summary—

"We have not succeeded," he says, "in determining the radical and essential
character of men and women uninfluenced by external modifying conditions. We
have to recognise that our present knowledge cannot tell us what they might be,
but what they actually are, under the conditions of civilisation.... The facts are so
numerous that even when we have ascertained the precise significance of some
one fact, we cannot be sure that it is not contradicted by other facts. And so many
of the facts are modifiable under a changing environment that in the absence of
experience we cannot pronounce definitely regarding the behaviour of either the
male or female organism under different conditions."

Only a knowledge of the multifarious and complex environmental forces,
which in the past have moulded women into what to-day they are, will lead
us to our goal. We may examine woman's present character, both physical
and mental, with every precision of detail, but the knowledge gained will
not settle her inborn Nature. We shall discover what she is, not what she
might be. No, rather to do this we must go back through many generations
to primitive woman. We must study, in particular, that period known as the
Mother-Age, when we find an early civilisation largely built up by woman's
activity and developed by her skill. We must find out every fact that we can
of woman's physical and mental life in this first period of social growth; we
must examine the causes which led to the change from this Mother-rule to
that of the Father-rule, or the patriarchate, which succeeded it. Insight into
the civilisations of the past is of special value to us in trying to solve our
problems of woman's true place in the social life. For one thing, we shall
learn that morality and sexual customs and institutions are not fixed, but are
peculiar to each age, and are good only in so far as they fulfil the needs of
any special period of a people's growth. We must note, in particular, the
contributions made by woman to early civilisation, and then seek the
reasons why she has lost her former position of power. The savage woman
is nearer to Nature than we ourselves are, and in learning of her life we
shall come to an understanding of many of the problems of our lives.
This, then, must be the second path of our discovery, and, following it,
we shall gain further knowledge of what is artificial and what is real in the
character of woman and in the present relations of the sexes.
We find that the external surroundings that influence life are referable to
one of two classes: those which tend to increase destructive processes, and
find their active expression in expenditure of energy, and those which tend
to increase constructive processes, and are passive instead of active, storing
energy, not expending it. These two classes of external forces, disruptive

and constructive, are called katabolic and anabolic. Looking back on the
early natural lives of men and women, we find there has been a very sharp
separation in the play of these opposite sets of influences. A hasty survey of
the facts suffices to prove that the work of the world was divided into two
great parts, the men had the share of killing life, whether that of man or of
animals, their attention was given to fighting and hunting; while the
women's share was the continuing and nourishing life, their attention being
given to the domestic arts—to agriculture and the attendant stationary
industries. Woman's position during the matriarchate was largely the result
of the need in primitive society of woman's constructive energy, and her
power arose from an unfettered use of her special functions. But this
divergence of the paths of women from the paths of men continued, and
during the patriarchal period became arbitrary with the withdrawal of
women from initiative labour, an unnatural arrangement which arose out of
later social conditions. The militant side of social activities has belonged to
men, the passive to women; and men have been goaded into growth by the
conditions and struggles of their lives. They have gathered around
themselves a special man-formed environment of institutions and laws, of
activities and inventions, of art and literature, of male sentiments, and male
systems of opinions, to which they are connected in subtle and numerous
relations, and this complex heritage of influences has been reimposed on
men generation by generation. In this social working-life women have not
had an equal part—and a drag in their development has arisen as the result
of this passivity. At a certain period in civilisation women became an
inferior class because men with their greater range of opportunities, which
brought them within a wider and more variable circle of influences,
developed a superior fitness on the motor side. Another contrast is very
evident, men's work being performed under more striking circumstances
and with more apparent effort and danger, drew to itself prestige, which
women's work did not receive; their work, on the contrary, was held in
contempt.[7]
Yet, in this connection, it is necessary to say emphatically that, in its
origin, there was nothing arbitrary in this division between the sexes. It was,
in itself, a natural outcome of natural causes, arising out of the needs of
primitive societies. There is nothing derogatory to woman in accepting the
passive or, more truly, the constructive power of her nature; rather it is her
chief claim for the regaining of her true position in society. I wish at once to

say how far it is from my desire to judge woman from a male standpoint.
The power and nature that are woman's are not secondary to man's; they are
equal, but different, being co-existent and complementary—in fact, just the
completion of his.
There is another point that must be made clear.
The separation in the social activities of women and men was not brought
about, as is stated so frequently, by men's injustice to women. There is an
unfortunate tendency to regard the subjection of woman as wholly due to
male selfishness and tyranny. Many leaders of woman's freedom hold to
this view as their broad exposition of principle. Such belief is illogical and
untrue. It cannot be too often repeated that sex-hatred means retrogression
and not progress. I do not mean to say that women have not suffered at
men's hands. They have, but not more than men have suffered at their
hands. No woman who faces facts can deny this truth. Neither sex can
afford to bring railing accusations against the other. The old doctrine of
blame is insufficient. Women's disabilities are not, in their origin at least,
due to any form of male tyranny. I believe, moreover, that any solution of
the woman problem, and of woman's rights, is of ridiculous impotence that
attempts to see in man woman's perpetual oppressor. The enemy, if enemy
there is, of woman's emancipation, is woman herself.
But, on the other side, it is certain that the long-held opinion—what we
may call "the male view of women"—which believes that the position
woman occupies in society and the duties she performs are, in the main,
what they should be, she being what she is, is equally false. Such theorists
throw upon Nature the responsibility of the evils consequent on the
deviations from equality of opportunity in the past lives of women. Truly
we credit Nature with an absurd blunder do we accept this inferiority of the
female half of life. Woman is what she is because she has lived as she has.
And no estimate of her character, no effort to fix the limit of her activities,
can carry weight that ignores the totally different relations towards society
that have artificially grown up, dividing so sharply the life of woman from
that of man.
I am brought back to the object of this book.
What are the conditions that have brought woman to her position of
dependence upon man? How far is her state of physical and mental

inferiority the result of this position? To what extent is she justified in her
present revolt? What result will her freedom have on the sexual
relationships? Will the change be likely to work for the benefit of the
future? In a word, how far are the new claims woman is making consistent
with race permanence? It is not one, but a whole group of questions that
have to be answered when once the ideal of the right of the present position
of the sexes is shaken. The subject is so entangled that a straightforward
step-by-step inquiry will not always be possible. Dogmatic conclusions, and
the bringing forward of too hasty remedies must alike be avoided. The past
must lead us to the present, and thence we must look to the future. The first
need is to find out every fact that we can that will help us in our search for
the truth. Most writers on the subject, in their desire to fix on a cause of the
evil, have selected one factor, or group of factors, and largely neglected all
others. Otto Weininger, for instance, the brilliant modern denouncer of
woman, refers the whole great difference between women and men to one
cause—the bondage of sexuality. Mrs. Stetson, in Woman and Economics,
finds a different answer to the same question, and assumes that the whole
evil is of economic origin. Both explanations are in part true, but neither is
the truth.
To institute reform successfully needs a wider spirit. We must face sex
problems with biological and historical knowledge. Before we can
understand women's present position in society, or even suggest a future, we
must examine the place she has filled in the civilisations of the past; we
must fix, too, the part the female half of life has played in the evolution of
the sexes. Yet an inquiry into facts is only the first stage, and not the final.
When we can go on from these facts to their results, and learn the reasons
of what we have discovered, we shall become to some extent, at least,
prepared. Then, and then only, can we venture to look forward and
intelligently suggest whither the present revolution is leading us.
It is to reach this goal that this book is written. It is an attempt to place
the woman question in a wider and more decisive light. It is not an
investigation of facts alone, but of causes. The gospel it would preach is a
gospel of liberation. And that from which woman must be freed is herself—
the unsocial self that has been created by a restricted environment. We have
seen that woman's social inferiority in the past has been to a great extent a
legitimate thing. To all appearances history would have been impossible

without it, just as it would have been impossible without an epoch of
slavery and war. Physical strength has ruled in the past, and woman was the
weaker. The truth is that woman's time had not come, but now her
unconscious evolution must give place to a conscious development.
Happiness for women! That must imply wholly independent activities, and
complete freedom for the exercise of her work of race production. Woman's
duty to society is paramount, she is the guardian of the Race-body and
Race-soul. But woman must be responsible to herself; no longer must she
follow men. The natural growth force needs to be liberated. Woman must be
freed as woman; she must die to arise from death a full human being. There
is no other solution to the woman question, and there can be no other.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "Woman and Labour," The Chances of Death, Vol. I. p. 226.
[2] Quoted from The Emancipation of English Women, by W. Lyon Blease, a
book which gives an unbiased, and in many respects excellent, account of the
struggle of English women to gain freedom from the seventeenth century to the
present day.
[3] Strictures, I. 6, Gregory.
[4] The Emancipation of English Women.
[5] For an account of this struggle see Sketch of the Foundation and
Development of the London School of Medicine for Women, by Isabel Thorne;
also The Emancipation of English Women.
[6] Woman and Economics, Mrs. Stetson, p. 38.
[7] See Thomas, Sex and Society, chapter on "Sex and Primitive Industry," pp.
123-146; and Ellis, Man and Woman, pp. 1-17.

PART I
BIOLOGICAL SECTION

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER II

THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES

Biology the starting-point of sociology—The irresistible force of
Love—The true place of woman and man in the animal
kingdom—Analogy between animal love-matings and our
own—The Life-force—Reproduction a process of nutrition
—Different modes of Reproduction—Cell-division—
Successive stages of growth—Theory of sex—Its nature and
origin—Incipient sex among the early forms of life—The
true office of sex—The principle of fertilisation—Its use to
the species in progressive development—Nutrition as a
factor determining sex—Illustration of the volvox—The
dependence of the male-cell upon the female-cell—The
well-nourished female—The hungry male—Relation
between food supply and the sexes—Illustrations—Lessons
to be learnt—All species are invented and tolerated by
Nature for parenthood and its service—The part played by
the female—The demand laid upon her heavier than that laid
upon the male—The female is mainly responsible for the

race—The female led and the male followed in the evolution
of life.

CHAPTER IIToC

THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES

"Before studying the sexual relations, and their more or less regulated form in
human societies, it will not be out of place to say a few words on reproduction in
general, to sketch briefly its physiology in so far as this is fundamental, and, to
show how tyrannical are the instincts whose formation has been determined by
physiological causes."—Letourneau.

Let us now, as the first path of our inquiry, turn our attention to that
biological point of view which is indispensable and fundamental if we are
to understand those primary emotions, impulses and differences of the
sexes, of deep organic origin, which were rooted long ago in the lowest
forms of life, and hence were passed on to man from his pre-human
ancestors. No apology is needed for this inquiry; for in these uncounted
ancestral forces, dating back to the remote beginnings of life, we shall find
hints, at least, of many things which lead up to and explain those problems
which must be solved, before we can determine the true position of woman
in the complex sexual relations of our social life. We cannot deny our
lineage. The force which drove life onwards from the start drives it still to-
day. The reproductive impulse is the chief motor of humanity; our seed is
eternal. And the point of view that I wish to make clear is that the sex-
impulses, which are, as few will deny, the base of the present unrest among
women, have an inconceivably long history, and thus spring up within us
with a tremendous organic momentum. To deny this force is futile, to
suppress it impossible; all that can be done is to so regulate its expression

that it may serve life instead of waste it. Implanted in every normal life is
an instinctive desire to function in two ways: to grow and to reproduce,
from the simple cell to the highest type of life, including man and woman,
these two desires are essential and imperative. The irresistible Force of Life
has been inherited by us from millions of ancestral lovers. Only when
furnished with a re-interpretative clue to the origin of sex and its
functioning can we come to realise its strength and its beauty, far stronger,
far subtler, than we suspected before. It is the shirking of these life-facts
that has resulted so often in error.
And let no one resent or think useless such an analogy between animal
love-matings and our own. In tracing the evolution of our love-passions
from the sexual relations of other mammals, and back to those of their
ancestors, and to the humbler, though scarcely less beautiful, ancestors of
these, we shall discover what must be considered as essential and should be
lasting, and what is false in the conditions and character of the sexes to-day;
and thereby we shall gain at once warning in what directions to pause, and
new hope to send us forward. We shall learn that there are factors in our
sex-impulses that require to be lived down as out-of-date and no longer
beneficial to the social needs of life. But encouragement will come as,
looking backwards, we learn how the mighty dynamic of sex-love has
evolved in fineness, without losing its intensity, how it is tending to become
more mutual, more beautiful, more lasting. And this gives us new hope to
press forward on that path which woman even now is travelling, wherein
she will be free from the risk of clinging to conditions of the past, which for
so long have dragged her evolution in the mire.
The same force that pushed life into existence tends to increase and
perpetuate it. For when the great Force of Life has once started, the same
movements which constitute that life continue, and give rise to nutrition, the
first of the great faculties, or powers, of life. Then, after this growth has
been carried to a certain point, the organism from the superabundance of
nutrition is furnished with a surplus growing energy, by means of which it
reproduces itself, whence arises the second of the great life faculties. We
thus have the two essential forces of life—the preservative force and the
reproductive force, arising alike from nutrition. Food to assure life and
growth for the individual; reproduction, an extension of the same process,
to ensure the continuance of the species. We thus see the truth of Haeckel's

definition that "reproduction is a nutrition and growth of the organism
beyond its individual mass," or in biological formula, "a discontinuous
growth."[8]
It is well to grasp at once this first conception of reproduction as simply
an extension of nutrition, if we are to free our minds from misconception. It
is a common belief that the original purpose of sex is to ensure
reproduction, whereas fundamentally it is not necessary to propagation at
all. It is perfectly true, of course, that in the majority of animals, and also in
many plants, an individual life begins in the union of two minute elements,
the mother egg-cell and the sperm father-cell. But this is not the earliest
stage, and below these higher forms we find a great world of life
reproducing without this sex-process by simple separation and growth. In
these unicellular organisms reproduction is known as asexual, because there
are no special germ-cells, nor is there anything corresponding to
fertilisation. The most common forms are (1) by division into two; (2) by
budding, a modified form of division; (3) by sporulation, a division into
many units.[9]
It is worth while to wait to learn something of this first stage in the
development of life, for in this way we shall gain a clue as to the origin of
sex and the real purpose it fulfils in the service of reproduction. In the very
simplest forms of unicellular organisms propagation is effected at what is
known as "the limit of growth"; when the cell has attained as much volume
as its surface can adequately supply with food, a simple division of the cell
takes place into two halves or daughter cells, each exactly like the other,
which then become independent and themselves repeat the same rupture
process. But in some slightly more complex cases differences occur
between the two cells into which the organism divides, as in the slipper
animacule, where one-half goes off with the mouth, while the other has
none. In a short time, however, the mouthless half forms a mouth, and each
half grows into a replica of the original. We have here one of the earliest
examples of differentiation. That injured multicellular organisms should be
able by regrowth to repair their loss in an analogous phenomenon; thus an
earth-worm cut by a spade does not necessarily suffer loss, but the head part
grows a tail and the decapitated portion produces a head; sponges, which do
not normally propagate by division, may be cut in pieces and bedded out
successfully; the arms of a star-fish, torn asunder by a fisherman, will

almost always result in several perfect star-fish. Similarly among plants a
cut-off portion may readily give rise to new plants—a potato-tuber is one of
hundreds of instances. This ability to effect complete repair is one of the
powers that life has lost; it persists as high in the scale as reptiles, and a
lizard is able to regrow an amputated leg.
It is certainly not the least interest in studying these early forms that one
is able to trace the analogy they bear with the higher forms. No rigid line
can be drawn between the successive stages of growth. And it should be
borne in mind that, simple as is the life-process in these single-celled
organisms, many of them are highly differentiated and show great
complexity of structure within the narrow limits of their size. Thus among
the protozoa, the basis of all animal life, we find very definite and
interesting modes of behaviour, such as seeking light and avoiding it,
swimming in a spiral, approaching certain substances and retreating from
others; the organisms often, indeed, trying one behaviour after another.[10] If
we realise this it becomes easier to understand how the higher types of life
have developed from these primitive types. Indeed, all the bodies of the
most complex animals—including ourselves—originate as simple cells, and
in the individual history of each of us divide and multiply just as do the
cells which exist independently; only in multicellular organisms each cell
must be regarded as an individual, modified to serve a special purpose, one
cell differentiated to start a lineage of nerve cells, another a lineage of
digestive cells, yet another for the reproduction of the species, and so on,
each group of cells taking on its special use, but the power of division
remaining with the modified cell. Thus a new life is built up—a child
becomes an adult, by multiplication of these differentiated cells, repeating
the original single-cell development.
Budding, the second, and perhaps the most usual mode of asexual
propagation, may be said to mark a further step in the development of the
reproductive process. Here the mother-cell, instead of dividing into two
equal parts and at once rupturing, protrudes a small portion of its substance,
which is separated by a constriction that grows deeper and deeper until the
bulk becomes wholly detached. This small bud then grows until it attains
the size of the parent, when it, in turn, repeats the same process. This mode
of reproduction is common to the great majority of plants. In animal life it
is not confined to single-celled organism, but takes place in certain

multicellulars, such as worms, bryozoans, and ascidians; one very
interesting example being the sea-worm (myrianida) which buds off a
whole chain of individuals.
Nearly allied with budding is the third stage, in which the division is
multiple and rapid within the limited space of the mother-cell. This is
known as spore formation. The cells become detached, and do not further
develop until they have escaped from the parent. They then increase by
division and growth to form independent individuals. This spore
reproduction is found among certain types of vegetation; it also occurs in
the protozoa.
It is probable that these three stages of asexual reproduction are not all
the steps actually taken by Nature in the development of the early life-
process. There must have been intermediate steps, perhaps many such, but
the forms in which they occur either have not persisted, or have not yet
been studied.[11] The feature common to all ordinary forms of asexual
multiplication is that the reproductive process is independent of sex; what
starts the new life is the half, or a liberated portion of the single parent cell.
It will be readily seen that by this process the offspring are identical with
the parent. Life continues, but it continues unchanged. Thus the power of
growth is restricted within extremely narrow limits. Any further
development required a new process. With the life-force pushing in all
directions every possible process would be tried. We are often met with
striking phenomena of adjustments to new conditions, which in some cases,
when found to be advantageous to the organism, persist. There is, in fact,
abundant evidence that Nature in these early days of life was making
experiments. In pursuance of this policy it naturally came about that any
process by which the organism gained increased power of growth had the
greater likelihood of survival. The number of devices in the way of
modification of form and habit to secure advantage is practically infinite;
but there was one principle that was eagerly seized upon at a very early
stage, and, persisting by this law of advantage, was utilised by all
progressive types as an accessory of success. This was the principle of
fertilisation, which arose in this way from what would almost seem the
chance union of two cells, at first alike, but afterwards more and more
highly differentiated, and from whose primordial mating have proceeded by
a natural series of ascending steps all the developed forms of sex.

The ways in which this was brought about we have now to see. But even
at this point it becomes evident that the true office of sex was not the first
need of securing reproduction—that had been done already—rather it was
the improving and perfecting of the single-cell process by introducing
variation through the commingling of the ancestral hereditary elements of
two parents, and, by means of such variations, the production of new and
higher forms of life—in fact, progress by the mighty dynamic of sex.[12]
As we should expect, the passing from the sexless mode of reproduction
to the definite male and female types is not sharply defined or abrupt. Even
among many unicellular organisms the process becomes more elaborate
with distinct specialisation of reproductive elements. In some cases
conjugation is observed, when two individuals coalesce, and each cell and
each nucleus divides into two, and each half unites with the half of the other
to form a new cell. This is asexual, since the uniting cells are exactly
similar, but the effect would seem to be the strengthening of the cells by, as
it were, introducing new blood. In somewhat more complex cases these
cells do not part company when they divide, but remain attached to one
another, and form a kind of commonwealth. Here one can see at once that
some cells in a little group will be less advantageously placed for the
absorption of nourishment than others. By degrees this differentiation of
function brings about differentiation of form, and cells become modified, in
some cases, to a surprising extent, to serve special purposes. The next
advance is when the uniting cells become somewhat different in
themselves. In the early stages this difference appears as one of size; a small
weakly cell, though sometimes propagating by union with a similar cell, in
other cases seeks out a larger and more developed cell, and by uniting with
it in mutual nourishment becomes strong. This may be seen among the
protozoa where we can trace the distinct beginnings of the male and female
elements. A very instructive example is furnished by the case of volvox, a
multicellular vegative organism of very curious habits. The cells at first are
all alike; they are united by protoplasmic bridges and form a colony. In
favourable environmental conditions of abundant nutrition this state of
affairs continues, and the colony increases only by multiplication and
without fertilisation. But when the supply of food is exhausted, or by any
cause is checked, sexual reproduction is resorted to, and this in a way that
illustrates most instructively the differentiation of the female and male cells.
Some of the cells are seen accumulating nourishment at the expense of the

others and grow larger, and if this continues, cells which must be regarded
as ova, or female cells, result; while other cells, less advantageously placed
with more competitors struggling to obtain food, grow smaller and
gradually change their character, becoming, in fact, males. In some cases
distinct colonies may in this way arise, some composed entirely of the large
well-nourished cells, and others of small hungry cells, and may be
recognised as completely female or male colonies.[13]
We are now in a position to gain a clue to the difficult problem of the
origin of the sexes. It would be easy as well as instructive to accumulate
examples.[14] I am tempted to linger over the life-histories of these early
organisms that are so full of suggestion; but the case I have selected—the
volvox—really answers the question. Sex here is dependent on, and would
seem to have arisen through, differences in environmental conditions. We
find the well-nourished, larger, and usually more quiescent cell is the
female, the hungrier and more mobile cell the male; the one concerned with
storing energy, the other with consuming it, the one building up, the other
breaking down; or expressed in biological formula, the female cell is
predominantly anabolic, that of the male predominantly katabolic. Thus we
find that the male, through a want of nutrition, was carried developmentally
away from the well-fed female cell, which it was bound to seek and unite
with to continue life. This relation between the food supply and the sexes is
found persisting in higher forms, and, in this connection, the well-known
experiments of Young on tadpoles and of Siebald on wasps may be cited.
By increasing the nutrition of tadpoles the percentage of females was raised
from the normal of about fifty per cent. to ninety, while similarly among
wasps the number of females was found to depend on warmth and food
supply, and to decrease as these diminished. Mention also may be made of
the plant-lice, or aphides, which infest our rose-bushes and other plants,
which, during the summer months, when conditions are favourable, produce
generation after generation of females, but on the advent of autumn, with its
cold and scarcity of food, males appear and sexual reproduction takes place.
Similarly brine-shrimps when living under favourable conditions produce
females, but when the environment is less favourable males as well are
found. Another significant fact is the simple and well-known one that
within the first eight days of larval life the additions of food will determine
the striking and functional differences between the workers and queen-bee.
[15] Among the higher animals the difficulties of proving the influence of

environment upon sex are, of course, much greater. There are, however,
many facts which point to a persistence of this fundamental differentiation.
Among these it is sufficient to mention the experiments of stock-breeders,
which show that good conditions tend to produce females; and the
testimony of furriers that rich regions yield more furs from females, and
poor regions more from males. Even when we reach the human species
facts are not wanting to suggest a similar condition. It is usual in times of
war and famine for more boys to be born; also more boys are born in the
country than in cities, possibly because the city diet is richer, especially in
meat. Similarly among poor families the percentage of boys is higher than
in well-to-do families. And although such evidence is not conclusive and
must be accepted with great caution, it seems safe to say that the facts—of
which I have given a few only of the most common—are sufficient to
suggest that the relation among the lower forms of life persists up to the
human species, and that the female is the result of surplus nutrition and the
male of scarcity.
This is sufficient for our present purpose; all other questions and theories
brought forward regarding the determination and conditions of the sexes are
outside our purpose. Those who will survey the evidence in detail will find
ample confirmation of the point of view I wish to make clear. (1) All
species are invented and tolerated by Nature for parenthood and its service;
(2) the demands laid upon the female by the part required from her are
heavier than those needed for the part fulfilled by the male. The female it is
who is mainly responsible to the race. And for this reason the progress of
the world of life has always rested upon and been determined by the female
half of life. What I wish to establish now is that the male developed after
and, as it were, from the female. The female led, and the male followed her
in the evolution of life.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Haeckel, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, Vol. II. p. 16.

[9] Thomson, J. Arthur, Heredity, p. 29.
[10] Thomson, J. Arthur, Heredity, p. 33.
[11] Ward, Pure Sociology, p. 307.
[12] See Ward, op. cit., pp. 304-314, from whose chapter on this subject I have
taken these facts.
[13] Evolution of Sex, pp. 137-138, 161.
[14] Geddes and Thomson, in The Evolution of Sex, pp. 117-123, 135-140, give
many interesting and corroborative examples.
[15] Geddes and Thomson, The Evolution of Sex, pp. 40-52, 249-250; give a
complete exposition of this theory with many examples. See also Thomas, Sex
and Society, pp. 4-43.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER III

GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

I.—The Early Position of the Sexes

A further examination into the opinion of the superiority of the
male—Contradictions to the accepted view of female
inferiority—A new way of stating the problem—The female
as the creator of the male—Examples of the simplest types
of the sexes—Predominance of the female in the animal
kingdom below the invertebrates—Superiority of the female
in size and often in power of function—Complemental male
husbands—Illustrations of male parasites—Corroborative
evidence from the sex-elements—The primary service of the
male to assist the female in the race-work—Sex-parasitism

among females—This explained by the conditions under
which the species live—The lessons to be drawn from sex-
parasitism—Structural modifications acquired for adapting
the sexes to different modes of life—Care of offspring not
always confined to the female—Among fishes it is the father
who gives any attention to the young—The superiority of
the female persists among higher forms—Examples—Sex-
equality among birds—Conclusion—The sexual relationship
may assume almost any form to suit the varying conditions
of life.

II.—Two Examples—The Beehive and the Spider

The case of the beehive—The drones—The queen-mother—The
sterile-workers—The sacrifice of the sexes to the Life-Force
—The maternal instinct among the workers—This has
persisted after the atrophy of the sexual needs—Maternal
love has expanded out into social affection—Application of
the lessons of the beehive—Analogy with modern society—
The Intellectuals among women—Do they understand what
they really want—The organic necessity of love—The price
of sterility—The courtship of the Spider—Mr. Bernard
Shaw's Ann—The part played by woman in courtship—Her
passivity only apparent—Female superiority with which
sexuality began remains in every courtship—The fierce
hunger of the male—His absorption by the female—Nothing
can, or should, alter this—The importance of woman's
activity in love in connection with her claim for
emancipation—General observations and conclusion.

CHAPTER IIIToC

GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

"Sexually Woman is Nature's contrivance for perpetuating its highest
achievement. Sexually Man is Woman's contrivance for fulfilling Nature's behest
in the most economical way. She knows by instinct that far back in the evolution
process she invented him, differentiated him, created him in order to produce
something better than the single-cell process can produce."—Don Juan in Hell—
Man and Superman.

I.—The Early Position of the Sexes

The opinion of the superiority of the male sex has been so widely, and
without question, accepted that it is necessary to emphasise the exact
opposite view which was brought forward in the last chapter. From the
earliest times it has been contended that woman is undeveloped man.[16]
This opinion is at the root of the common estimation of woman's character
to-day. Huxley, who was in favour of the emancipation of women, seems to
have held this opinion. He says that "in every excellent character the
average woman is inferior to the average man in the sense of having that
character less in quantity or lower in quality;" and that "the female type of
character is neither better nor worse than the male, only weaker." Few have
maintained that the sexes are equal, still fewer that women excel.[17] The
general bias of opinion has always been in favour of men. Woman almost
invariably has been accorded a secondary place, the male has been held to
be the primary and essential half of life, all things, as it were, centering
around him, while the female, though necessary to the continuance of the
race, has been regarded as otherwise unimportant—in fact, a mere
accessory to the male.
The causes that have given rise to such an opinion are not far to seek. The
question has been approached from the wrong end; we have looked from
above downwards—from the latest stages of life back to the beginning,
instead of from the beginning on to the end. We find among the higher

forms of life—the animals with which we are all familiar—that the males
are as a rule larger and stronger, more varied in structure, and more highly
ornamented and adorned than the females. And when we rise to the human
species these sex differences persist and are even emphasised, though
finding their expression in a greater number of less strongly marked
characters, not on the physical side alone, but on the mental and psychical.
It is difficult to divest the mind of facts with which it is most familiar. Thus
it is easy to understand the widely-held opinion of the superiority of the
male half of life, and that the female is the sex sacrificed to the reproductive
process.
Now, were this true, the question of woman's place in life would indeed
be settled. There can be no upward change which is not in accord with the
laws of Nature. If the female really started and had always remained
secondary to the male, necessary to continue life, but otherwise
unimportant, in such position she must be content to stay. Her struggles for
advancement may be heroic, yet would they be doomed to failure, for no
individual growth can persist which injures the growth of the race-life. Well
it is for women that there need be no such fear, even among the most timid-
hearted; woman's position and advancement is sure because it is founded
with deepest roots in the organic scheme of life.
As once more we search backwards, tracing the differences of sex
function to their earliest appearance in the humblest types of life, we find
the exact opposite of this theory of the inferiority of the female to be true.
The female is of more importance than the male from Nature's point of
view. We have seen that life must be regarded as essentially female, since
there is no choice but to look upon asexual reproduction as a female
process; the single-cell being the mother-cell with the fertilising element of
the father or male-cell wanting. We know further that a similar process, but
much more highly developed, is possible in what is called parthenogenesis,
or virgin-birth, which can only be explained as a survival of the early form.
For long life continued without the assistance of the male-cell, which, when
it did arise, was dependent on the ova, or female-cell, and was driven by
hunger to unite with it in fatigue to continue life. We are thus forced to
regard the male-cell as an auxiliary development of the female, or as Lester
Ward ingenuously puts it, "an after-thought of Nature devised for the
advantage of having a second sex."

Now, if we examine the simplest types of the sexes in the lower reaches
of the animal kingdom,[18] below the vertebrates we find the same
conditions prevailing. The male is frequently inconspicuous in size, of use
only to fertilise the female, and in some cases incapable of any other
function; the female, on the other hand, remains unchanged and carries on
the life of the species. So marked is this difference among some species that
the male must be regarded as a fallen representative of the female, having
not only greatly diminished in size, but undergone thorough degeneration in
structure.[19] In certain extreme cases what have been well called "pigmy
males" illustrate this contrast in an almost ridiculous degree. This is well
seen among the common rotifers, where the males are much smaller than
the females and very degenerate. Sometimes they seem to have dwindled
out of existence altogether, as only females are to be seen; in other cases,
though present they fail even to accomplish their proper function of
fertilisation, and as reproduction is carried on by the females, they are not
only minute but useless. Nor are such cases of male degeneration confined
to this group. The whole family of the Abdominalia (cirripedes) have the
sexes separate; and the males, comparatively very small, are attached to the
body of each female, and are entirely passive and dependent upon her.[20]
Some of these male parasites are so far degenerated as to have lost their
digestive organs and are incapable of any function except fertilisation: the
male Sygami (menatodes), for instance, being so far effaced that it is
nothing but a testicle living on the female.[21] A yet more striking instance is
furnished by the curious green worm Bonellia, where the male appears like
a remote ancestor of the female, on whom it lives parasitically. Somewhat
similar is the cocus insect, among whom the males are very degenerate,
small, blind and wingless.
This phenomenon of minute parasitic male fertilisers in connection with
normally developed females was noticed by Darwin, and his observations
have been confirmed by Van Beneden, by Huxley, Haeckel, Milne Edwards,
Fabre, Patrick Geddes, and many other eminent entomologists.[22] A full
study of these early forms of sexuality should be made by all who wish to
understand the problem of woman; their life-histories furnish prophecies of
many large facts. I wish it were possible for me to bring forward further
examples. It is the difficulty of treating so wide a subject within narrow
limits that so many things that are of interest have to be hurried over and
left out. But there is one delightful case that I cannot refrain from

mentioning. The facts are given in a letter from Darwin to Sir Charles Lyell,
dated September 14, 1849. It is quoted by Professor Lester Ward. This
instance of the sexual relationship among the cirripedes illustrates very
vividly the early superiority of the female.
The letter runs thus—
"The other day I got a curious case of a unisexual, instead of hermaphrodite
cirripede, in which the female had the common cirripedial character, and in two
valves of her shell had two little pockets, in each of which she kept a little
husband; I do not know of any other case in which the female invariably has two
husbands. I have still one other fact, common to several species, namely, that
though they are hermaphrodite, they have small additional, or shall I call them,
complemental males, one specimen, itself hermaphrodite, had no less than seven
of these complemental males attached to it. Truly the schemes and wonders of
Nature are illimitable,"[23]

Here, indeed, is a knock-down blow to the theory of the natural
superiority of the male. These cases we have examined are certainly
extreme, the difference between the sexes is, as we shall see, less marked in
many early types. But the existence of these helpless little husbands serves
to show the true origin of the male. How often he lived parasitically on the
female, his work to aid her in the reproductive process, useful to secure
greater variation than could be had by the single-celled process. In other
words, the male is of use to the life-scheme in assisting the female to
produce progressively fitter forms. She, indeed, created him, his sole
function being her impregnation.
Corroborative evidence appears in the contrast which persists in all the
higher forms between the relatively large female-cell or germ and the
microscopical male-cell or sperm, as also in the absorption of the male
cellule by the female cellule. In the sexual cells there is no character in
which differentiation goes so far as that of size.[24] The female cell is
always much larger than the male; where the former is swollen with the
reserve food, the spermatozoa may be less than a millionth of its volume. In
the human species an ovum is about 3000 times as large as spermatozoa.[25]
The male cellule, differentiated to enable it to reach the female, impregnates
and becomes fused within her cellule, which, unlike hers, preserves its
individuality and continues as the main source of life.
It is true that exceptions occur, sex-parasitism appearing in both sex
forms, and in some cases it is the female who degenerates and becomes

wholly passive and dependent, but this is usually under conditions which
afford in themselves an explanation. Thus, in the troublesome thread-worm
(Heterodera schachtii), which infests the turnip plant, the sexes are at first
alike, then both become parasitic, but the adult male recovers himself, is
agile and like other thread-worms, while the female remains a parasitic
victim without power of function—a mere passive, distended bag of eggs.
Another extreme but well-known example is that of the cochineal insect,
where the female, laden with reserve products in the form of the well-
known pigment, spends much of its life like a mere quiescent gall on the
cactus plant; the male, on the other hand, is active, though short-lived.
Among other insects—such, for example, as certain ticks—a very complete
form of female parasitism prevails; and while the male remains a complex,
highly active, winged creature, the female, fastening itself into the flesh of
some living animal and sucking its blood, has lost wings and all activity and
power of locomotion, having become a mere distended bladder, which,
when filled with eggs, bursts and ends a parasitic existence that has hardly
been life.[26] In many crustaceans, again, the females are parasitic, but this
also is explained by their habit of seeking shelter for egg-laying purposes.
[27]

The whole question of sex-parasitism as it appears in these first pages of
the life-histories of sexes is one of deep suggestion; and one, moreover, that
casts forward sharp side-lights on modern sex problems. In some early
forms, where the conditions of life are similar for the two sexes, the male
and the female are often like one another. Thus it is very difficult to
distinguish a male starfish from a female starfish, or a male sea-urchin from
a female sea-urchin. It becomes abundantly clear that degeneration in active
function, whether it be that of the male or the female, is the inevitable
nemesis of parasitism. The males and females in the cases we have
examined may be said to be martyrs to their respective sexes.
A further truth of the utmost importance becomes manifest. Many
differences between the relative position of the sexes, which we are apt to
suppose are inherent in the female or male, are not inherent, in light of these
early and varying types. We see that the sex-relationship and the character
of the female and male assume different forms, changing as the conditions
of life vary. Again and again when we come to examine the position of
women in different periods of civilisation, we shall find that whenever the

conditions of life have tended to withdraw them from the social activities of
labour, restricting them, like these early sex-victims, to the passive exercise
of their reproductive functions alone, that such parasitism has resulted
invariably in the degeneration of woman, and through her passing on such
deterioration to her sons, there has followed, after a longer or shorter
period, the degeneration of society. But these questions belong to the later
part of our inquiry, and cannot be entered on here. Yet it were well to fix in
our minds at once the dangers, without escape, that follow sex-parasitism.
It may be thought that these cases of sex-victims are exceptions, and that,
therefore, it is unsafe to draw conclusions from them. The truth would
rather seem to be that they are extreme examples of conditions that were
common at one stage of life. There is no doubt that up to the level of the
amphibians female superiority in size, and often in power of function,
prevails.[28] If, for example, we look at insects generally, the males are
smaller than the females, especially in the imago state. There are many
species, belonging to different orders—as, for instance, certain moths and
butterflies—in which this superiority is very marked. The males are either
not provided with any functional organs for eating, or have these
imperfectly developed. It seems evident that their sole function is to fertilise
the female. A familiar and interesting example is furnished by the common
mosquitoes, among whom the female alone, with its harmful sting, is
known to the unscientific world. The males, frail and weaponless little
creatures, swarm with the females in the early summer, and then pass away,
their work being done.
Dr. Howard, writing of the mosquito in America, says—
"It is a well-known fact that the adult male mosquito does not necessarily take
nourishment, and that the adult female does not necessarily rely on the blood of
warm-blooded animals. The mouth parts of the male are so different from those
of the female that it is probable that, if it feeds at all, it obtains its food in quite a
different manner from the female. They are often observed sipping at drops of
water, and in one instance a fondness for molasses has been recorded."[29]

We find many examples of such structural modifications acquired for the
purpose of adapting the sexes to different modes of life. Darwin notes that
the females of certain flies are blood-suckers, whilst the males, living on
flowers, have mouths destitute of mandibles.[30] The females are
carnivorous, the males herbivorous. It would be easy to bring forward many
further examples among the invertebrates in which the differences between

the sexes indicates very clearly the persistence of female superiority. But for
these I must refer the reader to the works of Darwin and other
entomologists, and to the many interesting cases given by Professor Lester
Ward. There are, it is true, exceptions, but these may be explained by the
conditions under which the species live.
Even when we ascend the scale to back-boned animals, cases are not
wanting in which the early superiority in size of the female remains
unaltered. The smallest known vertebrate, Heterandria formosa, has
females very considerably larger than the males.[31] Among fishes the males
are commonly smaller than the females, who are also, as a rule,
considerably more numerous.[32] This is a fact that fishermen are well
aware of. I may mention, as an example, that on one occasion when my
husband and I caught twenty-five trout in a mountain lake in Wales there
were only two males among them. It is curious to find that any care of
offspring that is evident among fishes is usually paternal. This furnishes
another instance of the truth so necessary to learn that the sex-relationships
may assume almost any form to suit the varying conditions of life.
There are some mammals among whom the sexes do not differ
appreciably in size and strength, and very little or not at all, in coloration
and ornament. Such is the case with nearly all the great family of rodents. It
is also the case with the Erinaceidæ, or at least with its typical sub-family of
hedgehogs.[33] Even among birds, where the sex instincts have attained to
their highest and most æsthetic expression, we find some large families—
as, for example, the hawks—in which the female is usually the larger and
finer bird.[34] Thus the adult male of the common sparrow-hawk is much
smaller than the female, the length of the male being 13 ins., wing 7.7 ins.,
and that of the female 15.4 ins., wing 9 ins. The male peregrine, known to
hawkers as the tiercel, is greatly inferior in size to his mate. The merlin, the
osprey, the falcon, the spotted eagle, the golden eagle, the gos-hawk, the
harrier, the buzzard, the eagle-owl, and other species of owls are further
examples where the female bird is larger than the male. Among many of
these families the female birds very closely resemble the males, and where
differences in colour and ornament do occur, they are slight.
A further point of the greatest importance to us requires to be made.
Wherever amongst the birds the sexes are alike the habits of their lives are
also alike. The female as well as the male obtains food, the nest is built

together, and the young are cared for by both parents. These beautiful
examples of sex equality among the birds cannot be regarded as exceptions
that have arisen by chance—a reversal of the usual rule of the sexes; rather
they show the persistence of the earlier relations between the female and the
male carried to a finer development under conditions of life favourable to
the female. I will not here say more upon this subject, as I shall have to
refer to it in greater detail when we come to consider the sexual and familial
habits of birds. I will only add that in their delicacy and devotion to each
other and to their offspring, birds in their unions have advanced to a much
further stage than we have in our marriages. These associations of our
ancestral lovers claim our attentive study.

II.—Two Examples—The Beehive and the Spider

"At its base the love of animals does not differ from that of man."—Darwin.

For vividness of argument I wish in a brief section of this chapter to
make a digression from our main inquiry to bring forward two examples—
extreme cases of the imperious action of the sexual instincts—in which we
see the sexes driven to the performance of their functions under peculiar
conditions. Both occur among the invertebrates. I have left the
consideration of them until now because of the instructive light they throw
upon what we are trying to prove in this first attack on the validity of the
common estimate of the true position of the sexes in Nature. Let us begin
with the familiar case of the bees. As every one knows, these truly
wonderful insects belong to a highly evolved and complex society, which
may be said to represent a very perfected and extreme socialism. In this
society the vast majority of the population—the workers—are sterile
females, and of the drones, or males, only a very few at the most are ever
functional. Reproduction is carried on by the queen-mother. The lesson to
be drawn from the beehive is that such an organisation has evolved a quite
extraordinary sacrifice of the individual members, notably in the
submergence of the personal needs of sex-function, to its wider racial end.
It is from this line of thought that I wish to consider it. We have (1) the
drones, the fussing males, useless except for their one duty of fertilisation,
and this function only a few actively perform; thus, if they become at all

numerous they are killed off by the workers, so that the hives may be rid of
them; (2) the queen, an imprisoned mother, specialised for maternity, her
sole work the laying of the eggs, and incapable of any other function; her
brain and mind of the humblest order, she being unable even to feed and
care for her offspring; (3) the great body of unsexed workers, the busy
sisters, whose duty is to rear the young and carry out all the social activities
of the hive.
What a strange, perplexing life-history! What a sacrifice of the sexes to
each other and to the life-force.[35] It seems probable that these active
workers have even succeeded in getting rid of sexual needs. Yet the
maternal instinct persists in them, and has survived the productive function;
it may, indeed, be said to be enlarged and ennobled, for their affection is not
confined to their own offspring, but goes out to all the young of the
association. In this community one care takes precedence of all others, the
care and rearing of the young. This is the workers' constant occupation; this
is the great duty to which their lives are sacrificed. With them maternal love
has expanded into social affection. The strength of this sentiment is
abundantly proved. The queen-bee, the feeble mother, has the greatest
possible care lavished upon her, and is publicly mourned when she dies. If
through any ill-chance she happens to perish before the performance of her
maternal duties, and then cannot be replaced, the sterile workers evince the
most terrible grief, and in some cases themselves die. It would almost seem
that they value motherhood more for being themselves deprived of it.
Now, how does this history from the bee-hive apply to us? Here you have
before you, old as the world itself, one of the most urgent problems that has
to be faced in our difficult modern society. I have little doubt that something
which is at least analogous to the sterilisation of the female bees is present
among ourselves. The complexity of our social conditions, resulting in the
great disproportion between the number of the sexes, has tended to set aside
a great number of women from the normal expression of their sex functions.
Among these women a class appears to be arising who are turning away
voluntarily from love and motherhood. Many of them are undoubtedly
women of fine character. These "Intellectuals" suggest that women shall
keep themselves free from the duties of maternity and devote their energies
thus conserved, to their own emancipation and for work in the world which
needs them so badly. But the biological objection to any such proposition is

not far to seek. No one who thinks straight can countenance a plan which
thus leaves maternity to the less intellectual woman—to a docile, domestic
type, the parallel of the stupid parasitic queen-bee. Mind counts in the
valuation of offspring as well as physical qualities. The splitting of one sex
into two contrasted varieties, which we see in its completed development in
the bee-hive, cannot be an ideal that can even be worth while for us. It
means an end to all further progress.
There is another group of women who wish to bear children, but who
seem to be anxious to reduce the father to the position of the drone-bee. He
is to have no part in the child after its birth. The duty of caring for it and
bringing it up is to be undertaken by the mother, aided, when necessary, by
the State. This is a terrible injustice against the father and the child. It seems
to me to be the great and insuperable difficulty against any scheme of State
Endowment of Motherhood. I cannot enter into this question now, and will
only state my belief that a child belongs by natural right to both its parents.
The primitive form of the matriarchal family, which we shall study later, is
realised in its most exaggerated form by the bees and ants. In human
societies we find only imitations of this system. And here, again, there is a
lesson necessary for us to remember. Any ideal that takes the father from
the child, and the child from its father, giving it only to the mother, is a step
backward and not forward.
And in case any woman is inclined still to admire the position of the
female worker-bees, so free in labour, being liberated from sexual activity,
it were well to consider the sacrifice at which such freedom is gained. These
workers have highly-developed brains, but most of them die young. Nor
must we forget that each one carries her poisoned sting—no new or strange
weapon, but a transformation of a part of her very organ of maternity—the
ovipositor, or egg-placer, with which the queen-mother lays each egg in its
appointed place.[36]
Do "the Intellectuals" understand what they really want? Those women
who are raising the cry increasingly for individual liberty, without
considering the results which may follow from such a one-sided growth
both to themselves and to the race—let them pause to remember the price
paid by the sterile worker-bee. Is it unfair to suggest that any such shirking
for the gains of personal freedom of their woman's right and need of love
and child-bearing may lead in the psychical sphere to a result similar to the

transformation of the sex-organ of the bee; and that, giving up the power of
life, they will be left the possessor of the stinging weapon of death! Some
such considerations may help women to decide whether it is better to be a
mother or a sterile worker.
The second example I want to consider is that of the common spider,
whose curious courtship customs are described by Darwin.[37] Here we find
the relatively gigantic female seizing and devouring the tiny male fertiliser,
as he seeks to perform the only duty for which he exists. This is a case of
female superiority carried to a savage conclusion. The male in these
courtships often has to risk his life many times, and it seems only to be by
an accident that he ever escapes alive from the embraces of his infuriated
partner. I will give an example, taken from the mantes, or praying insect,
where, though the difference in size between the sexes is much less than
among many spiders, the ferocity of the female is extraordinary. This case is
quoted by Professor Lester Ward,[38] who gives it on the authority of Dr.
L.O. Howard, one of the best-known entomologists—

"A few days since I brought a male or Mantes carolina to a friend who had
been keeping a solitary female as a pet. Placing them in the same jar, the male, in
alarm, endeavoured to escape. In a few minutes the female succeeded in grasping
him. She bit off his left front tarsus and consumed the tibia and femur. Next she
gnawed out his left eye. At this the male seemed to realise his proximity to one
of the opposite sex, and began vain endeavours to mate. The female next ate up
his right front leg, and then entirely decapitated him, devouring his head and
gnawing into his thorax. Not until she had eaten all his thorax, except about three
millimetres did she stop to rest. All this while the male had continued in his vain
attempt to obtain entrance at the valvula, and he now succeeded, and she
voluntarily spread the parts open, and union took place. She remained quiet for
four hours, and the remnant of the male gave occasional signs of life, by a
movement of one of his remaining tarsi for three hours. The next morning she
had entirely rid herself of her spouse, and nothing but his wings remained."

You will think, perhaps, that this extreme case of female ferocity has
little bearing upon our sexual passions. But consider. I have not quoted it, as
is done by Professor Ward, to prove the existence of the superiority of the
female in Nature. No, rather I want to suggest a lesson that may be wrested
by us from these first courtships in the life histories of the sexes. I spoke at
the beginning of this biological section of my book of the warnings that
surely would come as we traced the evolution of our love-passions from
those of our pre-human ancestors. We are too apt to ignore the tremendous
force that the sex-impulse has gathered from its incalculably long history.
As animals exhibit in their love-matings the analogies of the human virtue,
it is not surprising to find the occurrence of parallel vices. Let us look for a
moment at this in the light of the fierce love-contest of the female spider.
Of this habit there are various explanations; the prevalent one regards the
spider as an anomalous exception; the ferocity and superiority of size in the
female not easily to be explained. This is, I think, not so. Is it not rather a
picture, with the details crudely emphasised, of the action of Life-Force of
which the sexes are both the helpless victims? Whether we look backward
to the beginning, where the exhausted male-cell seeks the female in
incipient sexual union, or onwards through the long stages of sex-evolution
to our own love-passions, this is surely true.
Let me try to make this clearer by an example. It would seem but a small
step from the female spider, so ruthlessly eating up her lover, to the type of
woman celebrated by Mr. Bernard Shaw's immortal Ann. I recall a woman
friend saying to me once, "We may not like it, and, of course, we refuse to
own to it, but there is something of Ann in every woman." I need not recall

to you Ann's pursuit of her victim, Tanner, nor his futile efforts to escape.
Here, as so often he has done, Mr. Shaw has presented us in comedy with a
philosophy of life. You believe, perhaps, the fiction, still brought forward
by many who ought to know better, that in love woman is passive and waits
for man to woo her. I think no woman in her heart believes this. She knows,
by instinct, that Nature has unmistakably made her the predominant partner
in all that relates to the perpetuation of the race; she knows this in spite of
all fictions set up by men. Have they done this, as Mr. Shaw suggests, to
protect themselves against a too humiliating aggressiveness of the woman
in following the driving of the Life-Force? This pretence of male
superiority in the sexual relation is so shallow that it is strange how it can
have imposed on any one.
I wish to state here quite definitely what I hold to be true; the condition
of female superiority with which sexuality began has in this connection
persisted. In every case the relation between woman and man is the same—
she is the pursuer, he the pursued and disposed of. Nothing can or should
alter this. The male from the very beginning has been of use from Nature's
point of view by assisting the female to carry on life. It is the fierce hunger
of the male, increasing in strength through the long course of time, which
places him in woman's power. Man is the slave of woman, often when least
he thinks so, and still woman uses her power, even like the spider, not
infrequently, for his undoing.
Here, indeed, is a warning causing us to think. The touch of Nature that
makes the whole world kin is nowhere more manifest than in sex; that
absorption of the male by the female to which life owes its continuation, its
ecstasy, and its pain. It has seemed to me it is here in the primitive relations
of the sexes that we may find the clue to many of those wrongs which
women have suffered at the hands of men. Man, acting instinctively, has
rebelled, not so much, I think, against woman as against this driving hunger
within himself, which forces him helpless into her power. Like the fish that
cannot resist the fly of the fisherman, even when experience has taught him
to fear the hidden barb, he struggles and fights for his life to escape as he
realises too late the net into which his hunger has brought him.
But we may learn more than this; another truth of even deeper
importance to us. It is because of this superiority of the female in the sexual
relationship that women must be granted their claim for emancipation. Here

is the reason stronger than all others. Nature has placed in women's hands
so tremendous a power that the dangers are too great for such power to be
left to the direction of untrained and unemancipated women. Above all it is
necessary that each woman understands her own sexual nature, and also
that of her lover, that she may realise in full knowledge the tremendous
force of sexual-hunger which drives him to her, equalled, as I believe, by
the desire within herself, which claims him to fulfil through her Nature's
great central purpose of continuing the race. To women has been granted
the guardianship of the Life-Force. It is time that each woman asks herself
how she is fulfilling this trust.
It is the possession of this power in the sexual sphere which lends real
importance to even the feeblest attempts of women to prepare themselves to
meet the duties in the new paths that are being opened to them. Women
have now entered into labour. They are claiming freedom to develop
themselves by active participation in that struggle with life and its
conditions whereby men have gained their development. From thousands of
women to-day the cry is rising, "Give us free opportunity, and the training
that will fit us for freedom." Not, as so many have mistakenly thought, that
women may compete with men in a senseless struggle for mastery, but in
order first to learn, and afterwards to perform, that work in society which
they can do better than men. What such work is it must be women's purpose
to find out. But before this is possible to be decided all fields of activity
must be open for them to enter. And this women must claim, not for
themselves chiefly; but because they are the bearers of race-life, and also to
save men from any further misuse of their power. Then working together as
lovers and comrades, women and men may come to understand and direct
those deep-rooted forces of sex, which have for so long driven them
helpless to the wastage of life and love.
I would ask all those who deny this modern claim of women to consider
in all seriousness the two cases I have brought forward—that of the bee-
hives, and even more the destruction by the female spider of her male lover.
That they have their parallel in our society to-day is a fact that few will
deny. I have tried to show the real danger that lurks in every form of sex-
parasitism. It would lead us too far from our purpose to comment in further
detail on the suggestions offered by these curious examples of sex-martyrs

among our earliest ancestral lovers. Those whose eyes are not blinded will
not fail to see.

FOOTNOTES:

[16] So deep-rooted has been this opinion of female inferiority that it has formed
the basis of many theories of sex. Thus Richarz holds that "the male sex
represents a higher grade of development in the embryo." Hough thinks males
are born when the female system is at its best, females in periods of growth,
reparation, or disease. Tiedman and others regard females as an arrested male,
while Velpau, on the other hand, believes them to be degenerated from primitive
males. See Geddes and Thomson, Evolution of Sex, p. 39.
[17] The theory of Lester Ward, to which I have already referred, supports this
view.
[18] I have left out of my inquiry any reference to plants, though all that has
been said of the protozoa in the last chapter is equally true of the protophyta, the
basis of plant life. Among plants there are many beautiful and instructive
examples of the relative position of the female and the male plant. A well-known
case is that of the hemp-plant, where the sexes are indistinguishable up to the
period of fertility, but when the male plants have shed their pollen, and thus
fulfilled their duty of fertilising the female plants, they cease to grow, turn
yellow and sere, and if at all crowded wither and die. Many other examples
might be cited, but the question is too wide to enter on here. See Lester Ward, op.
cit., pp. 318-322.
[19] Encyclopædia Britannica, article on "Sex," by Prof. Geddes; also Evolution
of Sex, pp. 20, 21. Prof. Lester Ward, Pure Sociology, Part II, Chap. XIV, gives
an ingenuous and complete view of the early superiority of the female, to which
he gives the name of the Gynæcocentric theory, as opposed to the usual
Androcentric theory, based on the superiority of the male. While fully
appreciating the suggestiveness and value of this theory, and also acknowledging
very gratefully the help I have derived from it, it must be stated that some of the
facts brought forward in its support by the distinguished American cannot be
accepted. Nor am I able, as will appear later, to accept the conclusion he arrives
at of the passive character of the female. See also a popular article by Prof. Ward,
"Our Better Halves", The Forum, Vol. VI., Nov. 1888, pp. 266-275.
[20] Van Beneden, Animal Parasites and Messmates, p. 55.
[21] Milne Edwards, Leçons sur la physiologie et l'anatomie comparée de
l'homme et des animaux, Vol. IX. p. 267.
[22] In addition to the works already mentioned, see Darwin, Descent of Man,
Vol. I. p. 329; Haeckel, Evolution of Man, and A Manual of the Anatomy of the

Invertebrated Animals, by T. Huxley, pp. 261-262.
[23] Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I. p. 345.
[24] Thomson, J.A., Heredity, p. 39.
[25] Article by Ryder, Science, Vol. I., May 31, 1895, p. 603.
[26] Schreiner, Olive, Woman and Labour, pp. 77-78.
[27] These examples of female parasitism have been taken from Evolution of
Sex, p. 17; see also pp. 19-22. The authors bring them forward with many other
examples to prove the main thesis of their book—that the character of the female
is anabolic, that of the male katabolic. In establishing this theory they do not
appear to give sufficient importance to the fact that this degeneration of the
female is only found where the conditions of life are parasitic.
[28] Evolution of Sex, p. 21; Pure Sociology, pp. 316-317.
[29] "Notes on the Mosquitoes of the United States," by L.O. Howard, Bulletin
No. 25, New Series, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology,
1900, p. 12. Quoted by Lester Ward, Pure Sociology, p. 317.
[30] Descent of Man, p. 208.
[31] Science, Vol. XV., Jan. 1902, p. 30.
[32] Fulton, Naturalist to the Scottish Fishery Board. Cited in Evolution of Sex,
p. 22; see also pp. 25, 272, 295.
[33] Pure Sociology, pp. 317, 318.
[34] Birds of Britain, by J. Lewis Bonhote, p. 208; also pp. 190-221.
[35] A similar condition will be found in the even more complex societary forms
of ant-hills. Among the vast population of the ants all the workers and soldiers
are arrested in their sexual development, remaining, as it were, permanent
children of both sexes. It seems probable that this explains the limit that has been
reached in the evolution of these wonderful creatures, which in certain directions
have attained to an extraordinary development, and have then become curiously
and immovably arrested. See Problems of Sex, by J.A. Thomson and Prof.
Patrick Geddes, p. 24; Mind in Animals, by Büchner, p. 60; and Woman and
Labour, by Olive Schreiner, p. 78.
[36] Problems of Sex, p. 34. I would recommend this admirable little book to all
students.
[37] Descent of Man, Vol. I. p. 329.
[38] Pure Sociology, p. 316; Science, Vol. VIII., Oct. 1886, p. 326. Letter by Dr.
L.O. Howard.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER IV

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES

Summary of conclusions arrived at in the previous chapters—The
necessity of a further examination of sexual love among our
pre-human ancestors—The question approached from a
different point of view—The impelling motive of love the
union of two cells—Hermaphroditism—Its various forms—
The first step in the ladder of sex—Reproduction among
fishes—The next step—The attraction of one sex for the
other—The female and the male begin to associate in pairs
—Illustration of the salmon—Sexual differences become
more frequent—The males distinguished by bright colours
and ornamental appendages—Sexual passion and jealous
combats of rival males—Examples—A further step—The
note of physical fondness—The male plays with the female,
wooing and caressing her—The love play often
extraordinary—The case of the stickleback—The males,
passionate, polygamous, and jealous—The paternal instinct
of the stickleback—Nature making experiments in
parenthood—Parental forethought among insects—
Illustrations of male parental care—The obstetric frog—
Further examples of primitive animal courtships—A psychic
attraction added to the physical—The courtship of the
octopus—A final step—The co-operation of the sexes in
work together—The dung-rolling beetle—The significance
of these early courtships—Analogy with our sex-passions—
The love-process identical throughout the whole of life.

CHAPTER IVToC

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES

"Great effects are everywhere produced in animated Nature, by minute
causes.... Think of how many curious phenomena sexual relation gives rise to in
animal life; think of the results of love in human life; now all this had for its
raison d'être the union of two cellules.... There is no organic act which
approaches this one in power and force of differentiation."—Haeckel.

What is the practical outcome to us of this early relation of the sexes in
Nature's scheme?
In attempting to answer this question it will be necessary to take an
apparently circuitous route, going back over some of the ground that
already has been covered; to examine in further detail the process of sexual
love as it presents itself among our pre-human ancestors. It is well worth
while to do this. If we can find in this way an answer, we shall come very
near to solving many of the most difficult of woman's problems. At the
same time we shall have made clear how deep-rooted are the foundations of
those passions of sex which agitate the human heart, and are still the most
powerful force amongst us to-day.
In the light of the facts I have briefly summarised, we have been able in
the former chapters to indicate how sexuality began, with the male element
developed from the primary female organism, his sole function being her
impregnation; how this was seized upon and continued through the
advantage gained by the mixing of the two germ-plasms, which, on the
whole, resembling one another somewhat closely, yet differ in details, and
thus introduce new opportunities of progress into the life-elements; and
how, in this way, differentiation of function between the male and the
female was set up. We saw, further, how the development of the male, at
first often living parasitically upon the female, continued; but how, under
certain conditions of life, such parasitism was transferred to the female, so
that it is she who is sacrificed to the sex function; and, lastly, taking the
extreme cases of the bee-hive and the spider, we suggested certain warnings

to be drawn from these early parasitic relations between the sexes. It is
necessary now to penetrate deeper; to trace more fully the evolution of the
sexual passion, which, from this line of thought, may be said to be the
process which carried on the development and modification of the male,
creating him—as surely we may believe—by the love-choice of the female.
To do this we have once more to return to the consideration, under a
somewhat new aspect, of the relative position of the female and the male in
their love-courtships in some examples among the humbler types of animal
life. After these have been considered, not only in themselves, but in the
relation they bear to the higher forms which developed from them, we shall
be in a surer position to re-ascend the ladder of life. We shall come to
understand the biological significance of love—something of the
complexity and beauty and force of the passions that we have inherited. We
shall find also the causes, so important to us, which led to the reversal of the
early superiority of the female in size and often in function, replacing it by
the superiority of the male. Then, and then only, shall we be ready to
approach the difficult problems of the sexual differences which have
persisted, separating women from men among human races, and to estimate
if these differences are to be considered as belonging essentially to the
female and the male, or whether they have arisen through special
environmental causes.
If we look back anew to the very start of sexuality, where two cells flow
together, thereby to continue life, we find the very simplest expression of
the sex-appetite. There is what may be called instinctive physical attraction,
and the whole process is very much a satisfaction of protoplasmic hunger.
[39] Now it was, of course, a long step from this incipient cell-union to the
varied function of sex in animal life, and it was a long process from these to
the yet more complex manifestation of the love-passion among men. But in
reality the source of all love is the same; throughout the entire relations of
the sexes we find this cell-hunger instinct; in every case, it matters not how
fine and ennobling the love may be, the single, original, impelling motive is
the union of two cells—the male element and the female driven to seek one
another to continue life. I find it necessary to insist on this physical basis of
all love. Women are so apt to go astray. It is one of the vicious tendencies of
the female mind to think that the needs of sex are something to be resisted.
Let us face the truth that this great force of love has its roots fastened in
cell-hunger, and it dies when its roots are cut away.

It is evident that at first this sex-appetite cannot have been purposive, but
acted subconsciously by a kind of interaction between the want of the
organism and its power of function. Even in many complex multicellular
organisms the liberation of the sex-elements continues very passive; and
although the differentiation of the sexual-cells is already complete in plants
and animals comparatively low in the scale, it at first makes little difference
in the development of the other parts of the individual. Among many lower
animals, and most plants, each individual develops within itself both kinds
of cells—that is, female and male. This union of the two sex functions in
one organism is known as hermaphroditism. There is little doubt that it was
once common to all organisms, an intermediate stage in the sex-progress,
after the differentiation of the sexes had been accomplished.
Hermaphroditism must be regarded as a temporary or transitional form.
[40] It is found persisting in various degrees in many species—snails, earth-
worms, and leeches, for example, can act alternately as what we call male
and female. Other animals are hermaphrodite in their young stages, though
the sexes are separate in adult life, as, for example, tadpoles, where the
bisexuality of youth sometimes linger into adult life. Cases of partial
hermaphroditism are very common, while in many species which are
normally unisexual, a casual or abnormal hermaphroditism occurs—this
may be seen in the common frog, and is frequent among certain fishes,
when sometimes the fish is male on one side and female on the other, or
male anteriorly and female posteriorly.[41]
There would seem to be a constant tendency to escape from these early
and experimental methods of reproduction, and to secure true sexual union,
with complete separation of the sexes and differences in the parents. We
have noticed the many instances of tiny complemental males, in connection
with hermaphrodite forms, which, as Darwin states, must have arisen from
the advantage ensuring cross-fertilisation in the females who harbour them.
Even among hermaphrodite slugs we find very definite evidence of the
advance of love; and in certain species an elaborate process of courtship,
taking the form of slow and beautiful movements, precedes the act of
reproduction.[42] Some snails, again, are provided with a special organ, a
slightly twisted limy dart, which is used to stimulate sexual excitement.[43]
What do such marvellous manifestations, low down in the ladder of life, go

to prove, if not that there must be the closest identity between the
development of life and the evolution of love?
These examples of hermaphrodite love lead us forward to a further step,
where no reproduction takes place without the special activity and
conjugation of two kinds of specialised cells, and these two kinds are
carried about by separate individuals. In some species—fishes, for example
—the two kinds of special cells meet outside the bodies of the parents. At
this humble level the sexes are in many cases very like one another, and
there is, as we should expect, a good deal of haphazard in the production of
offspring. Among fishes, for instance, the eggs and sperms are liberated into
the sea, or the shallow bed of a river, and, if the sperms (the milt of the
males) are placed near to the spot where the eggs (the spawn) have been
laid, fertilisation occurs, for within a short distance the sperms are attracted
—in a way that is imperfectly understood—to enter the eggs. By this
method there is of necessity great waste in the production of offspring,
many thousands of eggs are never fertilised. The union of the sexual cells
must be something more than haphazard for further development. There
must be some reason inherent in the female or male inducing to the act of
reproduction. In other words, there must be a psychic interest preceding the
sex act. In this way a higher grade is reached when the presence of one sex
attracts the other. Gradually the female and the male begin to associate in
pairs.
We may illustrate this important step in the evolution of love by reference
to the familiar case of the salmon. The male courts the female and is her
attendant during the breeding season, fertilising the deposited ova in her
presence. He guards her from the attention of all other males, fighting all
rivals fiercely, with a special weapon, developed at this time, in the form of
a hooked lower jaw with teeth often more than half-an-inch long. Darwin
records a case, told to him by a river-keeper, where he found three hundred
dead male salmon, all killed through battle.[44] Thus even among cold-
blooded fishes (though it may appear folly to use the word "love" in this
connection) a very clear likeness with our human sex-passions can be
traced.
Sex differences now become more frequent. The males are in some cases
distinguished by bright colours and ornamental appendages. During their
amours and duels certain male fishes flash with beautiful and glowing

colours. Reptiles exhibit the same form of sexual-passion, and jealous
combat of rival males. The rattle of certain snakes is supposed to act as a
love-call. Snakes of different sexes appear to feel some affection for each
other when confined together in cages. Romanes relates the interesting fact
that when a cobra is killed, its mate is often found on the spot a day or two
afterwards. Darwin cites an instance of the pairing in spring of a Chinese
species of lizard, where the couples appear to have considerable fondness
for one another. If one is captured, the other drops from the tree to the
ground and allows itself to be caught, presumably from despair.[45]
A further development is reached by those animals among whom what
has well been called "the note of physical fondness" is first sounded. We
find the males playing with the female, wooing and caressing her, it may be
dancing with her. The love-play is often extraordinary,[46] as, for instance,
in the well-known case of the stickleback. Not only does the male woo the
female with passionate dances, but by means of its own secretions it builds
a nest in the river weeds. The males at this season are transformed, glowing
with brilliant colours, and literally putting on a wedding garment of love.
The stickleback is passionate, polygamous and very jealous of rivals. His
guardianship of the nest and vigilance in protecting the young cannot be
observed without admiration.
It is certainly significant to find one of the earliest instances of genuine
parental affection exhibited by the male. This reversal of the usual rôle of
the sexes is common among fishes, among whom care of offspring is very
little developed. In some species the eggs are carried about by the father—
the male sea-horse, for instance, has a pouch developed for this purpose; in
other cases the male incubates, or cares for the ova. Sometimes, however, it
is the female who performs this duty, but the known cases are few.[47] Some
exceedingly curious examples of male parental care occur among the
amphibians. One of the most interesting is that of the obstetric frog, where
the male helps to remove the eggs from the female, then twists them in the
coils around its hind legs and buries himself in the water, until the
incubation period is over and the tadpoles escape and relieve him of his
burden. In other species the croaking sacs of the males, which were
previously used for amatory callings, become enlarged to form cradles for
the young. There are also instances of the female co-operating with the
male in this care of offspring. Thus in the Surinam toad the male spreads

the ova on the back of the female, where skin cavities form in which the
tadpoles develop. In other cases the eggs are carried in the dorsal pouches
of the females. It would almost seem that in this early time Nature was
making experiments as to which parent was the better fitted to rear and
protect the young!
But let us return to our present examination of animal love-making. In
many diverse forms there is a very remarkable courtship of touch, often
prolonged and with beautiful refinements, before the climax is reached,
when the two bodies unite. Racovitza[48] has beautifully described the
courtship of the octopus, which is carried out with considerable delicacy,
and not brutally as before had been believed.
"The male gently stretches out his third arm on the right and caresses the
female with its extremity, eventually passing it into the chamber formed by the
mantle. The female contracts spasmodically, but does not attempt to move. They
remain thus about an hour or more, and during this time the male shifts his arm
from one viaduct to the other. Finally, he withdraws his arm, caresses her with it
for a few moments, and then replaces it with his other arm."

The various phenomena of primitive animal courtship may be illustrated
further by the love-parades of butterflies and moths, the love-gambols of
certain newts, the amatory serenading of frogs, the fragrant incense of
reptiles, the love-lights of glow-worms, the duels of many male beetles and
other insects, many of whom have special weapons for fighting with their
rivals. Among insects the sexes commonly associate in pairs, and it seems
certain there is some psychic attraction added to the primitive tactile
courtship. In some cases the association of the sexes is maintained for a
lengthened period, with many hints of what must be regarded as love. There
are many examples also of parental forethought, amounting sometimes to a
sort of divining pre-science, as the habit of certain insects in preparing and
leaving a special nourishment, different from their own food, for the
sustenance of the future larvæ. We even find instances of co-operation of
the sexes in work together, affording a first hint of this linking-force to the
development of love in its later and full expression. Such are the activities
of the dung-rolling beetle, where the two sexes assist each other in their
curious occupation. The male and female of another order of beetle (Lethrus
cephalotes) inhabit the same cavity, and the virtuous matron is said greatly
to resent the intrusion of another male.[49]

In insects, as in the higher animals, and as in man, sexual association
takes many different forms. But obviously I must not linger over these early
types of love. My object is to bring forward examples, which seem to me
useful as preliminary studies to throw light on the origin of sex-passion, and
proving that the love-process throughout the whole of life is identical.
Those who are acquainted with the work of Fabre, "The Insects' Homer,"
will have no difficulty in accepting this. The studies he has given us of
wonderful behaviour of insects, their arts and crafts, their courtships and
marriages, their domestic and social relationships, opens up a new drama of
animal life.

FOOTNOTES:

[39] Evolution of Sex, p. 265.
[40] There are some who believe that the higher animals pass through a state of
embryonic hermaphroditism, but decisive proof of this is wanting. In this
connection the structural resemblance of the male and female sexual organs
should be noticed; in each sex there is a complete but rudimentary set of parallels
to the organs of the other sex. This primitive and fundamental unity of the male
and female sex organs is very significant. Indeed, the whole question of
hermaphroditism is one of deep suggestion when these embryological facts are
brought into relation with the abnormalities which occur in the expression of the
sexual impulses. See Evolution of Sex, chapter on "Hermaphroditism," pp. 65-80;
also Bloch, Sexual Life of Our Times, pp. 11-12, 551-554. Wieninger's Sex and
Character, pp. 6, 7, 13, 45, is also interesting.
[41] A similar condition has been noted among butterflies, where, in some cases,
differences in the colouring of the wings on two sides has been found to
correspond to an internal co-existence of the male and female sex-organs. It
seems probable that this interesting phenomenon of abnormal hermaphroditism
is of much commoner occurrence than the cases that have been recorded
(Evolution of Sex, p. 67).
[42] "The Love of Slugs," article by James Bladon, Zoologist, Vol. XV., 1857, p.
6272.
[43] "Molluscs," article by Rev. L.H. Cooke, Cambridge Natural History, Vol.
III. p. 143. Both these cases are quoted by Havelock Ellis in his illuminative
"Analysis of the Sexual Impulse," the opening chapters in the third volume of the
Studies in the Psychology of Sex.

[44] Trout also fight during the breeding season. Chapters on Human Love, by
Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), pp. 13-14.
[45] Evolution of Sex, pp. 625-626. Chapters on Human Love, p. 14.
[46] Problems of Sex, by J.A. Thomson and Prof. Patrick Geddes, p. 20.
[47] Evolution of Sex, pp. 270-272, 295.
[48] Natural Science, Nov. 1894, quoted by Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex,
Vol. III. p. 30.
[49] Evolution of Sex, p. 265.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER V

COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

I.—Among the Birds and Mammals

Courtship and marriage among birds and mammals—Every form
of association similar to human marriage—A high standard
of love-morality among birds—Monogamy, polygamy, and
polyandry—Cases of absolute profligate promiscuity—
Suggestions of all the sexual sins of humanity—The
phenomena of courtship—The law of battle—Battles of
mammals and male gallinaceæ—The frenzy of love—Where
supremacy in love is gained by force the males become
stronger and better armed than the females—Importance of
this—Gentler ways of wooing—Æsthetic seductions—
Courteous duels—The note of joy in love among birds—
Affectionate partnerships lasting for life—Frequency of
monogamy among birds—Co-operation of both sexes in

forming the home and caring for the young—The amatory
dances of birds—Significance of dancing—Numerous
illustrations—The use of song and decorative plumage—
Musical seduction—Æsthetic constructions—The
extraordinary power of sex-hunger—General propositions.

II.—Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage and the Family among
Birds

Darwin's theory of sexual-selection—Objections to this by
Wallace and others—An explanation—The true object of
courtship—The sexual passion the origin of social growth—
A rough outline of society already established in the animal
kingdom—The maternal and the paternal family—The
former the most frequent—The importance of the female—
Difference between the secondary sexual characters of the
male and the female—Doubt of the accepted view—Need
for a further examination—Cases among birds in which the
female equals or even exceeds the male in size and strength
—Beauty tests of brilliant plumage—Numerous examples of
almost identical likeness between the sexes—This similarity
in plumage occurs in some of the most brilliant of our birds
—The interesting case of the phalaropes where the rôle of
the sexes is reversed—These facts point to an error in the
accepted opinion as to the secondary sexual characters—
Sexual adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary and
exclusive adjunct of the male—Prof. Lester Ward's
Gynæocratic theory—Male efflorescence—Among the
species in which male differentiation has gone farthest the
males are bad fathers—Examples to prove this—The fathers
devoid of affection belong to the less intelligent species—
The conclusion—An extravagant growth of the secondary
sexual characters not favourable to the highest development
of the species—The most oppressed females the most
faithful wives—The highest development in the beautiful
cases in which the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity

and co-operate together in the race-work—Individual
fancies of females—The case of a female wild duck—Desire
for sexual variety—Conjugal fidelity modified by the
conditions of life—Civilisation depraves birds—General
observations—Love the great creative force.

CHAPTER VToC

COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

I.—Among the Birds and Mammals

"The principle of 'divergence of character' pervades all nature, from the lowest
groups to the highest, as may be well seen in the class of birds."—Wallace.

A great step in advance is taken when we come to study the courtship and
sexual relationships of birds and mammals. There are many examples, in
particular among birds, of a beautiful and high standard of love-morality. To
the physical fondness of the sexes for one another there is now added a
wealth of what must be recognised as psychical attraction, which finds its
expression in many diverse ways. We shall find all forms of sexual
association, very similar to marriage in the human species. There are
temporary unions formed for the purpose of procreation, after which the
partners separate and cease to care for one another. Polygamy is frequent,
polyandry also occurs, and there are many cases of absolute profligate
promiscuity. We shall, indeed, find the suggestion of all the sexual sins of
humanity, every form of coquetry, of love-battles, jealousy and the like.
There are as well many examples of monogamic unions lasting for the lives

of the partners. This is especially the case with birds. Among the higher
mammals polygamy is most common, but permanent unions are formed,
especially among the anthropoid apes. Thus strictly monogamous marriages
are frequent among gorillas and orang-utans, the young sometimes
remaining with their parents to the age of six years, while any approach to
loose behaviour on the part of the wife is severely punished by the husband.
[50] We find both the matriarchate and patriarchate family; and we may
observe the greatest difference in the conduct of the parents in their care of
offspring. Even a rapid examination of these customs is worth while, for
they cast forward many suggestions on our sexual, domestic, and social
relationships.
Let us take first the phenomena of courtship.
It is possible to give only the briefest outline of this fascinating subject.
We will begin with the law-of-battle. Courtship without combat is rare
among mammals; it is less common in many species of birds. Special
offensive and defensive weapons for use in these love-fights are found;
such are the larger canine teeth of many male mammals, the antlers of stags,
the tusks of elephants, the horns of antelopes, goats, oxen and other
animals, while among birds the spurs of the cock and allied species are
examples of sexual weapons.[51]
"The season of love is the season of battle," says Darwin. To those who
understand love there will be no cause of surprise in these procreative
explosions. There can be no doubt that such combats are a stimulus to
mutual sexual excitement in the males who take part in them and the female
who watches them. Throughout Nature love only reaches its goal after
tremendous expenditure of energy. Courtship is the prelude to love. The
question is—what form it shall take? It is this that even yet we have not
decided. But the importance of courtship cannot be overlooked. We must
regard it as the servant of the Life-force. In the fine saying of Professor
Lloyd Morgan,[52] "the purpose of courtship reveals itself as the strong and
steady bending of the bow, that the arrow may find its mark in a biological
end of the highest importance in the survival of a healthy and vigorous
race."
Even the most timid animals will fight desperately under the stimulus of
sex-passion. Hares and moles battle to the death in some cases; squirrels

and beavers wound each other severely. Seals grapple with tooth and claw;
bulls, deer and stallions have violent encounters, and goats use their curved
horns with deadly effect.[53] The elephant, pacific by nature, assumes a
terrible fury in the rutting season. Thus, the Sanskrit poems frequently use
the simile of the elephant goaded by love to express the highest degree of
strength, nobility, grandeur and even beauty.[54] It is hardly necessary to
point out that in these love-conflicts we may find the sources of our own
brute passions of jealousy, and the origin of duels, murders and all the
violent crimes committed by men under the excitement of sexual emotion—
the tares among the wheat of love that drive men mad and wild.
In birds it is among the gallinaceæ that love incites the male with warlike
fury. The barn-door cock is the type of the jealous male—amorous, vain and
courageous.[55] It must be noted that wheresoever supremacy in love is
obtained by force the male has necessarily become, through the action of
selection, stronger and better armed than the female. Among birds, where
the law of battle largely gives place to a gentler wooing, there are many
species in which the female is larger and stronger than the male, and a much
greater number where there is no appreciable difference between the sexes.
These prove what we have already established among the invertebrates, that
there is no necessary correlation between weakness and the female sex. But
to this question, so important in its bearing on the relative position of the
sexes, I shall return later.
The acquisition of mates does not depend entirely upon strength and
victory in battle. Many male mammals have crests and tufts of hair, and
other marks of beauty, such as bright colouring, are often conspicuous.
These are used to attract the females. The incense of odoriferous glands,
which become specially functional during the breeding season, are another
frequent means of sexual attraction.[56] Even many of the amatory duels are
not really fights between rivals. They are rather parades, or tournaments,
used by the males as a means of displaying their beauty and valour to the
females. This is frequent among the contests of birds, as, for instance, the
grouse of Florida (Tetras cuspido), which are said to assemble at night to
fight until morning with measured grace, and then to separate, having first
exchanged formal courtesies.[57]
It is among birds that the notes of joy in love break out with a wonderful
fascination. They are the most perfect of lovers; strength is often quite set

aside, and the eye and ear of the mate alone is appealed to. The males (and
also, in some cases, the females) use many æsthetic appeals to stimulate
passion, such as dancing, beauty of plumage, and the art of showing it, as
well as sweetness of song and diverse love-calls. There are numerous
examples of affectionate partnerships between the sexes, in some cases
lasting for life. The female Illinois parrot, for instance, rarely survives the
death of her mate. Similarly the death of either sex of the panurus is said to
be fatal to its companion. The affection of these birds is strong; they always
perch side by side, and when they fall asleep one of them, usually the male,
covers the other with its wing. The couples of the golden woodpeckers and
doves live in perfect unison. Brehm records the case of a male woodpecker
who, after the death of his mate, tapped day and night with his beak to
recall the absent one, and when at last discouraged, he became silent and
never recovered his gaiety.[58] According to some estimates monogamy
prevails among ninety per cent of birds.[59] This is explained by the steady
co-operation of both sexes in forming the home and caring for the young,
for it is surely the working together which causes their love to outlast the
excitement of the procreative season. Sometimes we find this affection
flowing out into a wider altruism, extending beyond the family to the social
group; which again is surely at once the condition and result of these
beautiful and practical love-partnerships.
Those who have read the absorbing pages of Darwin devoted to the
consideration of the sexual characters of birds, or know the examples given
by Büchner, Audubon, Epinas, Wallace and other naturalists, or, better still,
those who have watched and noted for themselves the love-habits of birds,
will find it impossible to withhold admiration for the poetic character of
many of these courtships and marriages, which put too often our own
human matings to utter shame.
Let us look first at the love-dances. Dancing as a means of attracting the
right pitch of passion in the male and the female has always been used in
the service of the sexual instinct. It gives the highest and most complex
expression of movement, and may be said to have been evolved by love
from the more brutal courtships of battle display.[60] The characteristic
features of the amatory dances of birds are well known; they may be
witnessed frequently during the pairing season. The male blackbird, for
instance, is full of action as he woos his mate; he flirts his tail, spreads his

glossy wings, hops and turns; chases the hen, and all the time chuckles with
delight. Similar antics are performed by the whitethroat. The male redwing,
again, struts about before his female, sweeping the ground with his tail, and
acting the dandy.[61] The crested duck raises his head gracefully, straightens
his silky aigrette, struts and bows to his female, while his throat swells and
he utters a sort of guttural note.[62] The common shield duck, geese, wood-
pigeons, carrion-vultures, and many other birds have been observed to
dance, spread their tails, chase one another, and perform many strange
courting parades. A careful observer of birds, Mr. E. Selous, who is quoted
by Havelock Ellis,[63] has found that all bird dances are not nuptial, but that
some birds—the stone-curlew (or great plover), for example—have
different kinds of dancing. The nuptial dances are taken part in by both the
male and female, and are immediately followed by conjugation; but there
are as well other dances or antics of a non-sexual character, which may be
regarded as social, and these too are indulged in by both sexes.
The love-fights of swallows, linnets and kingfishers, and the curious
aerial evolution of the swift are similar manifestations of vigour and delight
in movement[64] as a sexual excitant to pairing. Some male doves have a
remarkable habit of driving the hen for a few days before she lays the eggs.
On these occasions his whole time is spent in keeping her on the move, and
he never allows her to settle or rest for a minute except on the nest.[65]
This last case affords a striking illustration of the real object of all these
elaborate movements. The male albatross, an ugly and dull-coloured bird,
[66] during courtship stands by the female on the nest, raises his wings,
spreads his tail, throws up his head with the bill in the air, or stretches it
straight out or forwards as far as he can, and then utters a curious cry.[67]
But the most interesting example that I have been able to find recorded of
dancing among birds is the habit of waltzing, common to the male, and in a
lesser degree to the female ostrich. It is thus described by S. Cronwright
Schreiner.[68]
"After running a few yards they (the ostriches) will stop, and with raised
wings spin round rapidly for some time until quite giddy, when a broken leg
occasionally occurs.... Vigorous cocks 'roll' when challenging to fight or when
wooing a hen. The cock will suddenly bump down on his knees (ankle joints),
open his wings, and then swing them alternately backwards and forwards as if on
a pivot. At such a time the bird sees very imperfectly, if at all, in fact he seems so
preoccupied that if pursued one may often approach unnoticed. Just before
'rolling,' a cock, especially if courting a hen, will often run slowly and daintily on

the points of his toes, with neck slightly inflated, upright and erect, the tail half
dropped and all his body feathers fluffed up; the wings raised and expanded, the
inside edges touching the sides of the neck for nearly the whole length, and the
plumes showing separately like an open fan. In no other attitude is the splendid
beauty of his plumage displayed to such advantage."

In this case it is very suggestive to find that it is the male ostrich who
takes upon himself the task of hatching and rearing the young. Perhaps this
accounts for the female ostrich being able to dance as well as the male.
There are very few examples of birds who are bad fathers. Often the male
rivals the female in love for the young; he is in constant attendance in the
vicinity of the nest; he guards, feeds and sings to the female, and sometimes
shares with her the duty of incubation. This is done by the male wood-
pigeon, missel-thrush, blue martin, the buzzard, stone-curlew, curlew,
dottrel, the sandpiper, common gull, black-coated gull, kittiwake, razorbill,
puffin, storm-petrel, the great blue heron and the black vulture. Among
these birds it is usual for the family duties to be performed quite
irrespective of sex, and the parent who is free takes the task of feeding the
one who is occupied. As soon as one family is reared many birds at once
burden themselves with another. Audubon records the case of the blue bird
of America, who works so zealously that two or three broods are reared at
the same time, the female sitting on one clutch, while the male feeds the
young of the preceding brood.[69]
Next in importance to dancing and movement in the aid of courtship
among birds is their use of song and display of decorative plumage. With
them it would seem, even more than among the mammals or with man,
sexual desire raises and intensifies all the faculties, and lifts the individual
above the normal level of life. The act of singing is a pleasurable one, an
expression of superabundant energy and joyous excitement. Thus love-
songs, serving first probably as a call of recognition from the male to the
female, came to be used as a means of seduction. Every one is familiar with
the exquisite lyrical tournaments of our nightingales; their songs during the
love season do not cease by day or by night, so that one wonders when
sleep can be taken; but as soon as the young are hatched the music ceases,
and harsh croaks are the only sound left.[70] The song of the skylark, with
its splendid note of freedom, is more melodious and more frequent in the
season of love's delirium.[71] Another bird, the male of the weaver bird,
builds an abode of pleasure for himself, wherein he retires to sing to his

mate.[72] A very beautiful case of the use of these love-calls by the tyrant
bird (Pitangus Bolivianus) is recorded by W.H. Hudson.[73]
"Though the male and female are greatly attached they do not go afield to hunt
in company, but separate to meet at intervals during the day. One of the couple
(say the female) returns to the trees where they are accustomed to meet, and after
a time becoming impatient or anxious at the delay of her consort, utters a very
long, clear call-note. He is perhaps a quarter of a mile away, watching for a frog
beside a pool, or beating over a thistle bed, but he hears the note and presently
responds with one of equal power. Then, perhaps, for half-an-hour, at intervals of
half-a-minute, the birds answer each other, though the powerful call of the one
must interfere with his hunting. At length he returns: then the two birds, perched
close together, with their yellow bosoms almost touching, crests elevated, and
beating the branch with their wings scream their loudest notes in concert—a
confused, jubilant noise that rings through the whole plantation. Their joy at
meeting is patent, and their action corresponds to the warm embrace of a loving
human couple."

Some birds, who are ill-endowed from a musical point of view, have their
wing feathers or tails peculiarly developed and stiffened, and are able to
produce with them a strange snapping or cracking sound. Thus several
species of snipe make drumming or "bleating" noises—something like the
bleat of a goat—with their narrowed tails as they descend in flight.[74]
Magpies have a still more curious method of call, by rapping on dry and
sonorous branches, which they use not only to attract the female, but also to
charm her. We may say that these birds perform instrumental music.[75]
The exercise of vocal power among birds seems to be complementary to
the development of accessory plumes and ornaments. All our finest singing
birds are plainly coloured, with no crests, neck or tail plumes to display.
The gorgeously ornamented birds of the tropics have no song, and those
which expend much energy in display of plumage, as the turkey and
peacocks, have comparatively an insignificant development of voice.[76]
The extraordinary manner in which birds display their plumage at the time
of courting is well known. Let us take one example—the courtship of the
Argus pheasant. This bird is noted for the extreme beauty of the male's
plumage. Its courtship has been beautifully observed by H.O. Forbes—[77]
"It is the habit of this bird to make a large circus, some ten or twelve feet in
diameter, in the forest, which it clears of every leaf and twig and branch, till the
ground is perfectly swept and garnished. On the margin of this circus there is
invariably a projecting branch or high arched rest, at a few feet elevation from
the ground on which the female bird takes its place, while in the ring the male—
the male bird alone possesses great decoration—shows off all its magnificence
for the gratification and pleasure of his consort, and to exalt himself in her eyes."

In this picture we have all the characteristic features of the display of
personal beauty in which many birds delight. Any one may see such
performances for themselves. The male chaffinch, for instance, will place
himself in front of the female that she may admire at her ease his red throat
and blue head; the bullfinch swells out his breast to display the crimson
feathers, twisting his black tail from side to side; the goldfinch sways his
body, and quickly turns his slightly expanded wings first to one side, then to
the other, with a golden flashing effect.[78] Even birds of less ornamental
plumage are accustomed to strut and show themselves off before the
females. Birds often assemble in large numbers to compete in beauty before
pairing. The Tetras cuspido of Florida and the little grouse of Germany and
Scandinavia do this. The latter have daily amorous assemblies, or cours
d'amour, of great length, which are renewed every year in the month of
May.[79] It seems certain that this æsthetic display is conscious and pre-
meditated; for while most pheasants parade before their females, two of the
species—the Crossoptilon auritum and the Phasianus Wallichii—which are
of dull colour, refrain from doing so, being apparently conscious of their
modest livery.[80]
Certain birds are not content alone with the display of natural ornament,
but make use of further æsthetic appeal in the construction of their homes in
a truly beautiful manner. Some species of humming-birds are said to
decorate the exterior of their nests in great taste with lichens, feathers, etc.
The bower-birds of Australia construct bowers on the ground, ornamented
with shell, feathers, bones and leaves. Both sexes take part in the building
of these abodes of love, which are used for the courting parades. But an
even more delightful example of the rare sexual delicacy in courtship is
recorded by M.O. Beccari of a bird of Paradise of New Guinea, the
Amblyornis inornata.[81]
"This wonderful and beautiful bird constructs a little conical hut to protect his
amours, and in front of this he arranges a lawn, carpeted with moss, the
greenness of which he relieves by scattering on it various bright coloured
objects, such as berries, grains, flowers, pebbles and shells. More than this, when
the flowers are faded, he takes great care to replace them, so that the eye may be
always agreeably flattered. These curious constructions are solid, lasting for
several years, and probably serving for several birds."

It is, I think, by such cases as these that we may come to realise the
extraordinary power of sex-hunger. It seems to me that many of us are still
walking in sleep; fear holds our eyes from the truth. But as we look back to

the complex and often beautiful manifestations of love's actions among our
animal ancestors, we begin to perceive that unanalysable something called
"beauty," which is the glory that has arisen out of that first simple impelling
hunger, which drove the male cell and the female cell to unite. This is how I
see things—Life knows no development except through Love.

II.—Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage, and the Family among
Birds

It is especially upon the efflorescence of male beauty among birds that
Darwin founded his celebrated theory of sexual selection. The motley of
display seems endless, beautiful plumes, elongated feathery tresses, neck-
ruffs, breast-shields, brightly-coloured cowls and wattles occur with
marvellous richness of variety.
Now, can we accept the Darwinian theory, and believe that all these
appendages of beauty, as well as the sexual weapons, powers of song and
movement, have been developed through the preference of the females? the
stronger and more ornamental males becoming in this way the parents of
each successive generation. Wallace, as is well known, opposed Darwin's
view, preferring to regard sexual selection as a manifestation of natural
selection. He has been followed by other naturalists, who have denied this
creative power of love, being unable to credit conscious choice by the
females of the most gifted males. The controversy on the question has been
long and at times violent. Yet, it would seem, as so often happens in all
disagreements, that the difference in opinion is more apparent than founded
on the facts. There is really no difficulty if once we understand the true
significance of courtship. What this is I have tried to make clear. During the
excitement of pairing the male birds are in a condition of the most perfect
development, and possess an enormous store of superabundant vitality; this,
as may readily be understood, may well express itself in brilliant colours
and superfluities of ornamental plumage, as also in song, in dancing, in love
tournaments and in battles. The fact that we have to remember is that the
female is most easily won by the male, who, being himself most charged
with sex desire—and through this means reaching the finest development—
is able to create a corresponding intoxication in her, and thus, by producing

in both the most perfect condition, favours the chances of reproduction.
There is no need whatever to suppose any conscious choice or special
æsthetic perception on the part of the females. Great effects are everywhere
produced in Nature by simple causes. The female responds to the stimulus
of the right male at the right moment—that is really the whole matter.[82]
In these instances (brought forward in the previous section of this
chapter) of the universal hunger of sex, which are fairly typical and are as
complete as my space will allow, certain facts have become clear. In the
first place we have seen something of the strong driving of the procreative
function, which is the guarantee of the continuation and development of
life. The importance of the result to be gained explains the diverse and
elaborate phenomena of courtship. The higher we ascend in the animal
kingdom the stronger does the sex-appetite become: it vibrates in the nerve-
centres, giving rise to violent emotions which intensify all the physical and
psychic activities. Love is the great creative force. It awakens impressions
and desires in the individual, giving rise to what may be called
"experiments in creative self-expression," to the energy of which we owe
the varied and marvellous phenomena in animal life.
A further cause arising from the development of love is certainly of not
less importance—it is the beginning of life not wholly individualistic. It is
in the sexual passions we must seek the origins of all social growth. This is
evident. We have seen that sexual union induces durable association
between the female and the male for the object of rearing the young. Here
already we find that truth, which it is the chief purpose of this book to make
plain, that the individual exists for the race. This is the new and practical
morality of the biological view, which regards the individual as primarily
the host and servant of the seed of life. And this is really of the greatest
benefit to the individual. From this service to the future arises the family
and the home. The familial instinct, more or less developed, may be traced
far back in the scale of life; and as it gains in strength it extends from the
family into a wider social love, which in some species results in the forming
of societies grouped together for mutual protection and co-operation in
communal activities. A rough outline of society is thus found established
already in the animal kingdom.
Just as there were many different forms of sexual associations among our
animal ancestors, so we may observe the two chief forms of human

societies, the matriarchate and the patriarchate—or the maternal and
paternal family. It is the former that is the most frequent. This is what we
should expect. The female, the mother, as the natural centre of the family,
the male, her servant, in the procreative act; but apart from this, we find him
most frequently following personal interests; the female's love for the
young is stronger and more developed than his. I lay stress upon this fact,
for it shows how strongly planted in woman is the maternal instinct. I doubt
if any woman can ever find true expression for her nature apart from
motherhood. It is in these past histories of life's development that we may
find the key for its purpose and meaning to us.
There is another point of special importance to us in estimating the true
place of woman in society. This early position of the female proves
conclusively (as we shall see more clearly later when we come to study the
primitive human family) the importance of the mother and her children as
the founders of society. Woman, by reason of her more intimate connection
with the children and the home, became the centre of the social group,
while the males, less bound by domestic ties, were able to wander, but came
back to the home, driven by their sexual needs to return to the female. But
without giving more time here to this question, to which I shall return later,
there is a further consideration, arising from our study of the family habits
among the birds and mammals, that now must claim our attention. Certain
examples I have come across, in particular among birds, have forced into
my mind doubt of a widely-accepted belief. I put forward my opinion with
great diffidence; it is so easy to interpret facts by the bias of one's own
wishes. I know that the cases I have found and studied are probably few in
comparison with those I have missed; but to me they seem of such
importance, by the light they throw on the whole question of the position of
the sexes, that it seems necessary to bring them forward.
We must go back to the position we left, some time back, of the
differences between the secondary sexual characters of the male and the
female. We have followed the development of the male, under the action of
love's selection, from his first insignificant position in the reproductive
process; we have seen him becoming larger than the female, strong, jealous
and masterful—in fact, a kind of fighting specialisation, with special
weapons of defence for sex-battles. This is the general condition among
mammals. Among birds another set of secondary character, that may be

classed as beauty-tests, are more frequent. Now two questions must be
answered. Can it be proved that all these acquired developments of strength
and of beauty belong exclusively to the males—that they must be regarded
as proof of the greater tendency to diversity in the male, which has carried
him further in the evolution process than the female? Can it also be proved
that such highly-marked differentiation between the sexes is in all cases
necessary to reproduction—that this heightened male attractiveness is a
progressive force in the service of the race? If so, examples will surely
point in the direction of finding that among those species where the sexual
characters of the male, whether of strength or of beauty, are most different
from the female, sexual love will find its most perfect expression; and
further, that the males in such case will be the most highly developed—the
best parents and the most social in their habits. The whole question, I think
it must be evident, turns upon this being proved.
But in the face of the facts before us this is just what we do not find.
Among birds (who in erotic development far excel all other animals, not,
indeed, excepting the human species, and thus must be accepted as
affording the most perfect examples of sexual development) we have seen
that the cases are not few in which the female equals, or even exceeds the
male in size and in strength. This is so with the curlew, the merlin, the
dunlin, the black-tailed goodwit, which is considerably larger than the male,
and the osprey, where the female is also more spotted on the breast: these
examples must be added to those I have already given (page 58).
If we turn now to the beauty-test of brilliancy of plumage, we may
observe an even larger number of examples of almost identical likeness
between the sexes. Among British birds alone there are no fewer than 382
species, or sub-species,[83] in which the female closely resembles the male.
In some few of these examples, it is true, the colours of the female are
slightly duller, and in others the female is rather smaller than the male, but
the difference in each case is very slight. It is specially significant to note
that this similarity of plumage occurs in some of the most beautiful of our
birds, as, for instance, the kingfisher and the jay, where the brilliant dresses
of the sexes are practically alike; the female robin shares the beauty of the
male; in all the families of the charming tits the sexes are alike; this is also
the case with the roller-bird with its gaily-coloured plumage; and there is no
difference between the white elegance of the female and the male swan.

In the presence of such examples it seems to me impossible to refrain
from thinking that there is a mistake somewhere, and that less importance is
to be attached to the secondary sexual characters of the male than is
generally imagined. Grant that these cases are exceptional; but if we once
admit that among many species—and these highly developed in sex—the
female shows no evidence of retarded development, we shall be forced also
to break once for all with many beliefs and trite theories which have
inspired on this subject of the sexual differences between the female and the
male so much dogmatic statement and so many unproved assumptions.
I am not forgetting the gorgeous plumage of some male birds, and the
contrast they afford with the plain females. What I wish to show is that such
adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary adjunct to the male—an
expression, in fact, of the male constitution. Nor are they, as we shall find
later, necessary, or even beneficial in the highest degree, to the reproductive
process.[84] I have an even more interesting case to bring forward, which to
me seems to point very conclusively to what I am trying to prove. The
phalaropes, both the grey and red-necked species, have a peculiarity unique
among British birds, although shared by several other groups in different
parts of the world.[85] Among these birds the rôle of the sexes is reversed.
The duties of incubation and rearing the young are conducted entirely by
the male bird, and in correlation with this habit the female does all the
courting, is stronger and more pugnacious than the male, and is also
brighter in plumage. In colour they are a pale olive very thickly spotted and
streaked with black. The male is the psychical mother, the female taking no
notice of the nest after laying the eggs. Frequently at the beginning of the
breeding season she is accompanied by more than one male, so that it is
evident that polyandry is practised.[86]
Now, if such an example of the reversal of the sexes has any meaning at
all, it seems to me that we find the conclusion forced upon us that the
secondary sexual characters are not necessarily different in the male and the
female, but depend on the form of the union or marriage and the conditions
of the family. Professor Lester Ward, in connection with his Gynæocratic
theory, fully discusses this question. His conclusion is that this superiority
of the males in strength and size among mammals and in beauty of plumage
(which is also a symbol of force) among birds, instead of indicating an
arrested development in the females indicates an over-development in the

males. "Male efflorescence" is the apt term by which Professor Ward
designates it. He says—
"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.

II.—The Matriarchal Family in America

Traces of mother-descent are common everywhere in the American
continent; and in some districts mother-rule is still in force. Morgan, who
was commissioned by the American Government to report on the customs
of the aboriginal inhabitants, gives a description of the system as it existed
among the Iroquois—
"Each household was made up on the principle of kin. The married women,
usually sisters, own or collateral, were of the same gens or clan, the symbol or
totem of which was often painted upon the house, while their husbands and the
wives of their sons belonged to several other gentes. The children were of the
gens of their mother. As a rule the sons brought home their wives, and in some
cases the husbands of the daughters were admitted to the maternal household.
Thus each household was composed of persons of different gentes, but the
predominating number in each household would be of the same gens, namely
that of the mother."[119]

There are many interesting customs belonging to the Iroquois; I can
notice a few only. The gens was ruled by chiefs of two grades, distinguished
by Morgan as sachem and common chiefs. The sachem was the official
head of the gens. The actual occupant of the office was elected by the adult
members of the gens, male and female, the own brother or son of a sister
being most likely to be preferred.[120] The wife never left the parental home,
because she was considered the mistress, or, at least, the heiress; her
husband lived with her. In the house all the duties and the honour as the
head of the household fell on her. She was required in case of need to look
after her parents. The Iroquois recognised no right in the father to the
custody of his children; such power was in the hands of the maternal uncle.
[121] Marriages were negotiated by the uncles or the mothers; sometimes the
father was consulted, but this was little more than a compliment, as his
approbation or opposition was usually disregarded.[122] The suitor was
required to make presents to the bride's family. It was the custom for him to
seek private interviews at night with his betrothed. In some instances, it was
enough if he went and sat by her side in her cabin; if she permitted this, and
remained where she was, it was taken for consent, and the act would suffice
for marriage. If a husband and wife could not agree, they parted, or two
pairs would exchange husbands and wives. An early French missionary

remonstrated with a couple on such a transaction, and was told: "My wife
and I could not agree. My neighbour was in the same case. So we
exchanged wives, and all four are content. What can be more reasonable
than to render one another mutually happy, when it costs so little and does
nobody any harm?"[123] It would seem that these primitive people have
solved some difficulties better than we ourselves have!
Among the Senecas,[124] an Iroquoian tribe with a less organised social
life, the authority remained in the hands of the women. These people led a
communal life, dwelling in long houses, which accommodated as many as
twenty families, each in its own apartments.[125]
"As to their family system, it is probable that some one clan predominated (in
the houses), the women taking in husbands, however, from the other clans, and
sometimes for novelty, some of their sons bringing in their young wives until
they felt brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually the female portion ruled
the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were in
common, but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do
his share of the providing. No matter how many children or whatever goods he
might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pack up his blanket
and budge, and after such orders it would not be healthful for him to attempt to
disobey; the house would be too hot for him, and, unless saved by the
intercession of some aunt or grandmother, he must retreat to his own clan, or, as
was often done, go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The
women were the great power among the clans as everywhere else. They did not
hesitate, when occasion required, to 'knock off the horns,' as it was technically
called, from the head of a chief and send him back to the ranks of the warrior.
The original nomination of the chiefs also always rested with them."

This last detail is very interesting; we find the woman's authority
extending even over warfare, the special province of men.
The Wyandots, another Iroquoian tribe, camp in the form of a horse-shoe,
every clan together in regular order. Marriage between members of the
same clan is forbidden; the children belong to the clan of the mother. The
husbands retain all their rights and privileges in their own gentes, though
they live in the gentes of their wives. After marriage the pair live for a time,
at least, with the wife's mother, but afterwards they set up housekeeping for
themselves.[126]
We may note here the creeping in of changes which led to father-right.
This is illustrated further by the Musquakies, also belonging to the
Algonquian stock. Though still organised in clans, descent is no longer
reckoned through the mother. The bridegroom, however, serves his wife's

mother, and he lives with her people. This does not make him of her clan;
she belongs to his, till his death or divorce separates her from him. As for
the children, the minors at the termination of the marriage belong to the
mother's clan, but those who have had the puberty feast are counted to the
father's clan.[127]
The male authority is chiefly felt in periods of war. This may be
illustrated by the Wyandots, who have an elaborate system of government.
In each gens there is a small council composed of four women, called yu-
waí-yu-wá-na; chosen by the women heads of the household. These women
councillors select a chief of the gens from its male members, that is from
their brothers and sons. He is the head of the gentile council. The council of
the tribe is composed of the aggregated gentile councils, and is thus
composed of four-fifths of women and one-fifth of men. The sachem of
tribes, or tribal-chief is chosen by chiefs of the gentes. All civil government
of the gens and of the tribe is carried on by these councils, and as the
women so largely outnumber the men, who are also—with the exception of
the tribal chief chosen by them—it is surely fair to assume that the social
government of the gens and tribe is largely directed by them. In military
affairs, however, the men have sole authority; there is a military council of
all the able-bodied men of the tribe, with a military chief chosen by the
council.[128] This seems a very wise adjustment of civic duties; the
constructive civil work directed by the women; the destructive work of war
in the hands of men.
Some interesting marriage customs of the Seri, on the south-west coast,
now reduced to a single tribe, are described by McGee.[129] The matriarchal
system exists here in its early form, it is, therefore, an instructive example
by which to estimate the position held by the women—
"The tribe is divided into exogamous totem clans. Marriage is arranged
exclusively by the women. The elder woman of the suitor's family carries the
proposal to the girl's clan-mother. If this is entertained, the question of the
marriage is discussed at length by the matrons of the two clans. The girl herself
is consulted; a jacal is erected for her, and after many deliberations, the
bridegroom is provisionally received into his wife's clan for a year, under
conditions of the most exacting character. He is expected to prove his worthiness
of a permanent relation by demonstrating his ability as a provider, and by
showing himself an implacable foe to aliens. He is compelled to support all the
female relatives of his bride's family by the products of his skill and industry in
hunting and fishing for one year. There is also another provision of a very
curious nature. The lover is permitted to share the jacal and sleeping robe,

provided for the prospective matron by her kinswomen, not as a privileged
spouse, but merely as a protective companion; and throughout this probationary
term he is compelled to maintain continence—he must display the most
indubitable proof of moral force."

This is the more extraordinary if we compare the freedom granted to the
bride. "During this period the always dignified position occupied by the
daughters of the house culminates." Among other privileges she is allowed
to receive "the most intimate attentions from the clan-fellows of the group."
[130] "She is the receiver of the supplies furnished by her lover, measuring
his competence as would-be husband. Through his energy she is enabled to
dispense largess with lavish hand, and thus to dignify her clan and honour
her spouse in the most effective way known to primitive life; and at the
same time she enjoys the immeasurable moral stimulus of realising she is
the arbiter of the fate of a man who becomes a warrior or an outcast at her
bidding, and through him of the future of two clans—she is raised to a
responsibility in both personal and tribal affairs which, albeit temporary, is
hardly lower than that of the warrior chief." At the close of the year, if all
goes well, the probation ends in a feast provided by the lover, who now
becomes husband, and finally enters his wife's jacal as "consort-guest." His
position is wholly subordinate, and without any authority whatever, either
over his children or over the property. In his mother's hut he has rights,
which seem to continue after his marriage, but in his wife's hut he has none.
The customs of the Pueblo peoples of the south-west of the United States
are almost equally interesting. They live in communal dwellings, and are
divided into exogamous totem clans. Kinship is reckoned through the
women, and the husband on marriage goes to live with the wife's kin and
becomes an inmate of her family. If the house is not large enough,
additional rooms are built adjoining and connected with those already
occupied. Hence a family with many daughters increases, while one
consisting of sons dies out. The women are the builders of the houses, the
men supplying the material. The marriage customs are instructive. As is the
case among the Seri, the lover has to serve his wife's family, but the
conditions are much less exacting. Unlike most maternal peoples, these, the
Zuñi Indians, are monogamists. Divorce is, however, frequent, and a
husband and wife would "rather separate than live together
unharmoniously."[131] Their domestic life "might well serve as an example
for the civilised world." They do not have large families. The husband and

wife are deeply attached to one another and to their children. "The keynote
of this harmony is the supremacy of the wife in the home. The house, with
all that is in it, is hers, descending to her through her mother from a long
line of ancestresses; and her husband is merely her permanent guest. The
children—at least the female children—have their share in the common
home; the father has none." Outside the house the husband has some
property in the fields, though probably in earlier times he had no possessory
rights. "Modern influences have reached the Zuñi, and mother-right seems
to have begun its inevitable decay."
The Hopis, another Pueblo tribe, are more conservative, and with them
the women own all the property, except the horses and donkeys, which
belong to the men. Like the Zuñis, the Hopis are monogamists. Sexual
licence is, however, often permitted to a woman before marriage. This in no
way detracts from her good repute; even if she has given birth to a child
"she will be sure to marry later on, unless she happens to be shockingly
ugly." Nor does the child suffer, for among these matriarchal people the
bastard takes an equal place with the child born in wedlock. The bride lives
for the first few weeks with her husband's family, during which time the
marriage takes place, the ceremony being performed by the bridegroom's
mother, whose family also provides the bride with her wedding outfit. The
couple then return to the home of the wife's parents, where they remain,
either permanently, or for some years, until they can obtain a separate
dwelling. The husband is always a stranger, and is so treated by his wife's
kin. The dwelling of his mother remains his true home, in sickness he
returns to her to be nursed, and stays with her until he is well again. Often
his position in his wife's home is so irksome that he severs his relation with
her and her family and returns to his old home. On the other hand, it is not
uncommon for the wife, should her husband be absent, to place his goods
outside the door: an intimation which he well understands, and does not
intrude himself upon her again.[132]
Lastly, among the Pueblo peoples we may consider the Sai. Like the
other tribes they are divided into exogamous totem clans; descent is traced
only through the women. The tribe through various reasons has been greatly
reduced in numbers, and whole clans have died out, and under these
circumstances exogamy has ceased to be strictly enforced. This has led to
other changes. The Sai are still at least normally monogamous. When a

young man wishes to marry a girl he speaks first to her parents; if they are
willing, he addresses himself to her. On the day of the marriage he goes
alone to her home, carrying his presents wrapped in a blanket, his father and
mother having preceded him thither. When the young people are seated
together the parents address them in turn enjoining unity and forbearance.
This constitutes the ceremony. Tribal custom requires the bridegroom to
reside with the wife's family.[133]
Now I submit to the judgment of my readers—what do these examples of
mother-right among the aboriginal tribes of America show, if not that,
speaking broadly, women were the dominant force in this early stage of
civilisation? In some instances, it is true, their power was shared, or even
taken from them, by their brothers or other male relatives. This I believe to
have been a later development—a first step in the assertion of male-force.
In all cases the alien position of the father, without tribal rights in his wife's
clan and with no recognised authority over her children, is evident. If this is
denied, the only conclusion that suggests itself to me is, that those who seek
to diminish the importance of mother-rule have done so in reinforcement of
their preconceived idea of male superiority as the natural and unchanging
order in the relationship between the sexes. I have no hesitation as the result
of very considerable study, in believing that it is the exact opposite of this
that is true. The mother, and not the father, was the important partner in the
early stages of civilisation; father-right, the form we find in our sexual
relationships, is a later reversal of this natural arrangement, based, not upon
kinship, but upon property. This we shall see more clearly later.
Thomas[134] suggests another reason for the general tendency among
many investigators to lessen the importance of the mother-age civilisations.
He thinks it due to dislike in acknowledging the theory of promiscuity
(notably Westermark in his History of Human Marriage). This view would
seem to be connected with the mistaken opinion that womb-kinship arose
through the uncertainty of paternity. But this was not the sole reason, or
indeed the chief one, of descent being traced through the mother. We have
found mother-rule in very active existence among the Pueblo peoples, who
are monogamists, and where the paternity of the child must be known. The
modern civilised man cannot easily accustom himself to the idea that in the
old matriarchal family the dominion of the mother was accepted as the
natural, and, therefore, the right order of society. It is very difficult for us to

accept a relationship of the sexes that is so exactly opposite to that to which
we are accustomed.
After I had written the foregoing account of mother-rule as it exists in the
continent of America, I had the exceeding good fortune to attend a lecture
given by a native Iroquois. I wish it were possible for me to write here those
things that I heard; but I could not do this, I know, without spoiling it all.
This would destroy for me what is a very beautiful and happy memory. For
to hear of a people who live gladly and without any of those problems that
are rotting away our civilisation brings a new courage to those of us who
sometimes grow hopeless at this needless wastage of life.
The lecturer told us much of the high status and power of women among
the Iroquoian tribes. What he said, not only corroborated all I have written,
but gave a picture of mother-rule and mother-rights far more complete than
anything I had found in the records of investigators and travellers. The
lecturer was a cultured gentleman, and I learnt how false had been my view
that the race to which he belonged was uncivilised. I learnt, too, that the
Iroquoian tribes were now increasing in numbers, and must not be looked
upon as a diminishing people. They have kept, against terrible difficulties,
and are determined to keep, their own civilisation and customs, knowing
these to be better for them than those of other races. The lecturer astonished
me by his familiarity with, and understanding of, our social problems. He
spoke, in particular, of the present revolution among women. This, in his
opinion, was due wholly to the unnatural arrangement of our family
relationship, with the father at the head instead of the mother. There seem to
be no sex-problems, no difficulties in marriage, no celibacy, no prostitution
among the Iroquoians. All the power in the domestic relationship is in the
hands of women. I questioned the lecturer on this point. I asked him if the
women did not at times misuse their rights of authority, and if men did not
rebel? He seemed surprised. His answer was: "Of course the men follow the
wishes of the women; they are our mothers." To him there seemed no more
to be said.

III.—Further Examples of the Matriarchal Family in Australia, India,
and other countries

It is only fair to state that the question of the position of women during
the mother-age is a disputed one. Bachofen[135] was the first to build up in
his classical works of Matriarchy, the gynæcocratic theory which places the
chief social power under the system of mother-descent in the hands of
women. This view has been disputed, especially in recent years, and many
writers who acknowledge the widespread existence of maternal descent
deny that it carries with it, except in exceptional cases, mother-rights of
special advantage to women; even when these seem to be present they
believe such rights to be more apparent than real.[136]
One suspects prejudice here. To approach this question with any fairness
it is absolutely essential to clear the mind from our current theories
regarding the family. The order is not sacred in the sense that it has always
had the same form. It is this belief in the immutability of our form of the
sexual relationship which accounts for the prejudice with which this
question is so often approached. I fully admit the dark side of the mother-
age among many peoples; its sexual licence, often brutal in practice, its
cruelties and sacrifice of life. But these are evils common to barbarism, and
are found existing under father-right quite as frequently as under mother-
right. I concede, too, that mother-descent was not necessarily or universally
a period of mother-rule. It was not. But that it did in many cases—and these
no exceptional ones—carry with it power for women, as the transmitters of
inheritance and property I am certain that the known facts prove.[137] Nor
do I forget that cruel treatment of women was not uncommon in matriarchal
societies. I have shown how in many tribes the power rested in the woman's
brother or male relations, and in all such cases mother-descent was really
combined with a patriarchal system, the earlier authority of the mother
persisting only as a habit. But to argue from the cases of male cruelty that
mother-descent did not confer special advantages upon women is, I think,
as absurd as it would be to state that under the fully developed patriarchal
rule (as also in our society to-day) the authority was not in the hands of
men, because cases are not infrequent in which women ill-treat their
husbands. And, indeed, when we consider the position of the husband and
father under this early system, without rights of property and with no
authority over his children, and subject to the rule either of his wife or of
her relatives, no surprise can be felt if sometimes he resorted to cruelties,
asserting his power in whatever direction opportunity permitted. I may
admit that for a long time I found it difficult to believe in this mother-

power. The finding of such authority held by primitive woman is strange,
indeed, to women to-day. Reverse the sexes, and in broad statement the
conditions of the mother-age would be true of our present domestic and
social relationship. Little wonder, then, that primitive men rebelled,
disliking the inconveniences arising from their insecure and dependent
position as perpetual guests in their wives' homes. It is strange how history
repeats itself.
Women, from their association with the home, were the first organisers of
all industrial labour. A glance back at the mother-age civilisation should
teach men modesty. They will see that woman was the equal, if not superior,
to man in productive activity. It was not until a much later period that men
supplanted women and monopolised the work they had started. Through
their identification with the early industrial processes women were the first
property owners; they were almost the sole creators of ownership in land,
and held in respect of this a position of great advantage. In the transactions
of North American tribes with the colonial government many deeds of
assignment bear female signatures.[138] A form of divorce used by a
husband in ancient Arabia was: "Begone, for I will no longer drive thy
flocks to pasture."[139] In almost all cases the household goods belonged to
the woman. The stores of roots and berries laid up for a time of scarcity
were the property of the wife, and the husband would not touch them
without her permission. In many cases such property was very extensive.
Among the Menomini Indians, for instance, a woman of good
circumstances would own as many as from 1200 to 1500 birch-bark vessels.
[140] In the New Mexican pueblo what comes from outside the house, as
soon as it is inside is put under the immediate control of the women.
Bandelier, in his report of his tour in Mexico, tells us that "his host at
Cochiti, New Mexico, could not sell an ear of corn or a string of chilli
without the consent of his fourteen-year-old daughter Ignacia, who kept
house for her widowed father."[141]
The point we have now reached is this: while mother-descent did not
constitute or make necessary rule by women, under this system they
enjoyed considerable power as the result (1) of their position as property-
holders, (2) of their freedom in marriage and the social habits arising from
it. This conclusion will be strengthened if we return to our examination of
mother-right customs, as we shall find them in all parts of the world. I must

select a few examples from as various countries as is possible, and describe
them very briefly; not because these cases offer less interest than the
matrilineal tribes of America, but because of the length to which this part of
my inquiry is rapidly growing.
Let us begin with Australia, where the aboriginal population is in a more
primitive condition than any other race whose institutions have been
investigated. In certain tribes the family has hardly begun to be
distinguished from kin in general. The group is divided into male and
female classes, in addition to the division into clans.[142] This is so among
the tribes of Mount Gambier, of Darling River, and of Queensland.
Marriage within the clan is strictly forbidden, and the male and female
classes of each clan are regarded as brothers and sisters. But as every man is
brother to all the sisters of his clan, he is husband to all the women of the
other clans of his tribe. Marriage is not an individual act, it is a social
condition. The custom is not always carried out in practice, but any man of
one clan has the right, if he wishes to exercise it, to call any woman
belonging to another clan of his tribe his wife, and to treat her as such.[143]
The children of each group belong naturally to the clan of the mother, and
there is no legal parenthood between them and their father. In the case of
war the son must join the maternal tribe. But this is not the universal rule,
and in many tribes the children now belong to the paternal clan. The
paternal family is beginning to be established in Australia, and varied
artifices are used to escape from the tribal marriage and to form unions on
an individual basis.
Mother-right is still in force in parts of India, though owing to the
influence of Brahmanism on the aboriginal tribes the examples are fewer
than might be expected. This change has brought descent through the
fathers, and has involved, besides, the more or less complete subjugation of
women, with insistence on female chastity, abolition of divorce, infant
marriage, and perpetuation of widowhood.[144] Not every tribe is yet thus
revolutionised. Among the Kasias of south-east India the husband lives with
the wife or visits her occasionally.
"Laws of rank and property follow the strictest maternal rule; when a couple
separate the children remain with the mother, the son does not succeed his father,
but a raja's neglected offspring may become a common peasant or a labourer; the
sister's son succeeds to rank and is heir to the property."[145]

This may be taken as an extreme example of the conditions among the
unchanged tribes. The Garos tribe have an interesting marriage custom.[146]
The girl chooses her lover and invites him to follow her; any advance made
on his side is regarded as an insult to the woman's clan, and has to be
expiated by presents. This marriage is very similar to the ceremony of
capture, only the actors change parts; it is here the bridegroom who runs
away, and is conducted by force to his future wife amidst the lamentations
of his relations.
Even tribes that have adopted paternal descent preserve numerous
customs of the earlier system. The husband still remains in the wife's home
for a probationary period, working for her family.[147] Women retain rights
which are inconsistent with father-rule. The choice of her lover often
remains with the girl. If a girl fancies a young man, all she has to do is to
give him a kick on the leg at the tribal dance of the Karama, and then the
parents think it well to hasten on a wedding. Among Ghasiyas in United
Provinces a wife is permitted to leave her husband if he intrigues with
another woman, or if he become insane, impotent, blind or leprous, while
these bodily evils do not allow him to put her away.[148] We find relics of
the early freedom enjoyed by women in the licence frequently permitted to
girls before marriage. Even after marriage adultery within the tribal rules is
not regarded as a serious offence. Divorce is often easy, at the wish of either
the woman or the man.[149] This is the case among the Santál tribes, which
are found in Western Bengal, Northern Orissa, Bhágulpur and the Santál
Párganas.[150] It seems probable that fraternal polyandry must formerly
have been practised.
Polyandry must have been common at one time in southern India. It will
be sufficient to give a few examples. The interesting Todas tribe of the
Nil'giri Hills practise fraternal polyandry. The husbands of the women are
usually real brothers, but sometimes they are clan brothers. The children
belong to the eldest brother, who performs the ceremony of giving the
mother a miniature bow and arrow; all offspring, even if born after his
death, are counted as his until one of the other brothers performs this
ceremony. It is also allowed sometimes for the wife to be mistress to
another man besides her husbands, and any children born of such unions are
counted as the children of the regular marriage. There is little restriction in
love of any kind. In the Toda language there is no word for adultery. It

would even seem that "immorality attaches rather to him who grudges his
wife to another man."[151]
Similarly among a fine tribe of Hindu mountaineers at the source of the
Djemmah fraternal polyandry has been proved to have existed. A woman of
this tribe, when asked how many husbands she had, answered, "Only four!"
"And all living?" "Why not?" This tribe had a high standard of social
conduct; they held lying in horror, and to deviate from the truth even quite
innocently was almost a sacrilege.[152] To-day the Kammalaus (artisans) of
Malabar practise fraternal polyandry. The wives are said to greatly
appreciate the custom; the more husbands they have the greater will be their
happiness.[153]
At another extremity of India, in Ceylon, the polyandric rule is still
common,[154] but it is particularly in lamaic Thibet that fraternal polyandry
is in full vigour, for in this country religion sanctions the custom, and it is
practised by the ruling classes.[155] Its customs are too well known to need
description. "The tyranny of man is hardly known among the happy women
of Thibet; the boot is perhaps upon the other leg," writes Hartland.[156]
Polyandry is a survival of the group-marriage of the mother-age.[157] It is
not really dependent on, though in many cases it occurs in connection with,
the economic causes of poverty and a scarcity of women, due to the practice
of female infanticide. This form of sexual association has evident
advantages for women when compared with polygamy. That freedom in
love carried with it domestic and social rights and privileges to women I
have no longer to prove.[158]
The case of the Nâyars of Malabar, where polyandry exists with the early
system of maternal filiation, is specially instructive. It is impossible to give
the details of their curious customs. The young girls are married when
children by a rite known as tying the tali; but this marriage serves only the
purpose of initiation, and is often performed by a stranger. On the fourth
day the fictitious husband is required to divorce the girl. Afterwards any
number of marriages may be entered upon[159] without any other
restrictions than the prohibitions relative to cast and tribe. These later
unions, unlike the solemn initial rite, have no ceremony connected with
them, and are entered into freely at the will of the women and their families.
As a husband the man of the Nâyars cannot be said to exist; he does not as a

rule live with his wife.[160] It is said that he has not the right to sit down by
her side or that of her children, he is merely a passing guest, almost a
stranger. He is, in fact, reduced to the primitive rôle of the male, and is
simply progenitor. "No Nâyar knows his father, and every man looks upon
his sister's children as his heirs. A man's mother manages his family; and
after her death his eldest sister assumes the direction." The property belongs
to the family and is enjoyed by all in common (though personal division is
coming into practice under modern influences). It is directed and
administered by the maternal uncle or the eldest brother.[161]
The Malays of the Pedang Highlands of Sumatra have institutions
bearing many points of similarity with the Nâyars. On marriage neither
husband nor wife changes abode, the husband merely visits the wife,
coming at first by day to help her work in the rice-fields. Later the visits are
paid by night to the wife's house. The husband has no rights over his
children, who belong wholly to the wife's suku, or clan. Her eldest brother
is the head of the family and exercises the rights and duties of a father to
her children.[162] The marriage, based on the ambel-anak, in which the
husband lives with the wife, paying nothing, and occupying a subordinate
position, may be taken as typical of the former conditions.[163]
But among other tribes who have come in contact with outside influences
this custom of the husband visiting the wife, or residing in her house, is
modified.
From a private correspondent, a resident in the Malay States, I have
received some interesting notes about the present condition of the native
tribes and the position of the women. In most of the Malay States
exogamous matriarchy has in comparatively modern times been superseded
by feudalism (i.e. father-right). But where the old custom survives the
women are still to a large extent in control. The husband goes to live in the
wife's village; thus the women in each group are a compact unity, while the
men are strangers to each other and enter as unorganised individuals. This is
the real basis of the woman's power. In other tribes where the old custom
has changed women occupy a distinctly inferior position, and under the
influence of Islam the idea of secluding adult women has been for centuries
spreading and increasing in force.

Male kinship prevails among the Arabs, but the late Professor Robertson
Smith discovered abundant evidence that mother-right was practised in
ancient Arabia.[164] We find a decisive example of its favourable influence
on the position of women in the custom of beena[165] marriage. Under such
a system the wife was not only freed from any subjection involved by the
payment of a bride-price (which always places her more or less under the
authority of her husband), but she was the owner of the tent and household
property, and thus enjoyed the liberty which ownership always entails. This
explains how she was able to free herself at pleasure from her husband, who
was really nothing but a temporary lover.[166] Ibn Batua in the fourteenth
century found that the women of Zebid were perfectly ready to marry
strangers. The husband might depart when he pleased, but his wife in that
case could never be induced to follow him. She bade him a friendly adieu
and took upon herself the whole charge of any child of the marriage. The
women in the Jâhilîya[167] had the right to dismiss their husbands, and the
form of dismissal was this: "If they lived in a tent they turned it round, so
that if the door faced east it now faced west, and when the man saw this he
knew that he was dismissed and did not enter." The tent belonged to the
woman; the husband was received there and at her good pleasure.[168]
A further striking example of mother-right is furnished by the Mariana
Islands, where the position of women was distinctly superior.
"Even when the man had contributed an equal share of property on marriage,
the wife dictated everything and the man could undertake nothing without her
approval; but if the woman committed an offence, the man was held responsible
and suffered the punishment. The women could speak in the assembly, they held
property, and if a woman asked anything of a man, he gave it up without a
murmur. If a wife was unfaithful, the husband could send her home, keep her
property and kill the adulterer; but if the man was guilty, or even suspected of the
same offence, the women of the neighbourhood destroyed his house and all his
visible property, and the owner was fortunate if he escaped with a whole skin;
and if the wife was not pleased with her husband, she withdrew and a similar
attack followed. On this account many men were not married, preferring to live
with paid women."[169]

A similar case of the rebellion of men against their position is recorded in
Guinea, where religious symbolism was used by the husband as a way of
escape. The maternal system held with respect to the chief wife.
"It was customary, however, for a man to buy and take to wife a slave, a
friendless person with whom he could deal at pleasure, who had no kindred that
could interfere for her, and to consecrate her to his Bossum or god. The Bossum
wife, slave as she had been, ranked next to the chief wife, and was exceptionally

treated. She alone was very jealously guarded, she alone was sacrificed at her
husband's death. She was, in fact, wife in a peculiar sense. And having, by
consecration, been made of the kindred and worship of her husband, her children
could be born of his kindred and worship."[170]

This practice of having a slave-wife who was the property of the husband
became more and more common; and was one of the causes that led to the
establishment of father-right. How this came we have now to see.

IV.—The Transition to Father-right

In the preceding sections of this chapter I have collected together, with as
much exactitude as I could, many examples of the maternal family. I want
now to refer briefly to a few further cases, which will make clearer the
causes which led to the adoption of father-right.
Many countries where the patriarchal system is firmly established retain
practices which can only be explained as survivals of the earlier custom of
mother-descent.[171] It must suffice to mention one or two examples. In
Burma, which offers in this respect a curious contrast to India, the women
have preserved under father-right most of the privileges of mother-right.
This is the more remarkable as the law of marriage and the relationship of
the sexes is founded on the code of Manu, which proclaims aloud the
inferiority of woman. It is interesting, however, to note that the code
recognises only three kinds of men: the good man, the indifferent man, and
the bad man. Women, though recognised solely in their relation as wives,
are placed in seven classes: the mother-wife, the sister-wife, the daughter-
wife, the friend-wife, the master-wife, the servant-wife, and the slave-wife.
Manu holds that the last of these, the slave-wife, is the best wife. It is,
however, certain that the interpretation of the code in Burma was entirely
opposed to any subjection of the wife. That mother-right must have been
once practised and was very firmly established is proved by the occurrence
of brother-sister marriages. The queens of the last rulers of the country,
Minden-Min and Thebaw, were either their own or their half-sisters, and the
power of government seems to have been almost wholly in the hands of
these queens. The patriarchal custom, so far as the position of women was
concerned, is but a thread, binding them in their marriage, but leaving them

entirely free in other respects. The Burmese wife is much more the master
than the slave of her husband, though she is clever enough as a rule not to
let him feel any inconvenience from her power, which, therefore, he
accepts. The exceptional position of the women is clearly indicated by the
fact that they enter freely into trade, and, indeed, carry out most of the
business of the country. Nearly all the shops are kept by women. In the
markets, where everything that any one could possibly want is sold, almost
all the dealers are women. All classes of the Burmese girls receive their
training in these markets; the daughters of the rich sell the costly and
beautiful stuffs, the poorer girls sell the cheaper wares. It is this training
which accounts for the business capacity shown by the women. The boys
are trained by the priests, as every boy is required, "in order to purify his
soul, to acquire a knowledge of sacred things." This explains a great deal. It
would seem that religion enforces the same penalties on men that in most
countries fall upon women. The Burmese women are very attractive, as is
testified by all who know them. The streets of the towns are thronged with
women at all hours of the day, and they show the greatest delight in
everything that is lively and gay.
Given such complete freedom of women, it is self-evident that the sexual
relationships will also be free. Very striking are the conditions of divorce.
The marriage contract can be dissolved freely at the wish of both, or even of
one, of the partners. In the first case the family property is divided equally
between the wife and the husband, while if only one partner desires to be
freed the property goes to the partner who is left. The children of the
marriage remain with the mother while they are young; but the boys belong
to the father. I wish it were possible for me to give a fuller account of the
Burmese family. The freedom and active work of the women offer many
points of special interest. One thing further must be noted. The Burmese
women would seem not to be wholly satisfied with their power, disliking
the work and responsibility which their freedom entails. For this reason
many of them prefer to marry a Chinese husband; he works for them, while
with a husband of their own country they have to work for him. This is very
instructive. It points to what I believe to be the truth. The loss of her
freedom by woman is often the result of her own desire for protection and
her dislike of work, and is not caused by man's tyranny. Woman's own
action in this matter is not sufficiently recognised. I must not enter upon this

here, as I shall return to the subject later in this chapter. We must now
consider the traces left by mother-descent in Japan and China.
In Japan, as among the Basques, filiation is subordinated to the
transmission of property. It is to the first-born, whether a boy or a girl, that
the inheritance is transmitted, and he or she is forbidden to abandon it. At
the time of marriage the husband or wife must take the name of the heir or
heiress who marries and personifies the property. Filiation is thus
sometimes paternal and sometimes maternal. The maternal uncle still bears
the name of "second little father."[172] The children of the same father, but
not of the same mother, were formerly allowed to marry, a decisive proof of
mother-descent. The wife remained with her own relatives, and the husband
had the right of visiting her by night. The word commonly used for
marriage signified to slip by night into the house. It was not until the
fourteenth century that the husband's residence was the home of the wife,
and marriage became a continued living together by the married pair. Even
now when a man marries an only daughter he frequently lives with her
family, and the children take her name. There is also a custom by which a
man with daughters, but no son, adopts a stranger, giving him one of his
daughters in marriage; the children are counted as the heirs of the maternal
grandfather.[173] Similar survivals are frequent in China. The patriarchate is
rigidly established, but there is evidence to show that the family in this
ancient civilisation has passed through the usual stages of development,
having for its starting-point the familial clan, and passing from this through
the stage of mother-right.[174] The Chinese language itself attests the ancient
existence of the earliest form of marriage, contracted by a group of brothers
having their wives in common, but not marrying their sisters. Thus a
Chinaman calls the sons of his brothers "his sons," but he considers those of
his sisters as his nephews.[175] Certain of the aboriginal tribes still require
the husband to live with his wife's family for a period of seven or ten years
before he is allowed to take her to his home. The eldest child is given to the
husband, the second belongs to the family of the wife.[176] The authority
which the Chinese mother exercises over her son's marriage and over his
wife can only be explained by mother-right customs. There are many other
examples which I must pass over.
In the Island of Madagascar, with whose interesting civilisation, as it
existed before the unfortunate conquest of the country by the French, I am

personally acquainted, mother-right has left much more than traces.[177]
Great freedom in sexual relations was permitted to the men, and in certain
cases to women also. There was no word in the native language for virgin;
the word mpitòvo, commonly used, means only an unmarried woman. On
certain festive ceremonies the licence was very great. The hindrances to
marriage were much more stringent with the mother's relations than with
the father's. Divorce was frequent and easy; the power to exercise it rested
with the husband; but the wife could, and often did, run away, and thus
compel a divorce. A Malagasy proverb compared marriage to a knot so
lightly tied that it could be undone by a touch. Such freedom was due to the
great desire for children; every child was welcome in the family, whatever
its origin.[178] The children belonged to the husband, and so complete was
this possession, that in the case of a divorce not only the children previously
born, but any the wife might afterwards bear, were counted as his.
Among the ruling classes mother-right remained in its early force. The
royal family and nobility traced their descent, contrary to the general
practice, through the mother, and not through the father. The rights of an
unmarried queen were great. She was permitted to have a family by
whomsoever she wished, and her children were recognised as legitimately
royal through her. Among the Hovas not only wealth, but political dignities,
and even sacerdotal functions, were transmitted to the nephew, in
preference to the son.
In the adjacent continent of Africa we find similar privileges enjoyed by
royal women. A delightful example is given by Frazer[179] in Central Africa,
where a small state, near to the Chambezi river, is governed by a queen,
who belongs to the reigning family of Ubemba. She bears the title
Mamfumer, "Mother of Kings." The privileges attached to this dignity are
numerous; the husbands may be chosen at will and from among the
common people.
"The chosen man becomes prince consort, without sharing in the government
of affairs. He is bound to leave everything to follow his royal and often little
accommodating spouse. To show that in these households the rights are inverted
and that a man may be changed into a woman, the queen takes the title of
Monsieur and the husband that of Madame." A visitor to this state,[180] who had
an interview with the queen, reports that, "she was a woman of gigantic stature,
wearing many amulets."

Battle reported that "Loango was ruled by four princes, the sons of a
former king's sister, since the sons of a king never succeed.[181] Frazer gives
an account of the tyrannical authority of the princesses in this state.[182]
"The princesses are free to choose and divorce their husbands at pleasure, and
to cohabit at the same time with other men. The husbands are nearly always
plebeians. The lot of a prince consort is not a happy one, for he is rather the slave
and prisoner than the mate of his imperious princess. In marrying her he engages
never more to look at a woman; when he goes out he is preceded by guards
whose duty it is to drive all females from the road where he is to pass. If, in spite
of these precautions, he should by ill-luck cast his eyes on a woman, the princess
may have his head chopped off, and commonly exercised, or used to exercise,
the right. This sort of libertinism, sustained by power, often carries the princesses
to the greatest excesses, and nothing is so much dreaded as their anger."

In Africa descent through women is the rule,[183] though there are
exceptions, and these are increasing. The amusing account given by Miss
Kingsley[184] of Joseph, a member of the Batu tribe in French Congo,
strikingly illustrates the prevalence of the custom. When asked by a French
official to furnish his own name and the name of his father, Joseph was
wholly nonplussed. "My fader?" he said. "Who my fader?" Then he gave
the name of his mother.
The case is the same among the Negroes. The Fanti of the Gold Coast
may be taken as an example. Among them an intensity of affection
(accounted for partly by the fact that the mothers have exclusive care of the
children) is felt for the mother, while the father is hardly known, or
disregarded, notwithstanding that he may be a wealthy and powerful man
and the legal husband of the mother.[185] The practice of the Wamoima,
where the son of a sister is preferred in legacies, "because a man's own son
is only the son of his wife," is typical.[186] The Bush husband does not live
with his wife, and often has wives in different places. The maternal uncle
supplies his place in the family.
Wherever mother-right has progressed towards father-right, as is the
condition, broadly speaking, in the African continent, the supreme authority
is vested in the maternal uncle. The tribal duty of blood-revenge falls to
him, even against the father. Thus, in some cases, if a woman is murdered,
the duty of revenge is undertaken by her kinsman.[187] In the state of
Loango among the common people the uncle is addressed as tate (father).
He has even the power to sell his sister's children.[188] The child is so
entirely the property of the kin that he may be given in pledge for their

debts. Among the Bavili the mother has the right to pawn the child, but she
must first consult the father, so that he may have a chance of giving her
goods to save the pledging.[189] This is very plainly a step towards father-
right. There is no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children.
Similar conditions prevail among the Alladians of the Ivory Coast, but here
the mother cannot pledge her children without the consent of her brother or
other male head of the family. The father has the right to ransom the child.
[190] An even stronger example of the property value of children is furnished
by the custom found among many tribes, by which the father has to make a
present to the wife's kin when a child dies: this is called "buying the child."
[191]

These cases, with the inferences they suggest, show that though mother-
descent may be strongly established in Africa, this does not confer (except
to the royal princesses) any special distinction upon women. This is
explained if we recognise that a transitional period has been reached, when,
under the pressure of social, and particularly of military activities, the
government of the tribe has passed to the male kindred of the women. It
wants but a step further for the establishment of father-right.
There are many cases pointing to this new father-force asserting itself
and pushing aside the earlier order. Again I can give one or two examples
only. Among Wayao and Mang'anja of the Shire highlands, south of Lake
Nyassa, a man on marrying leaves his own village and goes to live in that of
his wife; but, as an alternative, he is allowed to pay a bride-price, in which
case he takes his wife away to his home.[192] Whenever we find the
payment of a bride-price, there is sure indication of the decay of mother-
right: woman has become property. Among the Bassa Komo of Nigeria
marriage is usually effected by an exchange of sisters or other female
relatives. The women are supposed to be faithful to their husbands. If,
however, as frequently happens, there is a preliminary courtship period,
during which the marriage is considered as provisional, considerable
licence is granted to the woman. Chastity is only regarded as a virtue when
the woman has become the property of the husband. The men may marry as
many wives as they have sisters or female relatives to give in exchange. In
this tribe the women look after the children, but the boys, when four years
old, go to work and live with their fathers.[193] The husbands of the
Bambala tribe (inhabiting the Congo states between the rivers Inzia and

Kwilu) have to abstain from visiting their wives for a year after the birth of
each child, but they are allowed to return to her on the payment to her father
of two goats.[194] Among the Basanga on the south-west of Lake Moeru the
children of the wife belong to the mother's kin, but the children of slaves are
the property of the father.[195]
It is rendered clear by such cases as these, that the rise of father-right was
dependent on property and had nothing to do with blood relationship. The
payment of a bride-price, the giving of a sister in exchange, as also
marriage with a slave, gained for the husband the control over his wife and
ownership of her children. I could bring forward much more evidence in
proof of this fact did the limits of my space allow me to do this; such cases
are common in all parts of the world where the transitional stage from
mother-right to father-right has been reached. But I believe that the causes
by which the father gained his position as the dominant partner in marriage
must be clear to every one from the examples I have given. I will, therefore,
quote only one final and most instructive case. It illustrates in a curious way
the conflict between the old rights of the woman and the rising power of the
male force in connection with marriage. It occurs among the Hassanyeh
Arabs of the White Nile, where the wife passes by contract for only a
portion of her time under the authority of her husband.
"When the parents of the man and the woman meet to settle the price of the
woman, the price depends on how many days in the week the marriage tie is to
be strictly observed. The woman's mother first of all proposes that, taking
everything into consideration, with due regard to the feelings of the family, she
could not think of binding her daughter to a due observance of that chastity
which matrimony is expected to command for more than two days in the week.
After a great deal of apparently angry discussion, and the promise on the part of
the relations of the man to pay more, it is arranged that the marriage shall hold
good as is customary among the first families of the tribe, for four days in the
week, viz. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and in compliance with
old established custom, the marriage rites during the three remaining days shall
not be insisted on, during which days the bride shall be perfectly free to act as
she may think proper, either by adhering to her husband and home, or by
enjoying her freedom and independence from all observance of matrimonial
obligation."[196]

We have at length concluded our investigation of this first period of
organised society, and have ascertained many facts that we can use as a
touchstone to try the truth of the various theories that are put forward with
regard to woman and her position in the family and in the State. The
importance of the mother-age to women is evident. Thus I offer no apology

for the length at which I have treated the subject. It has seemed to me after
careful revision that no one of the examples given can be omitted. Facts are
of so much more importance than opinions if we are to come to the truth.
Without attempting to trace exhaustively the history or even to enumerate
the peoples living, or who have lived, under mother-right customs, we have
examined many and varied cases of the actual working of this system, with
special reference to the position held by women. The examples have been
chosen from all parts of the world, so as to prove (what is sometimes
denied) that mother-right has not been confined to any one race, that it is
not a local custom under special conditions, but that it has been a necessary
stage of growth of human societies. My aim has been to illustrate the stages
through which society passed from mother-right to father-right. It has not
been possible to arrange the evidence in any exact progressive sequence,
but I hope the cases given will make clear what I believe to have been the
general trend of growth: at first the power in the hands of the women, but
this giving way to the slow but steady usurping of the mother's authority by
the ever-assertive male.
I shall now conclude this study of the mother-age by attempting to
formulate the general truths, which, it seems to me, may be drawn from the
examples we have examined.
I. The first effort of primitive society was to establish some form of
order, and in that order the women of the group were the more stable and
predominant partners in the family relationship.
II. Impelled by the conditions of motherhood to a more settled life than
the men of the tribe, women were the first agriculturists, weavers, dyers and
dressers of skins, potters, the domesticators of animals, the first architects,
and sometimes the primitive doctors—in a word, the inventors and
organisers of the peaceful art of life.[197] Primitive women were strong in
body[198] and capable in work. The power they enjoyed as well as their
manifold activities were a result of their position as mothers, this function
being to them a source of strength and not a plea of weakness.
III. Moral ideas, as we understand them, hardly existed. The oldest form
of marriage was what is known as "group marriage," which was the union
of two tribal groups or clans, the men of one totem group marrying the

women of another, and vice versa, but no man or woman having one
particular wife or husband.
IV. The individual relationship between the sexes began with the
reception of temporary lovers by the woman in her own home. But as
society progressed, a relationship thus formed would tend under favourable
circumstances to be continued, and, in some cases, perpetuated. The lover
thus became the husband, but he was still without property right, with no—
or very little—control over the woman, and none over her children,
occupying, indeed, the position of a more or less permanent guest in her hut
or tent.
V. The social organisation which followed this custom was in most cases
—and always, I believe, in their primitive form—favourable to women.
Kinship was recognised through the mother, and the continuity of the
family thus depending solely on the woman, it followed she was the holder
of all property. Her position and that of her children was, by this means,
assured, and in the case of a separation it was the man who departed,
leaving her in possession. The woman was the head of the household, and
in some instances held the position of tribal chief.
VI. This early power of women, arising from the recognition alone of
womb-kinship, with the resulting freedom in sexual relationships permitted
to women, could not continue. It was no more possible for society to be
built up on mother-right alone than it is possible for it to remain
permanently based on father-right.
VII. It is important to note that the causes which led to the change in the
position of the sexes had no direct connection with moral development; it
was not due, as many have held, to the recognition of fatherhood. The cause
was quite different and was founded on property. It arose, in the first
instance, through a property value being connected with women
themselves. As soon as the women's kin began to see in their women a
means by exchange of obtaining wives for themselves, and also the
possibility of gaining worldly goods, both in the property held by women,
and by means of the service and presents that could be claimed from their
lovers, we find them exercising more or less strict supervision over the
alliances of their female relatives.

VIII. At first, and for a long time, the early freedom of women persisted
in the widely spread custom of a preliminary period before marriage of
unrestricted sexual relationships. But permanent unions became subject to
the consent of the woman's kindred.
It was in this way, I am certain, and for no moral considerations that the
stringency of the sexual code was first tightened for women.
IX. At a much later date virginity came to have a special market-value,
from which time a jealous watch began to be kept upon maidenhood.
It seems to me of very great importance that women should grasp firmly
this truth: the virtue of chastity owes its origin to property. Our minds fall
so readily under the spell of such ideas as chastity and purity. There is a
mass of real superstition on this question—a belief in a kind of magic in
purity. But, indeed, chastity had at first no connection with morals. The
sense of ownership has been the seed-plot of our moral code. To it we are
indebted for the first germs of the sexual inhibitions which, sanctified by
religion and supported by custom, have, under the unreasoned idealism of
the common mind, filled life with cruelties and jealous exclusions, with
suicides and murders and secret shames.
X. This intrusion of economics into the sexual relationships brought
about the revolution in the status of women. As soon as women became
sexually marketable, their early power was doomed. First came what I hold
to have been the transitional stage of the mother-age. This will explain how
it is that, even where matrilineal descent is in full force, we may find the
patriarchal subjection of women. The mother's authority has been usurped
by her male kindred, usually her brother.
XI. We have noted the alien position of the father even among peoples at
a stage of development where paternity was fully established. This
subjection, which, perhaps, would not be felt in the earlier stage of mother-
right, must have been increased by the intrusion of the authority of the
wife's male kindred. The impulse to dominate by virtue of strength or of
property possessions has manifested itself in every age. As society
advanced property would increase in value, and the social and political
significance of its possession would also increase. It is clear that such a
position of insecurity for the husband and father would tend to become
impossible.

XII. One way of escape—which doubtless took place at a very early
stage—was by the capture of women. Side by side with the customary
marriages in which the husband resided in the home of the wife, without
rights and subject to her clan-kindred, we find the practice of a man keeping
one or more captive wives in his own home for his use and service. It will
be readily seen that the special rights in the home over these owned wives
(rights, moreover, that were recognised by the tribe) would come to be
desired by other men. But the capture of wives was always difficult as it
frequently led to a quarrel and even warfare with the woman's tribe, and for
this reason was never widely practised. It would, therefore, be necessary for
another way of escape to be found. This was done by changing the
conditions of the customary marriage. Nor do I think it unlikely that such
change may have been received favourably by women. The captive wives
may even have been envied by the regular wife. An arrangement that would
give a more individual relationship to marriage and the protection of a
husband for herself and the children of their union may well have been
preferred by woman to her position of subjection that had now arisen to the
authority of her brother or other male relative. The alteration from the old
custom may thus be said to have been due, in part, to the interests of the
husband, but also, in part, to the inclination of the wife.
XIII. The change was gained by elopement, by simulated capture, by the
gift or exchange of women, and by the payment of a bride-price. The bride-
price came to be the most usual custom, gradually displacing the others. As
we have seen, it was often regarded as a condition, not of the marriage
itself, but of the transfer of the wife to the home of the husband and of the
children to his kin.
XIV. It was in this way, for economic reasons, and the personal needs of
both the woman and the man, and not, I believe, specially through the
fighting propensities of the males, and certainly not by any unfair
domination or tyranny on the part of the husband that the position of the
sexes was reversed.
XV. But be this as it may, to woman the result was no less far-reaching
and disastrous. She had become the property of one master, residing in her
husband's tribe, which had no rights or duties in regard to her, where she
was a stranger, perhaps speaking a different language. And her children kept
her bound to this alien home in a much closer way than the husband could

ever have been bound to her home under the earlier custom. Woman's early
power rested in her organised position among her own kin: this was now
lost.
XVI. The change was not brought about quickly. For long the mother's
influence persisted as a matter of habit. We have its rather empty shadow
with us to-day.
XVII. But, under the pressure of the new conditions, the old custom of
tracing descent and the inheritance of property in the female line (so
favourable to women) died. Mother-right passed away, remaining only as a
tradition, or practised in isolated cases among primitive peoples. The
patriarchal age, which still endures, succeeded. Women became slaves, who
of old had been dominant.
One final word more.
The opinion that the subjection of women arose from male mastery, or
was due to any special cruelty, must be set aside. To me the history of the
mother-age does not teach this. I believe this charge could not have arisen,
at all events it would not have persisted, if women, with the power they
then enjoyed, had not desired the gaining of a closer relationship with the
father of their children. With all the evils that father-right has brought to
woman, we have got to remember that woman owes the individual relation
of the man to herself and her children to the patriarchal system. The father's
right in his children (which, unlike the right of the mother, was not founded
on kinship, but rested on the quite different and insecure basis of property)
had to be established. Without this being done, the family in its full and
perfect development was impossible. We women need to remember this,
lest bitterness stains our sense of justice. It may be that progress social and
moral could not have been accomplished otherwise; that the cost of love's
development has been the enslavement of woman. If so, then women will
not, in the long account of Nature, have lost in the payment of the price.
They may be (when they come at last to understand the truth) better fitted
for their refound freedom.
Neither mother-right alone, nor father-right alone, can satisfy the new
ideals of the true relationship of the sexes. The spiritual force, slowly
unfolding, that has uplifted, and is still uplifting, womanhood, is the
foundation of woman's claim that the further progress of humanity is bound

up with her restoration to a position of freedom and human equality. But
this position she must not take from man—that, indeed, would be a step
backwards. No, she is to share it with him, and this for her own sake and for
his, and, more than all, for the sake of their children and all the children of
the race.
This replacement of the mother side by side with the father in the home
and in the larger home of the State is the true work of the Woman's
Movement.

FOOTNOTES:

[97] It is abundantly evident to any one who looks carefully into the past that sex
occupied a large share of the consciousness of primitive races. The elaborate
courtship rites and sex festivals alone give proof of this. It is, unfortunately,
impossible for me to follow this question and give examples. I must refer the
reader to H. Ellis's Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. pp. 34-44, where a number of
typical cases are given of the courtship customs of the primitive peoples. See
also Thomas, Sex and Society, chapter on "The Psychology of Exogamy," pp.
175-179.
[98] This is the mistake that Westermark—in his valuable History of Human
Marriage—as well as many writers have fallen into; assuming that because
monogamy is found among man's nearest ancestors, the anthropoid apes,
primitive human groups must have had a tendency towards monogamy. Whereas
the exact opposite of this is true. There is, it would seem, a deeply rooted dislike
in studying sex matters to face truth. This habit of fear explains the many
elaborate efforts undertaken to establish the theory that primitive races practised
a stricter sexual code than the facts prove. Letourneau, in The Evolution of
Marriage, appears to adopt this view, and forces evidence in trying to prove the
non-existence of a widespread early period of promiscuity (pp. 37-44). Mention
may be made, on the other side, of Iwan Bloch, who, writing from a different
standpoint and much deeper psychology, has no doubt at all of the early
existence of, and even the continued tendency towards, promiscuity.—The
Sexual Life of Our Times, pp. 188-195.
[99] Our knowledge of the habits of primitive races has increased greatly of late
years. The classical works of Bachofen, Waitz, Kulischer, Giraud-Teulon, von
Hellwald, Krauss, Ploss-Bartels and other ethnologists, and the investigation of
Morgan, McLennan, Müller, and many others, have opened up wide sources of
information.

[100] Thomas, Sex and Society, p. 68, and Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage,
pp. 269-270, 320.
[101] Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, p. 9.
[102] This opinion is founded on the anthropological investigations during the
past half century. See Hartland, Primitive Paternity, Vol. I. pp. 256-257; H. Ellis,
Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. pp. 390-382, and "The Changing Status of Women,"
Westminster Review, October 1886; Thomas, Sex and Society, p. 58, and Bloch,
Sexual History of our Times, pp. 190-196.
[103] For a full and illuminative treatment of this subject I would refer my
readers to the essays of Professor Karl Pearson, The Chances of Death, Vol. II.
—"Woman as Witch: Evidences of Mother-Right in the Customs of Mediæval
Witchcraft"; "Ashiepattle, or Hans Seeks his Luck"; "Kindred Group Marriage,"
Part I.; "The Mother-Age Civilisation," Part II.; "General Words for Sex and
Kinship," Part III.; "Special Words for Sex and Relationship." In these suggestive
essays Professor Pearson has brought together a great number of facts which
give a new and charming significance to the early position of women. Perhaps
the most interesting essay is that of "Woman as Witch," in which he shows that
the beliefs and practices connected with mediæval witchcraft were really
perverted rites, survivals of mother-age customs.
[104] Bede, II. 1-7.
[105] F. Frazer, Golden Bough, Pt. I. The Magic Art, Vol. II. pp. 282-283.
Canute's marriage was clearly one of policy: Emma was much older than he was,
she was then living in Normandy, and it is doubtful if the Danish king had ever
seen her. Such marriages with the widow of a king were common. The familiar
example of Hamlet's uncle is one, who, after murdering his brother, married his
wife, and became king. His acceptance by the people, in spite of his crime, is
explained if it was the old Danish custom for marriage with the king's widow to
carry the kingdom with it. In Hamlet's position as avenger, and his curious
hesitancy, we have really an indication of the conflict between the old and new
ways of reckoning descent.
[106] Strabo, IV. 5, 4. Hartland, Primitive Paternity, Vol. II. p. 132. It must not
be thought that mother-descent was always accompanied by promiscuity, or even
with what we should call laxity of morals. We shall find that it was not. But the
early custom of group marriages was frequent, in which women often changed
their mates at will, and perhaps retained none of them long. We shall see that this
freedom, whatever were its evils, carried with it many privileges for women.
[107] H. Ellis, citing Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, The Welsh People, p. 214.
[108] Gen. xxiv. 5-53.
[109] Gen. xxxi. 41, 43.
[110] Judges xv. 1.
[111] Num. xxxii. 8-11.
[112] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 326.
[113] Num. xxxvi. 4-8.
[114] Gen. xii.

[115] 2 Sam. xiii. 16.
[116] Exod. vi. 20.
[117] Gen. xi. 26-29.
[118] See Thomas, Sex and Society, pp. 63-64.
[119] Morgan, House and House-life of the American Aborigines, p. 64. This
example of mother-descent may be taken as typical of Indian life in all parts of
America at the epoch of European discovery.
[120] Morgan, Anc. Soc., 62, 71, 76; Hartland, Primitive Paternity, Vol. I. p. 298,
Vol. II. p. 65.
[121] McLennan, Studies, I. p. 271. Thus among the Choctas, if a boy is to be
placed at school, his uncle, instead of his father, takes him to the mission and
makes arrangements.
[122] Report of an Official for Indian Affairs on two of the Iroquoian tribes,
cited by Hartland, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 298. McLennan attributes the arrangement of
the marriages to the mothers (Studies, ii. p. 339). This would be the earlier
custom and is still practised among several tribes.
[123] Charlevoix, V. p. 418, quoted by Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II. p. 66.
[124] The customs of the Senecas have been noted by the Rev. A. Wright, who
was a missionary for many years amongst them, and was familiar with their
language and habits. His account is quoted by Morgan, House and House-life of
the American Aborigines.
[125] We seem here to have a suggestion of the modern plan of co-operative
dwelling-houses. It is extraordinary how many of our new (!) ideas seem to have
been common in the mother-age. Was it because women, who are certainly more
practical and careful of detail than men are, had part in the social arrangements?
This would explain the revival of the same ideas to-day, when women are again
taking up their part in the ordering of domestic and social life.
[126] Powell, Rep. Bur. Ethn., I, p. 63.
[127] Owen, Musquakies, p. 72, quoted by Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 68-69.
[128] I have summarised the account of the Wyandot government as given by
Hartland, who quotes from Powell's "Wyandot Government," First Annual
Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1879-1880, pp. 61 ff.
[129] "The Beginning of Marriage," American Anthropologist, Vol. IX. p. 376.
Rep. Bur. Ethn., XVII. p. 275.
[130] This is supposed by McGee to suggest a survival of a vestigial polyandry.
[131] Mrs. Stevenson, Rep. Bur. Ethn., XXIII. pp. 290, 293. Cushing, Zuñi Folk
Tales, p. 368, cited by Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 73, 74.
[132] Rep. Bur. Ethn., XIII. p. 340. Solberg, Zeits. f. Ethnol., XXXVII. p. 269.
Voth, Traditions of the Hopi, pp. 67, 96, 133. Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 74-
76.
[133] Rep. Bur. Ethn., IX. p. 19. Hartland, Ibid., pp. 76-77. It would seem in
some cases, the husband, after a period of residence with his wife's family,

provides a separate house.
[134] Sex and Society, pp. 65-66.
[135] Bachofen's work was foreshadowed by an earlier writer, Father Lafiteau,
who published his Mœurs des sauvages américains in 1721. Das Mutterrecht
was published in 1861. McLennan, ignorant of Bachofen's work, followed
immediately after with his account of the Indian Hill Tribes. He was followed by
Morgan, with his knowledge of Iroquois, and many other investigators.
[136] Lord Avebury, for example, says: "I believe that communities in which
women have exercised supreme power were quite exceptional," Marriage,
Totemism and Religion, p. 51. See also Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, pp.
281-282.
[137] In this opinion I am glad to have the support of so high an authority as Mr.
Havelock Ellis. See his admirable summary of this question, Psychology of Sex,
Vol. VI. pp. 390-393; also the essay already referred to, "Changing Status of
Women," Westminster Review, Oct. 1886.
[138] Ratzel, History of Mankind, Vol. II. p. 130; see Thomas, op. cit., chapter on
"Sex and Primitive Industry."
[139] Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 65.
[140] Hoffman, "The Menomini Indians," Fourteenth Rep. of the Bur. of Am.
Ethno., p. 288.
[141] Papers of the Arch. Inst. of Am., Vol. II. p. 138.
[142] Fison and Howitt, Native Tribes of Australia; also Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
pp. 33, 65, 66. See also Hartland, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 294.
[143] Letourneau, op. cit., pp. 44, 271-274. Thomas, op. cit., p. 61.
[144] Hartland, Primitive Paternity, Vol. II. pp. 155-156, 39-41.
[145] Dalton, Ethnology of Bengal, p. 54; also Tylor, "The Matriarchal System,"
Nineteenth Century, July 1896, p. 89.
[146] Dalton, op. cit., p. 63, cited by Hartland. I would suggest that Mr. Bernard
Shaw may have had this marriage custom in his mind when he created Ann. See
p. 66.
[147] This custom prevails, for instance, among the Kharwârs and Parahiya
tribes, and is common among the Ghasiyas, and is also practised among the
Tipperah of Bengal. Among the Santâls this service-marriage is used when a girl
is ugly or deformed and cannot be married otherwise, while the Badagas of the
Nil'giri Hills offer their daughters when in want of labourers.
[148] Crooke, Tribes and Castes, iii. p. 242.
[149] Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 156, 157.
[150] Risley, The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Vol. I. pp. 228, 231.
[151] Rivers, The Todas; Schrott, Tras. Ethno. Soc. (New Series), Vol. VIII. p.
261.
[152] Letourneau, quoting Skinner, Evolution of Marriage, p. 78.

[153] Thurston, Ethnographic Notes in Southern India, p. 114. Polyandry has
flourished not only among the primitive races of India. The Hindoo populations
also adopted it, and traces of the custom may be found in their sacred literature.
Thus in the Mahäbhärata the five Pándava brothers marry all together the
beautiful Drûaupadi, with eyes of lotus blue (Mahäbhärata, trad. Fauche, t. II. p.
148). For an account of polyandry in ancient India the reader should consult
Jolly, Gundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde.
[154] Davy, Ceylon, p. 286; Sachot, L'Île de Ceylon, p. 25.
[155] Turner, Thibet, p. 348, and Hist. Univ. des, Voy., Vol. XXXI. p. 434;
Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, p. 36.
[156] Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II. p. 164.
[157] This is the opinion of Bernhöft, quoted by Iwan Bloch. Marshall points out
that among the Todas group-marriages occur side by side with polyandry. Bloch
also notes that in the common cases where the husband has a claim on his wife's
sister, and even her cousins and aunts, we find polygamy developed out of
group-marriage. The practice of wife lending and wife exchange is also
connected with the early communal marriage (Sexual History of Our Times, pp.
193-194). It is possible that prostitution may be a relic of this early sexual
freedom. What is moral in one stage of civilisation often becomes immoral in
another, when the reasons for its existing have changed.
[158] Havelock Ellis writing on this subject ("Changing Status of Women,"
Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1886) says: "It seems that in the dawn of the race an
elaborate social organisation permitted a more or less restricted communal
marriage, every man in the tribe being at the outset the husband of every woman,
first practically, then theoretically, and that the social organisation which had this
point of departure was particularly favourable to women."
[159] It is a matter of dispute whether a woman may have more than one
husband at a time. The older accounts state this, while later it has been denied.
The probability is that this was the custom, but that it is dying out under modern
influences. Hartland, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 267.
[160] In north Malabar a custom has arisen by which after a special ceremony
the bridegroom is allowed to take the bride to live in his house, but in the case of
his death she must at once return to her own family.
[161] J.A.I., XII. p. 292; Hartland, op. cit., p. 288. Letourneau, apparently
quoting Bachofen, says that the women control property. This was probably an
earlier custom, when the power was more truly in the hands of women, and had
not passed to their male relatives.
[162] Wilken, Verwantschap, p. 678; Bijdragen, XXXI. p. 40.
[163] Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 291. A second form of
marriage, known as Jujur, was also practised. It was much more elaborate, and
shows very instructively the rise of father-right. By it the authority of the
husband over his wife is asserted by a very complicated system of payments; his
right to take her to his home, and his absolute property in her depending wholly
on these payments. If the final sum is paid (but this is not commonly claimed
except in the case of a quarrel between the families) the woman becomes to all
intents the slave of the man; but if on the other hand, as is not at all uncommon,

the husband fails or has difficulty in making the main payment, he becomes the
debtor of his wife's family and is practically a slave, all his labour being due to
his creditor without any reduction in the debt, which must be paid in full, before
he regains liberty. (See Marsden, History of Sumatra, pp. 225, 235, 257, 262, for
an account of both marriages.)
[164] Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia.
[165] Havelock Ellis, op. cit., pp. 391-392, quoting Robertson Smith.
[166] Barlow, Semitic Origins, p. 45.
[167] Robertson Smith, op. cit., p. 65.
[168] This kind of union for a term is said to have been recognised by
Mahommed, though it is irregular by Moslem law. The cases of beena marriage
are very frequent among widely different peoples. (See Hartland, Primitive
Paternity, Vol. II. pp. 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 24, 27, 30-36, 38, 41-43, 51, 53, 55, 60-
63, 67-72, 76, 77.) Frazer (Academy, March 27, 1886) cites an interesting
example among the tribes on the north frontier of Abyssinia, partially Semitic
peoples, not yet under the influence of Islam, who preserve a system of marriage
closely resembling the beena marriage, but have as well a purchase marriage, by
which a wife is acquired by payment of a bride-price and becomes the property
of her husband. (Quoted by Ellis, op. cit., p. 392 note.)
[169] Thomas, Sex and Society, pp. 73-74. Quoting Waitz-Gerland,
Anthropologie der Naturvölker, Vol. V. p. 107.
[170] McLennan, The Patriarchal Theory, p. 235.
[171] Thomas, op. cit., p. 75, points out that this survival of woman's power after
the rise of father-right is similar to the assertion of male-power under mother-
right in the person of the woman's brother or male relative.
[172] Letourneau, op. cit., p. 323, who quotes Lubbock, Orig. Civil., p. 177.
[173] Hartland, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 14, citing Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity.
[174] Letourneau, op. cit., p. 323.
[175] Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity ("Smithsonian Contributions"), Vol.
XVII. pp. 416-417.
[176] Hartland, Vol. II. p. 45, quoting Gray, China, Vol. II. p. 304.
[177] This is the opinion of Hartland. He quotes Ellis, History of Madagascar,
and Sibree, The Great African Island. I am able to speak as to the truths of the
facts given in their books from my knowledge of the Malagasy before the French
occupation of the island. Madagascar is my birth-place, and my father was a
missionary in the country at the same time as Mr. Ellis and Mr. Sibree.
[178] As an instance of the importance attached to children, I may mention the
fact that, after my birth my father was not announced to preach under his own
name, but as "the father of Kéteka," the Malagasy equivalent of my name.
[179] Frazer, Golden Bough, Pt. I. The Magical Art, Vol. II. p. 277.
[180] Father Guillemé, Missiones Catholiques, XXXIV. (1902), p. 16.
[181] Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, p. 151.

[182] Frazer, Ibid., p. 276.
[183] "Birth," we are told by a keen observer, who has lived for many years in
intimate converse with the natives, "sanctifies the child; birth alone gives him
status as a member of his mother's family" (Dennett, Jour. Afr. Soc., I. p. 265).
[184] Travels, p. 109.
[185] Hartland, quoting Mr. Sarbah, a native barrister, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 286.
[186] Lippert, Kulturgeschichte, Vol. II. p. 57.
[187] This is done among the Beni Amer on the shores of the Red Sea and in the
Barka valley, which is the more remarkable as mother-descent has fallen into
desuetude under the influence of Islamism. (Hartland, Vol. I. p. 274, quoting
Munzinger, Ostafrikanische studien.)
[188] Bastian, Loango-Küste, I. p. 166.
[189] Dennett, Jour. Afr. Soc., I. p. 266.
[190] Jour. Afr. Soc., I. p. 412. See Hartland, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 275-288.
[191] A similar custom prevails among Maori people of New Zealand. When a
child dies, or even meets with an accident, the mother's relations, headed by her
brother, turn out in force against the father. He must defend himself until
wounded. Blood once drawn the combat ceases; but the attacking party plunders
his house and appropriates the husband's property, and finally sits down to a feast
provided by him (Old New Zealand, p. 110). This case is the more extraordinary
as the Maori reckon descent through the father; it is doubtless a custom
persisting from an earlier time.
[192] Macdonald, Africana, Vol. I. p. 136.
[193] Jour. Afr. Soc., VIII. pp. 15-17. This tribe now traces descent through the
father.
[194] Torday and Joyce, J.A.I., XXXV. p. 410.
[195] Arnot, Garenganze, p. 242.
[196] Spencer, Descriptive Sociology, Vol. V. p. 8, citing Petherick, Egypt, the
Soudan, and Central Africa, pp. 140-144. This case is quoted by Thomas, op,
cit., pp. 85, 86.
[197] For fuller information on this important subject the reader is referred to
Professor Otis Mason, who gives a picturesque summary of the work done by
women among the primitive tribes of America (American Antiquarian, January
1889, "The Ulu, or Woman's Knife of the Eskimo," Report of the United States
National Museum, 1890). H. Ellis, Man and Woman, pp. 1-17, and Thomas, Sex
and Society, pp. 123-146, give interesting accounts of the division of labour
among primitive people, showing the important part women took in the start of
industrialism. For direct examples from primitive peoples, the works of Fison
and Howit, James Macdonald, Professor Haddow, Hearn, Morgan, Bancroft,
Lubbock, Ratzel, Schoolcroft and other anthropologists should be consulted.
[198] It is an entirely mistaken view, founded on insufficient knowledge, that in
early civilisations women were a source of weakness to the men of the tribe or
group, and, thus, liable to oppression. The very reverse is the truth. Fison and

Howit, who discuss the question, say of the Australian women, "In time of peace
they are the hardest workers and the most useful members of the community." In
time of war, "they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves at all times,
and so far from being an encumbrance on the warriors, they will fight, if need be,
as bravely as the men, and with even greater ferocity" (Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
pp. 133-147, 358). This is no exceptional case, and is confirmed by the reports of
investigators of widely different peoples. I may mention the ancient Iberian
women of Northern Spain, whose bravery in battle is testified to by Strabo: the
descendants of these women still carry on the greater part of the active labour
connected with agriculture (Spain Revisited, pp. 191-292). In our own day we
have the witness to the same truth in the heroic part taken by women in the
Balkan army.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER VII

WOMAN'S POSITION IN THE GREAT CIVILISATIONS OF
ANTIQUITY

I.—In Egypt

The importance of estimating woman's position in the great
civilisations of the ancient world—The Egyptian civilisation
—Women more free and more honoured than in any country
to-day—The account given by Herodotus—The Egyptian
woman never confined to the home—No restraint upon her
actions—She entered into commerce in her own right and
made contracts for her own benefit—Abundant material in
proof of the high status of Egyptian women—Marriage
contracts—Their importance and interest—Numerous
examples—The proprietary rights of the wife—An early
period of mother-rule—Property originally in the hands of

women—The marriage contracts a development of the early
system—The Egyptians solved the difficult problem of the
fusion of mother-right with father-right—The statement of
Dioderus that among the Egyptians the woman rules over
the man—The conditions of marriage dependent on the birth
of children—M. Paturet's view the Egyptian woman the
equal of man—The high status of woman proved by the fact
that her child was never illegitimate—The position of the
mother secure in every relationship between the sexes—This
made possible by the free conditions of the marriage
contracts—Polygamy allowed—This practice in Egypt very
different from polygamy in a patriarchal society—The
husband a privileged guest in the home of the wife—The
high ideal of the domestic relationship—Illustrations from
the inscriptions of the monuments—Reasons which explain
this civilised and human organisation—The Egyptians an
agricultural and a conservative people—They were also a
pacific race—The significance of the Maxims of the
Moralists—Honour to the wife and the mother strongly
insisted on—The health and character of the Egyptian
mother—Some reflections in the Egyptian Galleries of the
British Museum.

II.—In Babylon

Traces of mother-right in primitive Babylon—The honour paid to
women—The position of women in later Babylonian history,
though still at an early period—Their rights more
circumscribed—The marriage code of Hammurabi—
Polygamy permitted, though restricted, by the code—The
exacting conditions of divorce—The position of the wife as
subject to her husband—The later Neo-Babylonian periods
—The position of women continuously improving—They
obtain a position equal in law with their husbands—Their
freedom in all social relations—They conduct business

transactions in their own right—Illustrations from the
contract tablets—Remarks and conclusion.

III.—In Greece

Traces of mother-right traditions in Greek literature and history—
The women of the Homeric period—Dangers arising from
the patriarchal subjection of women—Illustrations and
various reflections—Historic Greece—The social
organisation of Sparta—Their marriage system—The laws
of Lycurgus—The freedom of the Spartan girls—The wise
care for the health of the race—Plato's criticism of the
Spartan system—He accuses the women of ruling their
husbands—The Athenian women—Their subjection under
the strict patriarchal rule—The insistence on chastity—
Reasons for this—The degraded position of the wife—The
hetairæ—They the only educated women in Athens—
Aspasia—She leads the movement to raise the position of
the Athenian women—Plato's estimate of women—Remarks
on the sexual penalties for women that are always found
under a strict patriarchal regime—The ideal relationship
between the wife and the husband—Euripides voices the
sorrows of women—He foreshadows their coming triumph.

IV.—In Rome

Little known of the position of women in Rome in prehistoric
times—Indications of an early period of mother-rule—The
patriarchal system formerly established when Roman history
opens—The Roman marriage law—The woman regarded as
the property first of her father and afterwards of her husband
—The patrician marriage of confarreatio—The form known
as coemptio—Marriage by usus—The inequality of divorce
—The subjection of the woman—The terrible right of the

husband's manus—The way of escape—The development of
the early marriage by usus—The new free marriage by
consent—Free divorce—A revolution in the position of
women—The patriarchal rule of women dwindled to a mere
thread—They gained increasingly greater liberty until at last
they gained complete freedom—The public entry of women
into the affairs of State—Illustrations to show the fine use
made by the Roman matrons of their freedom—An
examination into the supposed licentiousness of Roman
women—This opinion cannot be accepted—The effect of
Christianity—The view of Sir Henry Maine—Some
concluding remarks on the position of women in the four
great civilisations examined in this chapter.

CHAPTER VIIToC

WOMAN'S POSITION IN THE GREAT CIVILISATIONS OF
ANTIQUITY

I.—In Egypt

"If we consider the status of woman in the great empires of antiquity, we find
on the whole that in their early stage, the stage of growth, as well as in their final
stage, the stage of fruition, women tend to occupy a favourable position, while in
their middle stage, usually the stage of predominating military organisation on a
patriarchal basis, women usually occupy a less favourable position. This cyclic
movement seems to be almost a natural law of development of great social
groups."—Havelock Ellis.

The civilisations through which I am now going to follow the history of
woman, in so far as they offer any special features of interest to our inquiry
into woman's character and her true place in the social order, belong to the
great civilisations of the ancient world, civilisations, moreover, that have
deeply influenced human culture. It forms the second part of our historical
investigation. There can be no doubt of its interest to us, for if we can prove
that women have exercised unquestioned and direct authority in the family
and in the State, not only among primitive peoples, but in stable
civilisations of vital culture, we shall be in a position to answer those who
wish to set limits to women's present activities.
It is necessary to enter into this inquiry with caution: the difficulties
before me are very great. Again, it is not in any scarcity of evidence, but in
its superabundance that the trouble rests. It is hard to condense the social
habits of peoples into a few dozen pages. Nothing would be easier than
from the mass of material available to pile up facts in furnishing a picture of
the high status of woman that would unnerve any upholders of female
subordination. It is just possible, on the other hand, to interpret these facts
from a fixed point of thought, and then to argue that, in spite of her power,
woman was still regarded as the inferior of man.[199] I wish to do neither. It

is my purpose to outline the domestic relationships and the family law and
customs as they existed in Egypt and in Babylon, in Greece and in Rome; to
touch the features of social life only in so far as they illustrate this, and so to
discover to what extent the mother was still regarded as the natural
transmitter of property and head of the household. The subject is an
immensely complicated and seductive one, so that I must keep strictly to the
path set by this inquiry.
Let us turn first to Egypt.
We have so rich a collection of the remains of the ancient Egyptian
civilisation, and so careful and industrious a scholarship has been given to
interpret them, that we can with confidence reconstruct in outline the legal
status and proprietary rights enjoyed by women, which gave them a
position more free and more honoured than they have in any country of the
world to-day. This is not an overestimate of the facts. The security of her
proprietary rights made the Egyptian woman the legal head of the
household, she inherited equally with her brothers, and had full control of
her own property. She was juridically the equal of man, having the same
rights, with the same freedom of action, and being honoured in the same
way.
The position of woman in Egypt is, indeed, full of surprises to the
modern believer in woman's subjection. Herodotus, who was a keen
observer, was the first to record his astonishment. He writes—
"They have established laws and customs opposite for the most part to those
of the rest of mankind. With them the women go to market and traffic; the 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."[200]

There is probably some exaggeration in this account, but it is certain that
the wide activities of the free Egyptian women were never confined to the
home. An important part was taken by her in industrial and commercial life.
In these relations and in social intercourse it is allowed on all hands
woman's position was remarkably free.[201] The records of the monuments
show her to have been as actively concerned in all the affairs of her day,
war alone excepted, as her father, her husband, or her sons.[202] No restraint
was placed upon her actions, she appears eating and also drinking freely,
and taking her part in equal enjoyment with men in social scenes and

religious ceremonies. She was able to enter into commerce in her own right
and to make contracts for her own benefit. She could bring actions, and
even plead in the courts. She practised the art of medicine. As priestess she
had authority in the temples. Frequently as queen she was the highest in the
land. One of the greatest monarchs of Egypt was Hatschepsut,[203] B.C.
1550. "The mighty one!" "Conqueror of all Lands!" Queen in her own right
by the will of her father, Thothmes I.
The material in proof of this high status of Egyptian women is abundant.
It consists partly of the descriptions of Greek travellers, partly of the
numerous and interesting marriage contracts, and partly of inscriptions and
passages in the writings of the moralists, all of which testify to the beautiful
and happy family relationships and usual honour in which women were
held, which is further illustrated by incidents in the ancient stories. Of these
the marriage contracts are the most important for our purpose.
The fullest information relates to the latest period of independent
Egyptian history, when the position of women stood highest, but some of
the contracts reach back to the time of King Bocchoris, and there are a few
of an even earlier date. I wish that I had space to quote some of these
marriage contracts in full: they are very instructive, and open out many
paths of new suggestion.[204] I would commend their study to all those who
are questioning the institution of marriage as it stands to-day on the rights
of the patriarchal family system, by which the woman is considered the
inferior, and submits herself and is subordinate to the man as the ruler of the
family. The issue really rests at its root upon this—is the mother or the
father to be regarded as the natural transmitter of property and head of the
family. Our decision here will affect our outlook on the entire relation of the
sexes. The Egyptians decided on the right of the mother. Their marriage
contracts seem to have been entirely in favour of women. There was no sale
of the bride by her parents, but the bride-price went to her; her own
property also remained in her own charge and was at her own disposal. The
husband stipulates in the contracts how much he will give as a yearly
allowance for her support, and the entire property of the husband is pledged
as security for these payments, whilst the wife is further protected by a
dowry[205] or charge on the husband, to be paid to her in the event of his
sending her away.

It will readily be seen how advantageous these proprietary rights must
have been to the wife. She was able to claim either the fidelity of her
husband or freedom for herself to leave him—and in some cases for both
together, her property being secured to her and her children. In one contract
by which the husband gives his wife one-third of all his property, present
and to come, he values the movables she brought with her, and promises her
the equivalent in silver. "If thou stayest, thou stayest with them, if thou
goest away, thou goest away with them."[206] The importance of this right of
free separation to women can hardly be over-estimated. Nietzold says the
wife has absolutely nothing to lose, even when she is the guilty party.[207]
Some of the marriage contracts are even more favourable to women; in
these the husband literally endows his wife with all his worldly goods,
"stipulating only that she is to maintain him while living, and provide for
his burial when dead."[208] M. Paturet distinguishes two forms of marriage
settlements, one which secures to the wife an annual pension of specified
amount—usually one-third of the property of the husband—and the other,
probably the older custom, which established a complete community of
goods. The earlier contracts are much less detailed, due probably to the fact
that the position of the established wife was then fixed by custom; but there
seems no doubt that the equal lawful wife, she whose proper title is "lady of
the house," was also joint ruler and mistress of the family heritage.[209]
There is a very curious early contract of the time of Darius I, in which the
usual stipulation of latter contracts are reversed, the wife speaking of the
man being established as her husband, acknowledging the receipt of a sum
of money as dowry, and undertaking that if she deserts or disposes of him, a
third part of all her goods, present and to come, shall be forfeited to him.
[210]

The high honour, freedom and proprietary rights enjoyed by the Egyptian
wife can only be explained as being traceable to an early period of mother-
right. Here the ancient privileges of women have persisted, not as an empty
form, but would seem to have been adopted because of their advantage in
the family relationship, and been incorporated with father-right. This would
account for the last-named contract. Its very ancient date seems clearly to
point to this. It is unlikely that, if it were an exceptional form, it should
have chanced to be one of the very few early contracts that have been
preserved.[211] It would rather seem that property was originally entirely in
the hands of women, as is usual under the matriarchal system. The Egyptian

marriage law was simply a development of this, enforcing by agreement
what would occur naturally under the earlier custom. The interests of the
children's inheritance was the chief object of the settlement of property on
the wife. In the earlier stage, the daughter inheriting property from her
parents, would marry—the husband would then become its joint
administrator, but not its owner; it would pass by custom to the children
with the eldest as administrator, but if the wife dismissed the husband, as
under this system she could and often did, she would of right retain the
family property in control for the children.[212] As society advanced this
older custom would tend to break up in favour of individual ownership,
property would come to belong to the husband and father, and it would then
be necessary to ensure the position of the wife and children by contract. The
Egyptian marriage may thus be regarded as a development of the individual
relationship arising from father-right modified to conform with the mother-
right custom of transmitting property through the woman. Under the earlier
system the inheritance of the husband would pass to the children of his
sister, and not to his own children. The contract was, therefore, made to
prevent this. The husband's property was passed over to the wife (at first
entirely and later in part) to secure its inheritance by the children of the
marriage. Hence the formula common to these contracts by which the
husband declares to the wife, "My eldest son, thy eldest son, shall be the
heir to all my property present and to come." The only difference to the
earlier custom was the prominence given to the eldest child (a son) in the
contract.
This gift by the husband of his property to the wife, which made her a
joint partner with him in all the family transactions, while at the same time
she retained complete control over her own property, clearly placed the
woman and her children in the same position of security as she had held
during the mother-age; and added to this she gained the individual
protection and support of the father in the family relationship. Doubtless it
was this freedom and right over property, which explains the frequent cases
in which the Egyptian women conducted business transactions, and also
their active participation in the administration of the social organisation.
Equal partners with their husbands in the administration of the home, they
became partners with men in the wider administration of the State. It was in
such wise way that the Egyptians arranged the difficult problem of the
fusion of mother-right with father-right.

One result of these marriage contracts, giving apparently great power to
the wife, arose out of the mortgage on the husband's property as security for
the wife's settlement; her consent became necessary to all his acts. Thus it is
usual for the husband's deeds to be endorsed by the wife, while he did not
endorse hers. In some cases the wife's consent seems to have been
necessary even in the case of the initial mortgage, when the only possible
explanation is that the wife was regarded as co-proprietor with the husband,
and therefore had to be party to any act disposing of the joint estate.[213]
Such a custom was apparently so wholly in favour of the wife, reversing
the customary position of the man and the woman in the marriage
partnership, that in the light of these contracts we understand the statement
of Diodorus, when he says that "among the Egyptians the woman rules over
the man"; though plainly he has not understood their true significance,
when he goes on to say that "it is stipulated between married couples, by
the terms of the dowry-contract that the man shall obey the woman."[214]
If the view is accepted, as I think it must be, that these contracts were
made to add the advantages of father-right to the natural privileges of
mother-right, and thus to secure the enjoyment of the family property to all
its members, it will become evident that, however surprising such an
agreement might seem from the one-sided patriarchal view (which always
accepts the subjection of the woman), it was entirely a wise and just
arrangement. It was certainly one that was entered into voluntarily by both
partners of the marriage; there was no compulsion of law. All the evidence
that has come down to us is witness to the success in practice of these
marriage contracts. No other nation has yet developed a family relationship
so perfect in its working as the Egyptians. The reason is not far to seek. It
was based on the equal freedom and responsibility of the mother with the
father. There was no question, it seems to me, of one sex ruling or obeying
the other, rather it was the co-operation of the two for the welfare of both
and of the children.
So far we have dealt only with the position of the established wife. All
the written marriage contracts refer to the "taking" and "establishing" a wife
as two distinct steps, and in some cases the second stage, which seems to
have conveyed the proprietary rights, was not taken until after the birth of
children. There would thus be wives not necessarily holding the position of
"lady of the house," but capable of being raised to such rank by later

contract.[215] It is probable, as M. Revillout suggests,[216] that "the taking to
wife" was a comparatively informal matter, but needing ratification by
contract for any lasting establishment, which commonly would be done
after the birth of a child to ensure the rights of the father's inheritance,
passing through the mother to the children. All the evidence is in favour of
this wise arrangement. There are many examples of contracts being entered
into by the husband for the benefit of a woman, who had been "with him as
a wife to him." Relations between the sexes of an even less binding
character than this were not ignored.[217] It seems clear that little regard was
paid to pre-nuptial chastity for women, and in no marriage contract is any
stress laid on virginity, which, as Havelock Ellis[218] says, clearly indicates
the absence of any idea of women as property. "It is the glory of Egyptian
morality to have been the first to express the dignity of woman."[219]
M. Paturet takes the view that it was not so much as the mother, but as
woman, and being the equal of man, that the Egyptians honoured their
women. Perhaps the truth rather is that there was no separation between the
woman and the mother. This is the view that I would take; to me it is the
right and natural one. But be this as it may, Egyptian morality placed first
the rights of the mother. No religious or moral superiority seems to have
attached to the established wife. Even when there had been no betrothal,
and no intention of marriage, law or custom recognises the claim of any
mother of children to some kind of provision at their father's expense.
"Nothing proves the high status of woman so clearly as this: her child was
never illegitimate; illegitimacy was not recognised even in the case of a
slave woman's child."[220]
There is a curious deed of the Ptolemaic period by which a man cedes to
a woman a number of slaves; and—in the same breath—recognises her as
his lawful wife, and declares her free not to consider him as her husband.
[221] A byssus worker at the factory of Amon promises to the wife he is
about to establish, one-third of all his acquisitions thenceforward: "my
eldest son, thy eldest son, among the children born to thee previously and
those thou shalt bear to me in future shall be master of all I possess now or
shall hereafter acquire." Even when such arrangements were not entered
into voluntarily, public opinion seems always to have been in favour of the
woman. A case is recorded where four villagers of the town of Arsinöe
pledged themselves to the priest, scribe, and mayor that a fellow villager of

theirs will become the friend of the woman who has been as his wife, and
will love her as a woman ought to be loved.[222]
Most significant of all is the well-known precept of Petah Hotep, which
refers to the expected conduct of a man to a prostitute or outcast—
"If thou makest a woman ashamed, wanton of heart, whom her fellow
townspeople know to be under two laws" (i.e. in an ambiguous position), "be
kind to her for a season, send her not away, let her have food to eat. The
wantonness of her heart appreciateth guidance."

I know of nothing finer than this wide understanding of the ties of sex. It
is an essential part of morality, as I understand it, that it accepts
responsibility, not alone in the regular and permanent relationships between
one man and one woman, but also in those that are temporary and are even
considered base. Only in this way can the human passions be unified with
love.
The freedom of the Egyptian marriage made this possible. Law, at least
as we understand it, did not interfere with the domestic relationships; there
was no one fixed rule that must be followed. Marriage was a matter of
mutual agreement by contract. All that was required (and this was enforced
by custom and by public opinion) was that the position of the woman and
the children was made secure. Each party entered on the marriage without
any constraint, and each party could cancel the contract and thereby the
marriage. No legal judgment was required for divorce. It is a significant fact
that in all the documents cancelling the marriage contracts that have come
down to us, no mention is made of the reason which led to the annulling of
the contract, only in one case it is suggested that "some evil daimon" may
be at the bottom of it.[223]
Polygamy was allowed in Egypt, though, as in all polygamous countries,
its practice was confined to the rich. This has been thought by some to
exclude the idea of the woman's power in the family.[224] But such an
opinion seems to me to arise from a want of understanding of the Egyptian
conception of the sexual tie. Under polygamy each wife had a house, her
proprietary rights and those of her children were established, the husband
visiting her there as a privileged guest on equal footing.[225] This is very
different from polygamy in a patriarchal society, and would carry with it no
social dishonour to the woman. It would seem, too, in later Egyptian history
that polygamy, though legal in theory, in practice died out, the fidelity of the

husband, as we have seen, being claimed by the wife in the conditions of
the marriage contract.[226]
That the Egyptians had a high ideal of the domestic relations—and had
this, let it be remembered, more than four thousand years ago—is
abundantly illustrated by their inscriptions. In one epitaph of the Hykos
period, the speaker, who boasts a family of sixty children, says of himself,
"I loved my father, I honoured my mother, my brothers and my sisters loved
me."[227] The commonest formula, which continued in use as long as
Egyptian civilisation survived, was one describing the deceased as "loving
his father, reverencing his mother, and being beloved by his brothers," and
there can be no doubt that this sentiment represented the maturest
convictions of the Egyptians as to the sentiments necessary for the felicitous
working of the family relationships.[228] It is, indeed, significant to find this
reversal of the usual sentiments towards the father and the mother—the
former to be loved and the latter to be reverenced. It would seem as if "they
assumed that fathers would be sufficiently reverenced if they were loved,
and mothers loved if they were honoured." How true here is the
understanding of affection and of the sexes!
If we pause for a moment to seek the reason why the Egyptians had, as
Herodotus so strikingly states, established in their domestic relationships
laws and customs different from the rest of mankind—the answer is easy to
find. The Egyptians were an agricultural and a conservative people. They
were also a pacific race. They would seem not to have believed in that
illusion of younger races—the glory of warfare. I have seen it stated that in
battle they were known for the habit of running away. This may, of course,
be thought to count against them as a people. It depends entirely on the
point of view that is taken. But if, as I believe, the fighting activities belong
to an early and truly primitive stage of social development, then the view
would be very different. Races begin with the building up of society, then
there follows the period of warfare—the patriarchal period which leads on
to a later stage, much nearer in its working to the first—a final period, as
Havelock Ellis says, "the stage of fruition." Woman's place and opportunity
for the true expression of the powers that are hers belong to the first and last
of these stages; in the middle stage she must tend to fall into a position of
more or less complete dependence on the fighting male. Here is, I think, the
explanation of the power and privilege of the Egyptian women. The

Egyptians, due to their pacific and conservative temperament, seem to have
escaped the patriarchal stage, and passed on from the first to final stage.
Through the long centuries of their civilisation they devoted their energies
to the building up and preserving of their social organisation. Thus, it may
be, came about that solving of the problem of the sexes, which they among
all races seem to have accomplished. The relationships of their family life
and domestic administration were entirely civilised and humane.
Nowhere, except in Egypt, is so much stress laid upon the truth, that
authority is sustained by affection. Their monuments and the inscriptions
that have come down to us abundantly testify the value set upon affection: it
is always the love of the husband for the wife, the wife for the husband, or
the parent for the child, that is recorded. The frequency and detail with
which such affections are described, prove the high estimation in which the
purely domestic virtues were held, as forming the best and chief title of the
dead to remembrance and honour. It is clear, moreover, that these
affectionate relations between the members of a family are counted among
the pleasures and joy of life. The inscriptions urge and warn the survivors to
miss none of the joys of life, since the disembodied dead sleep in darkness,
and this is the worst of their grief, "they know neither father nor mother,
they do not awake to behold their brethren, their heart yearns no longer
after wife and child."[229] There is a delightful inscription on the sepulchral
tablet of the wife of a high priest of Memphis,[230] in which she urges the
duty of happiness for her husband. It says—
"Hail, my brother, husband, friend, ... let not thy heart cease to drink water, to
eat bread, to drink wine, to love women, to make a happy day, and to suit thy
heart's desire by day and by night. And set no care whatsoever in thy heart: are
the years which (we pass) upon the earth so many (that we need do this)?"

Such a conception, with its clear idea of the right of happiness, stands as
witness to the high ideal of love which regulated the Egyptian family
relationships.
It is necessary to remember, in this connection, that the domestic ties of
the Egyptians were firmly based on proprietary considerations. No surprise
need be felt that this was so, when we recall the wise arrangements of the
marriage contracts, whereby both parties of the union secured equal
freedom and an equal share in the family property. The antagonism between
ownership and affection which so frequently destroys domestic happiness

must thus have been unknown. "There was no marriage without money or
money's worth, but to marry for money, in the modern sense, was
impossible where individual ownership was abolished by the act of
marriage itself."[231]
This in itself explains the fact, proved by these inscriptions, that the
Egyptian woman remained to the end of life, "the beloved of her husband
and the mistress of the house." "Make glad her heart during the time that
thou hast," was the traditional advice given to the husband. To this effect
runs the precept of Petah Hotep[232]—
"If thou wouldst be a wise man, rule thy house and love thy wife wholly and
constantly. Feed her and clothe her, love her tenderly and fulfil her desires as
long as thou livest, for she is an estate which conferreth great reward upon her
lord.[233] Be not hard to her, for she will be more easily moved by persuasion
than by force. Observe what she wisheth, and that on which her mind runneth,
thereby shalt thou make her to stay in thy house. If thou resisteth her will it is
ruin."

The maxims of Ani,[234] written six dynasties later, give the same advice
with fuller detail—
"Do not treat rudely a woman in her house when you know her perfectly; do
not say to her, 'Where is that? bring it to me!' when she has set it in its place
where your eye sees it, and when you are silent you know her qualities. It is a joy
that your hand should be with her. The man who is fond of heart is quickly
master in his house."

Honour to the mother was strongly insisted on. The sage Kneusu-
Hetep[235] thus counsels his son—
"Thou shalt never forget thy mother and what she has done for thee. From the
beginning she has borne a heavy burden with thee in which I have been unable to
help her. Wert thou to forget her, then she might blame thee, lifting up her arms
unto God, and he would hearken to her. For she carried thee long beneath her
heart as a heavy burden, and after thy months were accomplished she bore thee.
Three long years she carried thee upon her shoulder and gave thee her breast to
thy mouth, and as thy size increased her heart never once allowed her to say,
'Why should I do this?' And when thou didst go to school and wast instructed in
the writings, daily she stood by thy master with bread and beer from the house."

I would note in passing that in this passage we have a conclusive
testimony to health and character of the Egyptian mother. The importance
of this is undoubted, when we remember the active part taken by women in
business and in social life. It is, I am sure, an entirely mistaken view to hold
that motherhood is a cause of weakness to women. In a wisely ordered
society this is not so. It is the withdrawal of one class of women from

labour—the parasitic wives and daughters of the rich (which of these
women could feed and carry her child for three years?), as the forcing of
other women into work under intolerable conditions that injures
motherhood. But on these questions I shall speak in the final part of my
inquiry.
When I had written thus far in this chapter, I went from the reading-room
of the British Museum, where all day I had been working, to spend a last
quiet hour in the Egyptian Galleries. I knew one at least of these galleries
well, but as a rule I had hurried through it, as so many of the reading-room
students do, to reach the refreshment-room which is placed there. I found I
had never really seen anything. This time it was different, for my thoughts
were aflame with the life of this people, whose wonderful civilisation
speaks in all these sculptured remains through the silence of the centuries.
Some fresh thought came to me as I waited to look at first one statue and
then another. I sought for those which represented women. There is a small
statue in green basalt of Isis holding a figure of Osiris Un-nefer, her son.
[236] The goddess is represented as much larger than the young god, who
stands at her feet. The marriage of Isis with her brother Osiris did not blot
out her independent position, her importance as a deity remained to the end
greater than his. Think for a moment what this placing of the goddess,
rather than the god, in the forefront of Egyptian worship signifies; very
clearly it reflects the honour in which the sex to whom the supreme deity
belongs was held. In the third Egyptian room is a seated statuette of Queen
Teta-Khart, a wife of Aähmes I (1600 B.C.), whose title was "Royal
Mother," and another figure of Queen Amenártas of the XXVth Dynasty
700 B.C.; near by is a beautiful head of the stone figure of a priestess.[237]
There is something enigmatic and strangely seductive in the Egyptian faces;
a joy and calmness which are implicit in freedom. And the impression is
helped by the fixed attitudes, usually seated and always facing the spectator,
and also by the great size of many of the figures; one seems to realise
something of the simplicity and strength of the tireless enduring power of
these women and men.
But I think what interested me most of all was the little difference
manifested in the representations of the two sexes. The dress which each
wears is very much the same; the attitudes are alike, and so often are the
faces, even in the figures there seems no accentuation of the sexual

characters. Often I did not know whether it was at a man or a woman, a god
or a goddess, I was looking, until the title of the statue told me. How
strange this seemed to me, and yet how significant of the beautiful equality
of partnership between the woman and the man. It is in the statues which
represent a husband and wife together, seated side by side, that this likeness
is most evident. There are several of these domestic groups. One very
interesting one is of early date, and belongs to the IVth Dynasty 3750 B.C.
[238] It is in painted limestone, and shows the portrait figures of Ka-tep, "a
royal kinsman" and priestly official, and his wife Hetep-Heres, "a royal
kinswoman." The figures are small and of the same size; the faces are
clearly portraits. The one, which I take to be the woman, though I am
uncertain whether I am right, has her arm around the man, embracing him.
There is another group[239] in white limestone of very fine work, portraits of
a high official and his wife. The figures resemble each other closely, but
that of the man is a little larger, showing his rank. The man holds the hand
of the woman. This statue belongs to the XIXth Dynasty. On the right-hand
side of the North Gallery is a second group of an earlier period.[240] The
husband and wife are seated, and the figures are of the same size, showing
that their rank was equal; their arms are intertwined, and between them,
standing at their feet, is a small figure of their son. It was before this family
group I waited longest: it pleased me by its completeness and its sincerity.
Once more I should have had difficulty in identifying which figure was the
father and which the mother, but the man wears a small beard. In all these
statue groups there is this great resemblance between the sexes.
Were the sexes, then, really alike in Egypt? I do not know. Such a
conception opens up biological considerations of the deepest significance. It
is so difficult to be certain here. Is the great boundary line which divides the
two halves of life, with the intimate woman's problems that depend upon it,
to remain for ever fixed? In sex are we always to be faced with an
irresolvable tangle of disharmonies? Again, I do not know. Yet, looking at
these seated figures of the Egyptian husband and wife, I felt that the answer
might be with them. Do they not seem to have solved that secret which we
are so painful in our search of? The statues thus took on a kind of symbolic
character, which eloquently spoke of a union of the woman and the man
that in freedom had broken down the boundaries of sex, and, therefore, of
life that was in harmony with love and joy. And the beautiful words of the

Egyptian Song of the Harper came to my memory, and now I understood
them—
"Make (thy) day glad! Let there be perfumes and sweet odours for thy nostrils,
and let there be flowers and lilies for thy beloved sister (i.e. wife) who shall be
seated by thy side. Let there be songs and music of the harp before thee, and
setting behind thy back unpleasant things of every kind, remember only
gladness, until the day cometh wherein thou must travel to the land which loveth
silence."

II.—In Babylon

"The modern view of marriage recognises a relation that love has known from
the outset. But this is a relation only possible between free self-governing
persons."—Hobhouse.

If we turn now to the very ancient civilisation of Babylon we shall find
women in a position of honour similar in many ways to what we have seen
already in Egypt: there are ever indications that the earliest customs may
have gone beyond those of the Egyptians in exalting women. The most
archaic texts in the primitive language are remarkable for the precedence
given to the female sex in all formulas of address: "Goddess" and gods,
women and men, are mentioned always in that order, which is in itself a
decisive indication of the high status of women in this early period.[241]
There are other traces all pointing to the conclusion that in the
civilisation of primitive Babylon mother-right was still very much alive. It
is significant that the first rulers of Sumer and Akkad—the oldest
Babylonian cities—frequently made boast of their unknown parentage,
which can only be explained by the assumption that descent through the
father was not recognised. Thus Sargon,[242] one of the earlier rulers, says:
"My mother was a princess, my father I know not ... my mother, the
princess, conceived me, in a secret place she brought me forth." A little
monument in the Hague museum has an inscription which has been
translated thus: "Gudea patesi of Sirgulla dedicates thus to Gin-dung-nadda-
addu, his wife." The wife's name is interpreted "maid of the god Nebo." It is
thought that Gudea reigned in her right. The inscription goes on to say:
"Mother I had not, my mother was the water deep. A father I had not, my
father was the water deep." The passage is obscure, but it is explained if we

regard this as one of the legends of miraculous birth so frequent in primitive
societies under mother-descent.[243] Another relic of some interest is an
ancient statue of a Babylonian woman, not a goddess or a queen, who is
presented alone and not with her husband, as was common in Egypt; such a
monument may suggest, as is pointed out by Simcox, that women at this
period possessed wealth in their own right.
As in Egypt, the mother, the father, and the eldest son seem to have been
the essential members of the family. We find that the compound substantive
translated "family" means literally "children household." This is very
interesting and may betoken a conception of marriage and the family like
that of the Egyptians, in which the union of the wife and the husband is
only fully established by the birth of children.[244] In the house the wife is
"set in honour," "glad and gladdening like the mid-day sun." The sun-god
Merodach is thus addressed: "Like a wife thou behavest thyself, cheerful
and rejoicing." The sun-god himself is made to say, "May the wife whom
thou lovest come before thee with joy." These examples, and also many
others, such, for instance, as the phrase, "As a woman fashioned for a
mother made beautiful," show that the Babylonians shared the Egyptian
idealism in their conception of the wife and mother and her relation to the
family. Many of the Summerian expressions throw beautiful light on the
happiness of the domestic relationships. The union of the wife and husband
is spoken of as "the undivided half," the idiogram for the mother signifies
the elements "god" and "the house," she is "the enlarger of the family," the
father is "one who is looked up to."
The information that has come down to us is not so full as our knowledge
of the Egyptian family, or, at least, the facts which relate to women have not
yet been so firmly established. We may, however, accept the statement of
Havelock Ellis when he says that "in the earliest times a Babylonian woman
enjoyed complete independence and equal rights with her brothers and
husband."[245]
Later in Babylonian history—though still at an early period—women's
rights were more circumscribed, and we find them in a position of some
subordination. How the change arose is not clear, but it is probable that in
Babylon civilisation followed the usual order of social development, and
that with the rise of military activities, bringing the male force into

prominence, women fell to a position of inferior power in the family and in
the State.
That this was the condition of society in Babylon in the time of
Hammurabi (i.e. probably between 2250 B.C. and 1950 B.C.) is proved by
the marriage code of this ruler, which in certain of its regulations affords a
marked contrast with the Egyptian marriage contracts, always so favourable
to the wife. Marriage, instead of an agreement made between the wife and
the husband, was now arranged between the parents of the woman and the
bridegroom and without reference to her wishes. The terms of the marriage
were a modified form of purchase, very similar to the exchange of gifts
common among primitive peoples. It appears from the code that a sum of
money or present was given by the bridegroom to the woman's father as
well as to the bride herself, but this payment was not universal; and, on the
other side of the account, the father made over to his daughter on her
marriage a dowry, which remained her own property in so far that it was
returned to her in the case of divorce or on the death of her husband, and
that it passed to her children and, failing them, to her father.[246]
Polygamy, though permitted, was definitely restricted by the code. Thus a
man might marry a second wife if "a sickness has seized" his first wife, but
the first wife was not to be put away. This is the only case in which two
equal wives are recognised by the code. But it was also possible—as the
contracts prove—for a man to take one or more secondary wives or
concubines, who were subordinate to the chief wife. In some cases this
appears to have been done to enable the first wife to adopt the children of
the concubine "as her children."[247]
It is worth while to note the exact conditions of divorce in the reference
to women as given in the clauses of Hammurabi's code—
"137. If a man has set his face to put away his concubine, who has granted him
children, to that woman he shall return his marriage portion, and shall give her
the usufruct of field, garden, and goods, and shall bring up her children. From
the time that her children are grown up, from whatever is given to her children,
they shall give her a share like that of one son, and she shall marry the husband
of her choice."
"138. If a man shall put away his bride, who has not borne him children, he
shall give her money as much as her bride-price."
"139. If there was no bride-price he shall give her one mina of silver."
"140. If he is a poor man he shall give one third of a mina of silver."

So far the position of the wife is secured in the case of the infidelity of
the husband. But if we turn to the other side, when it is the woman who is
the unfaithful partner it is evident how strongly the patriarchal idea of
woman as property has crept into the family relations. We find that a
woman "who has set her face to go out and has acted the fool, has wasted
her house or has belittled her husband," may either be divorced without
compensation or retained in the house as the slave of a new wife.
I would ask you to contrast this treatment with the free right of separation
granted to the Egyptian wife, whose position, as also that of her children, in
all circumstances was secure, and to remember that this difference in the
moral code for the two sexes is always present, in greater or lesser force,
against woman wherever the property considerations of father-right have
usurped the natural law of mother-right. Conventional morality has
doubtless from the first been on the side of the supremacy of the male. To
me it seems that this alone must discredit any society formed on the
patriarchal basis.
The Babylonian wife was permitted to claim a divorce under certain
conditions, namely, "if she had been economical and had no vice," and if
she could prove that "her husband had gone out and greatly belittled her."
But the proof of this carried with it grave danger to herself, for if on
investigation it turned out that "she has been uneconomical or a gad-about,
that woman one shall throw into the water." Probably such penalty was not
really carried out, but even if the expression be taken figuratively its
significance in the degradation of woman is hardly less great. The position
of the wife as subject to her husband is clearly marked by the manner in
which infidelity is treated. The law provides that both partners may be put
to death for an act of unfaithfulness, but while the king may pardon "his
servant" (the man), the wife has to receive pardon from "her owner" (i.e. the
husband). The lordship of the husband is seen also in his power to dispose
of his wife as well as his children for debt.[248] The period for debt slavery
was, however, confined to the years of Hammurabi.[249]
From this time onwards we find the position of the wife continuously
improving, and in the later Neo-Babylonian periods she again acquired
equal rights with her husband. The marriage law was improved in the
woman's favour. Contracts of marriage by purchase became very rare. It
appears from the later contracts that a wife could protect herself from

divorce or the taking of another wife by special penalties imposed on the
husband by the conditions of the deed, thus giving her a position of security
similar to that of the Egyptian wife.
In all social relations the Babylonian women had remarkable freedom.
They could conduct business in their own right. Their power to dispose of
property is proved by numerous contract tablets, and, at any rate in later
periods, they were held to possess a full legal personality equal in all points
with their husbands. In many contracts husband and wife are conjoined as
debtors, creditors, and as together taking pledges. The wife, as in Egypt, is
made a party to any action of the husband in which her dowry is involved.
The wife could also act independently; women appear by themselves as
creditors, and in some contracts we find a wife standing in that relation to
her husband. In one case a woman acts as security for a man's debts to
another woman. In a suit about a slave a woman, who was proved by
witnesses to have made a wrongful claim, was compelled to pay a sum of
money equivalent to the value of the slave. We find, too, a married woman
joining with a man to sell a house. In another case, in which a mother and
son had a sum of money owing to them, the debt was cancelled by giving a
bill on the mother. The rich woman, by name Gugua, disposes her property
among her children, but she reserves the right of taking it back into her own
hands if she should so wish, and stipulates that it may not be mortgaged to
any one without her consent.[250] There is another interesting deed[251] by
which a father who, it is suggested, was a spendthrift, assigns the remnant
of his property to his daughter under the stipulation "thou shalt measure to
me, and as long as thou livest give me maintenance, food, ointment and
clothing."
It would be easy to multiply such cases.[252] All these contract tablets
have interest for us. The active participation of the Babylonian women in
property transactions is the more instructive when we consider that in the
development of commercial enterprise the Babylonians were in advance of
all the rest of the world. One is tempted to suggest that the assistance of
women may have brought an element into commerce beneficial to its
growth. There is ample evidence to show the administrative and financial
ability of women. This quality is noted by Lecky in the chapter on "Woman
Questions" in his Democracy and Liberty. He says:

"How many fortunes wasted by negligence or extravagance have been restored
by a long minority under female management?"

He notes, too, the financial ability of the French women.
"Where can we find in a large class a higher level of business habits and
capacity than that which all competent observers have recognised in French
women of the middle classes?"

The estimate of J.S. Mill on this question is too well known to call for
quotation. We may recall also the superior ability in trade of the women of
Burma. It is not necessary, however, to seek for proof of women's ability in
finance. Against one woman who mismanages her income at least six men
may be placed who mismanage theirs, not from any special extravagance,
but from sheer male inability to adapt expenditure to income. A woman who
has had any business training will discriminate better than a man between
the essential and the non-essential in expenditure.
The civilisation of a people is necessarily determined to a large extent by
the ideas of the relations of the sexes, and by the institutions and
conventions that arise through such ideas. One of the most important and
debatable of these questions is whether women are to be considered as
citizens and independently responsible, or as beings differing in all their
capacities from men, and, therefore, to be set in positions of at least
material dependence to an individual man. It is the answer to this question
we are seeking. The Babylonians decided for the civic equality of their
women, and this decision must have affected all their actions from the
larger matters of the State down to the smallest points of family conduct.
The wisdom which, by giving a woman full control over her own property,
recognised her right and responsibility to act for herself, was not, as we
have seen, at once established. This recognition of the equality and
fellowship between women and men as the finest working idea for the
family relationship was only developed slowly through the long centuries of
their civilisation.

III.—In Greece

"Of all things upon earth that breathe and
grow

A herb most bruised is woman. We must pay
Our store of gold, hoarded for that one day
To buy us some man's love, and lo, they
bring
A master of our flesh. There comes the sting
Of the whole shame, and then the jeopardy
For good or ill, what shall that master be?
Reject she cannot, and if she but stays
His suit, 'tis shame on all that woman's days.
So thrown amid new laws, new places, why,
'Tis magic she must have to prophesy.
Home never taught her that—how best to
guide
Towards peace this thing that sleepeth at her
side,
And she, who, labouring long, shall find
some way
Whereby her lord may bear with her, nor fray
His yoke too fiercely, blessed is the breath
That woman draws! Else let her pray for
death.
Her lord, if he be wearied of her face
Within doors, gets him forth; some merrier
place
Will ease his heart; but she waits on, her
whole
Vision enchained on a single soul.
And then, forsooth, 'tis they that face the call
Of war, while we sit sheltered, hid from all
Peril. False mocking. Sooner would I stand
Three times to face their battles, shield in
hand,
Than bear our child."
—Euripides.
If we turn now from eastern civilisation to ancient Greece, the picture
there presented to us is in many ways in sharp contrast to anything we have
yet examined. The Greeks founded western civilisation, but their rapid

advance in general culture was by no means accompanied by a
corresponding improvement in the position of women. The fineness of their
civilisation and their exquisite achievement in so many directions makes it
the more necessary to remember this.
At one time there would seem to have been in prehistoric Greece a period
of fully developed mother-rights, as is proved by numerous survivals of the
older system so frequently met with in Greek literature and history. This
was at an earlier stage of civilisation, before the establishment of the
patriarchal system. There is little doubt, however, that the influence of
mother-right remained as a tradition for long after the actual rights had been
lost by women.[253] It will be remembered how great was the astonishment
of the Greek travellers at the free position of the Egyptian women, in
particular the apparent subjection of the husband to his wife. Now, such
surprise is in itself sufficient to prove a different conception of the relation
of the sexes. The patriarchal view whereby the woman is placed under the
protection and authority of the man was already clearly established in the
Hellenic belief. Yet, in spite of this fact, the position of the woman was
striking and peculiar, and in some directions remarkably free, and thus
offering many points of interest not less important in their significance to us
than what we have seen already in Egypt and in Babylon.
In speaking of the Hellenic woman I can select only a few facts; to deal
at all adequately with so large a subject in briefest outline is, indeed,
impossible. I shall not even try to picture the marriage and family
relationships, which offer in many and varied ways a wide and fascinating
study; all that I can do is to point to some of the conditions and suggest the
conclusions which seem to arise from them. Glancing first at the women of
the Homeric[254] period we find them represented as holding a position of
entire dependence, without rights or any direct control over property; under
the rule of the father, and afterwards of the husband, and even in some cases
humbly submissive to their sons. Telemachus thus rebukes his mother: "Go
to thy chamber; attend to thy work; turn the spinning wheel; weave the
linen; see that thy servants do their tasks. Speech belongs to men, and
especially to me, who am the master here." And Penelope allows herself to
be silenced and obeys, "bearing in mind the sage discourse of her son."[255]
This is the fully developed patriarchal idea of the duties of the woman and
her patient submission to the man.

Now, if we look only at the outside of such a case as this it would appear
that the position of the Homeric woman was one of almost complete
subjection. Whereas, as every one knows, the facts are far different. The
protection of the woman was a condition made necessary in an unstable
society of predominating military activity. Apart from this wardship,
women very clearly were not in a subordinate position and, moreover, never
regarded as property. The very reverse is the case. Nowhere in the whole
range of literature are women held in deeper affection or receive greater
honour. To take one instance, Andromache relates how her father's house
has been destroyed with all who were in it, and then she says: "But now,
Hector, thou art my father and gracious mother, thou art my brother, nay,
thou art my valiant husband."[256] It is easy to see in this speech how the
early ideas of relationships under mother-right had been transferred to the
husband, as the protector of the woman, conditioned by father-right.
Again and again we meet with traces of the older customs of the mother-
age. The influence of woman persists as a matter of habit; even the formal
elevation of woman to positions of authority is not uncommon, with an
accompanying freedom in action, which is wholly at variance with the
patriarchal ideal. Thus it is common for the husband to consult his wife in
all important concerns, though it was her special work to look after the
affairs of the house. "There is nothing," says Homer, "better and nobler than
when husband and wife, being of one mind, rule a household."[257]
Penelope and Clytemnestra are left in charge of the realms of their husbands
during their absence in Troy; the beautiful Chloris ruled as queen in Pylos.
[258] Arete, the beloved wife of Alcinous, played an important part as
peacemaker in the kingdom of her husband. It is to her Nausicäa brings
Ulysses on his return, bidding him kneel to her mother if he would gain a
welcome and succour from her father.[259]
We find the Homeric women moving freely among men. They might go
where they liked, and do what they liked.[260] As girls they were educated
with their brothers and friends, attending together the classes of the bards
and dancing with them in the public dancing-places which every town
possessed. Homer pictures the youths and the maidens pressing the vines
together. They mingled together at marriage feasts and at religious festivals.
Women took part with men in offering the sacrifices to the gods; they also
went alone to the temples to present their offerings.[261] Nor did marriage

restrict their freedom. Helen appears on the battlements of Troy, watching
the conflict, accompanied only by her maidens.
This freedom insured to the Homeric women that vigour of body and
beauty of person for which they are renowned. Health was the first
condition of beauty. The Greeks wanted strong men, therefore the mothers
must be strong, and this, as among all peoples who have understood the
valuation of life more clearly than others, made necessary a high physical
development of woman. Yet, I think, that an even more prominent reason
was the need by the woman herself for the protection of the male, which
made it her first duty to charm the man whom destiny brought to be her
companion. This is a point that must not be overlooked. To me it is very
significant that in all the records of the Egyptians, showing so clearly the
love and honour in which woman was held, we find no insistence on, and,
indeed, hardly a reference to, the physical beauty of woman. It is love itself
that is exalted; a husband wishing to honour his lost wife says: "she was
sweet as a palm tree in her love," he does not tell us if she were beautiful.
[262] I cannot follow this question further. Yet it is clear that danger lurks for
woman and her freedom, when to safeguard her independence, she has no
other resources than the seduction of her beauty to gain and to hold the love
she is able to inspire. Sex becomes a defensive weapon, and one she must
use for self-protection, if she is to live. It seems clear to me that this
economic use of sex is the real cancer at the very root of the sexual
relationship. It is but a step further and a perfectly logical one, that leads to
prostitution. At a later period of Hellenic civilisation we find Aristotle
warning the young men of Athens against "the excess of conjugal
tenderness and feminine tyranny which enchains a man to his wife."[263]
Can any surprise be felt; does one not wonder rather at the blindness of
man's understanding? That such warning against women should have been
spoken in Egypt is incredible. Woman's position and liberty of action was in
no way dependent on her power of sex-fascination, not even directly on her
position as mother, and this really explains the happy working of their
domestic relationships. Nature's supreme gifts of the sexual differences
among them were freed from economic necessities, and woman as well as
man was permitted to turn them to their true biological ends—the mutual
joy of each other and the service of the race. For this is what I want to make
clear; it is men who suffer in quite as great a degree as women, wherever
the female has to use her sexual gifts to gain support and protection from

the male. It is so plain—one thing makes the relations of the sexes free, that
both partners shall themselves be free, knowing no bondage that is outside
the love-passion itself. Then, and then only, can the woman and the man—
the mother and father, really love in freedom and together carry out love's
joys and its high and holy duties.
The conditions that meet us when we come to examine the position of
women in historic Greece are explained in the light of this valuation of the
sexual relationship. We are faced at once by a curious contrast; on one hand,
we find in Sparta, under a male social organisation, the women of Æolian
and Dorian race carrying on and developing the Homeric traditions of
freedom, while the Athenian women, on the contrary, are condemned to an
almost Oriental seclusion. How these conditions arose becomes clear, when
we remember that the prominent idea regulating all the legislation of the
Greeks was to maintain the permanence and purity of the State. In Sparta
the first of these motives ruled. The conditions in which the State was
placed made it necessary for the Spartans to be a race of soldiers, and to
ensure this a race of vigorous mothers was essential. They had the wisdom
to understand that their women could only effectively discharge the
functions assigned to them by Nature by the free development of their
bodies, and full cultivation of their mental faculties. Sappho, whose "lofty
and subtle genius" places her as the one woman for whose achievement in
poetry no apology on the grounds of her sex ever needs to be made, was of
Æolian race. The Spartan woman was a huntress and an athlete and also a
scholar, for her training was as much a care of the State as that of her
brothers. Her education was deliberately planned to fit her to be a mother of
men.
It was the sentiment of strict and zealous patriotism which inspired the
marriage regulations that are attributed to Lycurgus. The obligation of
marriage was legal, like military service.[264] All celibates were placed
under the ban of society.[265] The young men were attracted to love by the
privilege of watching (and it is also said assisting in) the gymnastic exercise
of naked young girls, who from their earliest youth entered into contests
with each other in wrestling and racing and in throwing the quoit and
javelin.[266] The age of marriage was also fixed, special care being taken
that the Spartan girls should not marry too soon; no sickly girl was
permitted to marry.[267] In the supreme interest of the race love was

regulated. The young couple were not allowed to meet except in secret until
after a child was born.[268] Brothers might share a wife in common, and
wife lending was practised. It was a praiseworthy act for an old man to give
his wife to a strong man by whom she might have a child.[269] The State
claimed a right over all children born; each child had to be examined soon
after birth by a committee appointed, and only if healthy was it allowed to
live.[270]
Such a system is no doubt open to objections, yet no other could have
served as well the purpose of raising and maintaining a race of efficient
warriors. The Spartans held their supremacy in Greece through sheer force
and bravery and obedience to law; and the women had equal share with the
men in this high position. Necessarily they were remarkable for vigour of
character and the beauty of their bodies, for beauty rests ultimately on a
biological basis.
Women took an active interest in all that concerned the State, and were
allowed a freedom of action even in sexual conduct equal and, in some
directions, greater than that of men. The law restricted women only in their
function as mothers. Plato has criticised this as a marked defect of the
Spartan system. Men were under strict regulation to the end of their days;
they dined together on the fare determined by the State; no licence was
permitted to them; almost their whole time was occupied in military
service. No such regulations were made for women, they might live as they
liked. One result was that many wives were better educated than their
husbands. We find, too, that a great portion of land passed into the hands of
women. Aristotle states that they possessed two-fifths of it. He deplores the
Spartan system, and affirms that in his day the women were "incorrigible
and luxurious"; he accuses them of ruling their husbands. "What
difference," he says, "does it make whether the women rule or the rulers are
ruled by women, for the result is the same?"[271] This gynæcocracy was
noticed by others. "You of Lacedæmon," said a strange lady to Gorgo, wife
of Leonidas, "are the only women in the world that rule the men." "We," she
answered, "are the only women who bring forth men."[272] Such were the
Spartan women.
In Athens the position of women stands out in sharp contrast. Athens was
the largest of the city-states of Greece, and, for its stability, it was ruled that
no stranger might enter into the rights of its citizens. Restrictions of the

most stringent nature and punishments the most terrible were employed to
keep the citizenship pure. As is usual, the restrictions fell most heavily upon
women. It would seem that the sexual virtue of the Athenian women was
not trusted—it was natural to women to love. Doubtless there were many
traces of the earlier sexual freedom under mother-right. Women must be
kept in guard to ensure that no spurious offspring should be brought into the
State. This explains the Athenian marriage code with its unusually strict
subordination of the woman to her father first, and then to her husband. It
explains also the unequal law of divorce. In early times the father might sell
his daughters and barter his sisters. This was abolished by Solon, except in
the case of unchastity. There could, however, be no legitimate marriage
without the assignment of the bride by her guardian.[273] The father was
even able to bequeath his unmarried daughters by will.[274] The part
assigned by the Athenian law to the wife in relation to her husband was
very similar to that of the married women under ancient Jewish law.
Women were secluded from all civic life and from all intellectual culture.
There were no regular schools for girls in Athens, and no care was taken by
the State, as in Sparta, for the young girls' physical well-being. The one
quality required from them was chastity, and to ensure this women were
kept even from the light of the sun, confined in special apartments in the
upper part of the house. One husband, indeed, Ischomachus, recommends
his wife to take active bodily exercise as an aid to her beauty; but she is to
do this "not in the fresh air, for that would not be suitable for an Athenian
matron, but in baking bread and looking after her linen."[275] So strictly was
the seclusion of the wife adhered to that she was never permitted to show
herself when her husband received guests. It was even regarded as evidence
of the non-existence of a regular marriage if the wife had been in the habit
of attending the feasts[276] given by the man whom she claimed as husband.
The deterioration of the Athenian citizen-women followed as the
inevitable result. It is also impossible to avoid connecting the swift decline
of the fine civilisation of Athens with this cause. Had the political power of
her citizens been based on healthier social and domestic relationships, it
might not have fallen down so rapidly into ruin. No civilisation can
maintain itself that neglects the development of the mothers that give it
birth.

As we should expect we find little evidence of affection between the
Athenian husband and wife. The entire separation between their work and
interests would necessarily preclude ideal love. Probably Sophocles
presents the ordinary Greek view accurately, when he causes one of his
characters to regret the loss of a brother or sister much more than that of a
wife. "If a wife dies you can get another, but if a brother or sister dies, and
the mother is dead, you can never get another. The one loss is easily
reparable, the other is irreparable."[277] We could have no truer indication
than this as to the degradation into which woman had fallen in the sexual
relationship.
That once, indeed, it had been far otherwise with the Athenian women
the ancient legends witness. Athens was the city of Pallas Athene, the
goddess of strength and power, which in itself testifies to a time when
women were held in honour. The Temple of the Goddess, high on the
Acropolis, stood as a relic of matriarchal worship. Year by year the secluded
women of Athens wove a robe for Athene. Yet, so complete had become
their subjection and their withdrawal from the duties of citizens, that when
in the Theatre of Dyonysus men actors personated the great traditional
women of the Greek Heroic Age, no woman was permitted to be present.
[278] What wonder, then, that the Athenian women rebelled against the
wastage of their womanhood. That they did rebel we may be certain on the
strength of the satirical statements of Aristophanes, and even more from the
pathos of the words put here and there into the mouths of women by
Euripides—

"Of all things upon earth that breathe and
grow
A herb most bruised is woman. We must pay
Our store of gold, hoarded for that one day
To buy us some man's love, and lo, they
bring
A Master of our flesh. There comes the sting
Of the whole shame."[279]

The debased position of the Athenian citizen woman becomes abundantly
clear when we find that ideal love and free relationship between the sexes
were possible only with the hetairæ. Limitation of space forbids my giving

any adequate details of these stranger-women, who were the beloved
companions of the Athenian men. Prohibited from legal marriage by law,
these women were in all other respects free; their relations with men, either
temporary or permanent, were openly entered into and treated with respect.
For the Greeks the hetaira was in no sense a prostitute. The name meant
friend and companion. The women to whom the name was applied held an
honourable and independent position, one, indeed, of much truer honour
than that of the wife.
These facts may well give us pause. It was not the women who were the
legal wives, safeguarded to ensure their chastity, restricted to their physical
function of procreation, but the hetairæ, says Donaldson, "who exhibited
what was best and noblest in woman's nature." Xenophon's ideal wife was a
good housekeeper—like her of the Proverbs. Thucydides in the famous
funeral oration which he puts in the mouth of Pericles, exhorts the wives of
the slain warriors, whose memory is being commemorated, "to shape their
lives in accordance with their natures," and then adds with unconscious
irony, "Great is the glory of that woman who is least talked of by men,
either in the way of praise or blame." Such were the barren honours granted
to the legal wife. The hetairæ were the only educated women in Athens. It
was only the free-companion who was a fit helpmate for Pericles, or
capable of sustaining a conversation with Socrates. We know that Socrates
visited Theodota[280] and the brilliant Diotima of Mantinea, of whom he
speaks "as his teacher in love."[281] Thargalia, a Milesian stranger, gained a
position of high political importance.[282] When Alcibiades had to flee for
his life, it was a "companion" who went with him, and being present at his
end performed the funeral rites over him.[283] Praxiteles carved a statue of
Phryne in gold, and the work stood in a place of honour in the temple of
Apollo at Delphi. Apelles painted a portrait of Lais, and, for his skill as an
artist, Alexander rewarded him with the gift of his favourite concubine;
Pindar wrote odes to the hetairæ; Leontium, one of the order, sat at the feet
of Epicurus to imbibe his philosophy.[284]
Among all these free women Aspasia of Miletus[285] stands forward as
the most brilliant—the most remarkable. There is no doubt as to the
intellectual distinction of the beloved companion of Pericles.[286] Her house
became the resort of all the great men of Athens. Socrates, Phidias and
Anaxagoras were all frequent visitors, and probably also Sophocles and

Euripides. Plato, Xenophon and Æschines have all testified to the cultivated
mind and influence of Aspasia. Æschines, in his dialogue entitled
"Aspasia," puts into the mouth of that distinguished woman an incisive
criticism of the mode of life traditional for her sex.[287]
The high status of the hetairæ is proved conclusively from the fact that
the men who visited Aspasia brought their wives with them to her
assemblies, that they might learn from her.[288] This breaking through the
accepted conventions is the more significant if we consider the
circumstances. Here, indeed, is your contrast—the free companion
expounding the dignity of womanhood to the imprisoned mothers! Aspasia
points out to the citizen women that it is not sufficient for a wife to be
merely a mother and a good housekeeper; she urges them to cultivate their
minds so that they may be equal in mental dignity with the men who love
them. Aspasia may thus be regarded, as Havelock Ellis suggests, as "a
pioneer in the assertion of woman's rights." "She showed that spirit of revolt
and aspiration" which tends to mark "the intellectual and artistic activity of
those who are unclassed or dubiously classed in the social hierarchy."
It is even probable that the movement to raise the status of the Athenian
women, which seems to have taken place in the fourth century B.C., was
led by Aspasia, and perhaps other members of the hetairæ. Ivo Bruns,
whom Havelock Ellis quotes, believes that "the most certain information we
possess concerning Aspasia bears a strong resemblance to the picture which
Euripides and Aristophanes present to us of the leaders of the woman's
movement."[289]
It was this movement of awakening which throws light on the justice
which Plato accords to women. He may well have had Aspasia in his
thoughts. Contact with her cultivated mind may have brought him to see
that "the gifts of nature are equally diffused in both sexes," and therefore
"all the pursuits of man are the pursuits of woman also, and in all of these
woman is only a weaker man." Plato did not believe that women were
equally gifted with men, only that all their powers were in their nature the
same, and demanded a similar expression. He insists much more on
woman's duties and responsibilities than on her rights; more on what the
State loses by her restriction within the home than on any loss entailed
thereby to herself. Such a fine understanding of the need of the State for
women as the real ground for woman's emancipation, is the fruitful seed in

this often quoted passage. May it not have arisen in Plato's mind from the
contrast he saw between Aspasia and the free companions of men and the
restricted and ignorant wives? A vivid picture would surely come to him of
the force lost by this wastage of the mothers of Athens; a force which
should have been utilised for the well-being of the State.
Sexual penalties for women are always found under a strict patriarchal
régime. The white flower of chastity, when enforced upon one sex by the
other sex, has its roots in the degradation of marriage. Men find a way of
escape; women, bound in the coils, stay and waste. There is no escaping
from the truth—wherever women are in subjection it is there that the idols
of purity and chastity are set up for worship.
The fact that Greek poets and philosophers speak so often of an ideal
relationship between the wife and the husband proves how greatly the
failure of the accepted marriage was understood and depreciated by the
noblest of the Athenians. The bonds of the patriarchal system must always
tend to break down as civilisation advances, and men come to think and to
understand the real needs and dependence of the sexes upon each other.
Aristotle says that marriage besides the propagation of the human race, has
another aim, namely, "community of the entire life." He describes marriage
as "a species of friendship," one, moreover, which "is most in accordance
with Nature, as husband and wife mutually supply what is lacking in the
other." Here is the ideal marriage, the relationship between one woman and
the one man that to-day we are striving to attain. To gain it the wife must
become the free companion of her husband.
It is Euripides who voices the sorrows of women. He also foreshadows
their coming triumph.

"Back streams the waves of the ever running
river,
Life, life is changed and the laws of it
o'ertrod.
* * * * * * *
And woman, yea, woman shall be terrible in
story;

The tales too meseemeth shall be other than
of yore;
For a fear there is that cometh out of woman
and a glory,
And the hard hating voices shall encompass
her no more."[290]

IV.—In Rome

"The character of a people is only an eternal becoming.... They are born and
are modified under the influence of innumerable causes."—Jean Finot.

Of the position of women in Rome in the pre-historic period we know
almost nothing. We can accept that there was once a period of mother-rule.
[291] Very little evidence, however, is forthcoming; still, what does exist
points clearly to the view that woman's actions in the earliest times were
entirely unfettered. Probably we may accept as near to reality the picture
Virgil gives to us of Camilla fighting and dying on the field of battle.
In the ancient necropolis of Belmonte, dating from the iron age, Professor
d'Allosso has recently discovered two very rich tombs of women warriors
with war chariots over their remains. "The importance of this discovery is
exceptional, as it shows that the existence of the Amazon heroines, leaders
of armies, sung by the ancient poets, is not a poetic fiction, but an historic
reality." Professor d'Allosso states that several details given by Virgil
coincide with the details of these tombs.[292]
From the earliest notices we have of the Roman women we find them
possessed of a definite character of remarkable strength. We often say this
or that is a sign of some particular period or people; when nine times out of
ten the thing we believe to be strange is in reality common to the progress
of life. In Rome the position of woman would seem to have followed in
orderly development that cyclic movement so beautifully defined by
Havelock Ellis in the quotation I have placed at the beginning of the first
section of this chapter.
The patriarchal rule was already strongly established when Roman
history opens; it involved the same strict subordination of woman to the one
function of child-bearing that we have found in the Athenian custom. The

Roman marriage law developed from exactly the same beginning as did the
Greek; the woman was the property of her father first and then of her
husband. The marriage ceremony might be accomplished by one or two
forms, but might also be made valid without any form at all. For in regard
to a woman, as in regard to other property, possession or use continued for
one year gave the right of ownership to the husband. This marriage without
contract or ceremony was called usus.[293] The form confarreatio, or
patrician marriage, was a solemn union performed by the high Pontiff of
Jupiter in the presence of ten witnesses, in which the essential act was the
eating together by both the bride and bridegroom of a cake made of flour,
water and salt.[294] The religious ceremony was in no way essential to the
marriage. The second and most common form, was called coemptio, or
purchase, and was really a formal sale between the father or guardian of the
bride and the future husband.[295] Both these forms transferred the woman
from the potestas (power) of her father into the manus (hand) of her
husband to whom she became as a daughter, having no rights except
through him, and no duties except to him. The husband even held the right
of life and death over the woman and her children. It depended on his will
whether a baby girl were reared or cast out to die—and the latter alternative
was no doubt often chosen. As is usual under such conditions, the right of
divorce was allowed to the husband and forbidden to the wife. "If you catch
your wife," was the law laid down by Cato the Censor, "in an act of
infidelity, you would kill her with impunity without a trial; but if she were
to catch you she would not venture to touch you with a finger, and, indeed,
she has no right." It is true that divorce was not frequent.[296] Monogamy
was strictly enforced. At no period of Roman history are there any traces of
polygamy or concubinage.[297] But such strictness of the moral code seems
to have been barren in its benefit to women. The terrible right of manus was
vested in the husband and gave him complete power of correction over the
wife. In grave cases the family tribunal had to be consulted. "Slaves and
women," says Mommsen, "were not reckoned as being properly members
of the community," and for this reason any criminal act committed by them
was judged not openly by the State, but by the male members of the
woman's family. The legal right of the husband to beat his wife was openly
recognised. Thus Egnatius was praised when, surprising his wife in the act
of tasting wine,[298] he beat her to death. And St. Monica consoles certain
wives, whose faces bore the mark of marital brutality, by saying to them:

"Take care to control your tongues.... It is the duty of servants to obey their
masters ... you have made a contract of servitude."[299] Such was the
marriage law in the early days of Rome's history.
Now it followed almost necessarily that under such arbitrary regulations
of the sexual relationship some way of escape should be sought. We have
seen how the Athenian husbands found relief from the restrictions of legal
marriage with the free hetairæ. But in Rome the development of the
freedom of love, with the corresponding advancement of the position of
woman, followed a different course. The stranger-woman never attained a
prominent place in Roman society. It is the citizen-women alone who are
conspicuous in history. Here, relief was gained for the Roman wives as well
as for the husbands, by what we may call a clever escape from marriage
under the right of the husband's manus. This is so important that I must ask
the reader deeply to consider it. The ideal of equality and fellowship
between women and men in marriage can be realised only among a people
who are sufficiently civilised to understand the necessity for the
development and modification of legal restrictions that have become
outworn and useless. Wherever the laws relating to marriage and divorce
are arbitrary and unchanging there woman, as the weaker partner, will be
found to remain in servitude. It can never be through the strengthening of
moral prohibitions, but only by their modification to suit the growing needs
of society that freedom will come to women.
The history of the development of marriage in Rome illustrates this very
forcibly. Even in the days of the Twelve Tables a wholly different and free
union had begun to take the place of the legally recognised marriage forms.
It was developed from the early marriage by usus. We have seen that this
marriage depended on the cohabitation of the man and the woman
continued for one year, which gave the right of ownership to the husband in
exactly the same way as possession for a year gave the right over others'
property. But in Rome, if the enjoyment of property was broken for any
period during the year, no title to it arose out of the usufruct. This idea was
cleverly applied to marriage by usus. The wife by passing three nights in the
year out of the conjugal domicile broke the manus of the husband and did
not become his property.
When, or how, it became a custom to convert this breach of cohabitation
into a system and establish a form of marriage, which entirely freed the

wife from the manus of the husband, we do not know. What is certain is that
this new form of free marriage by consent rapidly replaced the older forms
of the coemptio, and even the solemn confarreatio of the patricians.
It will be readily seen that this expansion of marriage produced a
revolution in the position of woman. The bride now remained a member of
her own family, and though nominally under the control of her father or
guardian, she was for all purposes practically free, having complete control
over her own property, and was, in fact, her own mistress.
The law of divorce evolved rapidly, and the changes were wholly in
favour of women. Marriage was now a private contract, of which the basis
was consent; and, being a contract, it could be dissolved for any reason,
with no shame attached to the dissolution, provided it was carried out with
the due legal form, in the presence of competent witnesses. Both parties had
equal liberty of divorce, only with certain pecuniary disadvantages,
connected with the forfeiting of the wife's dowry, for the husband whose
fault led to the divorce.[300] It was expressly stated that the husband had no
right to demand fidelity from his wife unless he practised the same himself.
"Such a system," says Havelock Ellis, "is obviously more in harmony with
modern civilised feeling than any system that has ever been set up in
Christendom."[301]
Monogamy remained imperative. The husband was bound to support the
wife adequately, to consult her interests and to avenge any insult inflicted
upon her, and it is expressly stated by the jurist Gaius that the wife might
bring an action for damages against her husband for ill-treatment.[302] The
woman retained complete control of her dowry and personal property. A
Roman jurist lays it down that it is a good thing that women should be
dowered, as it is desirable they should replenish the State with children.
Another instance of the constant solicitude of the Roman law to protect the
wife is seen in the fact that even if a wife stole from her husband, no
criminal action could be brought against her. All crimes against women
were punished with a heavy hand much more severely than in modern
times.
Women gained increasingly greater liberty until at last they obtained
complete freedom. This fact is stated by Havelock Ellis, whose remarks on
this point I will quote.

"Nothing is more certain than that the status of women in Rome rose with the
rise of civilisation exactly in the same way as in Babylon and in Egypt. In the
case of Rome, however, the growing refinement of civilisation and the expansion
of the Empire were associated with the magnificent development of the system
of Roman law, which in its final forms consecrated the position of women. In the
last days of the Republic women already began to attain the same legal level as
men, and later the great Antonine jurisconsults, guided by their theory of natural
law, reached the conception of the equality of the sexes as the principle of the
code of equity. The patriarchal subordination of women fell into complete
discredit, and this continued until, in the days of Justinian, under the influence of
Christianity the position of women began to suffer."[303]

Hobhouse gives the same estimate as to the high status of women.
"The Roman matron of the Empire," he says, "was more fully her own
mistress than the married woman of any earlier civilisation, with the possible
exception of a certain period of Egyptian history, and, it must be added, the wife
of any later civilisation down to our own generation."[304]

It is necessary to note that this freedom of the Roman woman was prior
to the introduction of Christianity, and that under its influence their position
began to suffer.[305] I cannot follow this question, and can only say how
entirely mistaken is the belief that the Jewish religion, with its barbaric
view of the relationship between the sexes, was beneficial to the liberty of
women.
The Roman matrons had now gained complete freedom in the domestic
relationship, and were permitted a wide field for the exercise of their
activities. They were the rulers of the household; they dined with their
husbands, attended the public feasts, and were admitted to the aristocratic
clubs, such as the Gerousia is supposed to have been. We find from
inscriptions that women had the privilege of forming associations and of
electing women presidents. One of these bore the title of Sodalitas
Pudicitiæ Servandræ, or "Society for Promoting Purity of Life." At
Lanuvium there was a society known as the "Senate of Women." There was
an interesting and singular woman's society existing in Rome, with a
meeting-place on the Quirinal, called Conventus Matronarum, or
"Convention of Mothers of Families." This seems to have been a self-
elected parliament of women for the purpose of settling questions of
etiquette. It cannot be said that the accounts that we have of this assembly
are at all edifying, but its existence shows the freedom permitted to women,
and points to the important fact that they were accustomed to combine with

one another to settle their own affairs. The Emperor Heliogabalus took this
self-constituted Parliament in hand and gave it legal powers.[306]
The Roman women managed their own property; many women
possessed great wealth: at times they lent money to their husbands, at more
than shrewd interest. It appears to have been recognised that all women
were competent in business affairs, and, therefore, the wife was in all cases
permitted to assume complete charge of the children's property during their
minority, and to enjoy the usufruct. We have instances in which this
capacity for affairs is dwelt on, as when Agricola, the general in command
in Britain, shows such confidence in his wife as a business woman that he
makes her co-heir with his daughter and the Emperor Domitian. Women
were allowed to plead for themselves in the courts of law. The satirists, like
Juvenal, declare that there were hardly any cases in which a woman would
not bring a suit.
There are many other examples which might be brought forward to show
the public entry of women into the affairs of the State. There would seem to
have been no limits set to their actions; and, moreover, they acted in their
own right independently of men. On one occasion, when the women of the
city rose in a body against an unfair taxation, they found a successful leader
in Hortensia, the daughter of the famous orator Hortensus, who is said to
have argued their case before the Triumvirs with all her father's eloquence.
We find the wives of generals in camp with their husbands. The graffitti
found at Pompeii give several instances of election addresses signed by
women, recommending candidates to the notice of the electors. We find,
too, in the municipal inscriptions that the women in different municipalities
formed themselves into small societies with semi-political objects, such as
the support of some candidate, the rewards that should be made to a local
magistrate, or how best funds might be collected to raise monuments or
statues.
It is specially interesting to find how fine a use many of the Roman
women made of their wealth and opportunities. They frequently bestowed
public buildings and porticoes on the communities among which they lived;
they erected public baths and gymnasia, adorned temples, and put up
statues. Their generosity took other forms. In Asia Minor we find several
instances of women distributing large sums of money among each citizen
within her own district. Women presided over the public games and over the

great religious festivals. When formally appointed to this position, they paid
the expenses incurred in these displays. In the provinces they sometimes
held high municipal offices. Ira Flavia, an important Roman settlement in
Northern Spain, for instance, was ruled by a Roman matron, Lupa by name.
[307] The power of women was especially great in Asia Minor, where they
received a most marked distinction, and were elected to the most important
magistracies. Several women obtained the highest Priesthood of Asia, the
greatest honour that could be paid to any one.[308]
There is one final point that has to be mentioned. We have seen how the
liberty and power of the Roman women arose from, and may be said to
have been dependent on, the substituting of a laxer form of marriage with
complete equality and freedom of divorce. In other words it was the
breaking down of the patriarchal system which placed women in a position
of freedom equal in all respects with men. Now, it has been held by many
that, owing to this freedom, the Roman women of the later period were
given up to licence. There are always many people who are afraid of
freedom, especially for women. But if our survey of these ancient and great
civilisations of the past has taught us anything at all, it is this: the
patriarchal subjection of women can never lead to progress. We must give
up a timid adherence to past traditions. It is possible that the freeing of
women's bonds may lead in some cases to the foolishness of licence. I do
not know; but even this is better than the wastage of the mother-force in
life. The child when first it tries to walk has many tumbles, yet we do not
for this reason keep him in leading strings. We know he must learn to walk;
how to do this he will find out by his many mistakes.
The opinion as to the licentiousness of the Roman woman rests mainly
on the statements of two satirical writers, Juvenal and Tacitus. Great pains
have been taken to refute the charges they make, and the old view is not
now accepted. Dill,[309] who is quoted by Havelock Ellis, seems convinced
that the movement of freedom for the Roman woman caused no
deterioration of her character; "without being less virtuous or respected, she
became far more accomplished and attractive; with fewer restraints, she had
greater charm and influence, even in social affairs, and was more and more
the equal of her husband."[310] Hobhouse and Donaldson[311] both support
this opinion; the latter writer considers that "there was no degradation of
morals in the Roman Empire." The licentiousness of pagan Rome was

certainly not greater than the licentiousness of Christian Rome. Sir Henry
Maine, in his valuable Ancient Law (whose chapter on this subject should
be read by every woman), says, "The latest Roman law, so far as it is
touched by the constitution of the Christian Emperors, bears some marks of
reaction against the liberal doctrines of the great Antonine jurisconsults."
This he attributes to the prevalent state of religious feeling that went to
"fatal excesses" under the influence of its "passion for asceticism."
At the dissolution of the Roman Empire the enlightened Roman law
remained as a precious legacy to Western civilisations. But, as Maine points
out, its humane and civilising influence was injured by its fusion with the
customs of the barbarians, and, in particular, by the Jewish marriage
system. The legislature of Europe "absorbed much more of those laws
concerning the position of women which belong peculiarly to an imperfect
civilisation. The law relating to married women was for the most part read
by the light, not of Roman, but of Christian Canon Law, which in no one
particular departs so widely from the enlightened spirit of the Roman
jurisprudence than in the view it takes of the relations of the sexes in
marriage." This was in part inevitable, Sir Henry Maine continues, "since
no society which preserves any tincture of Christian institutions is likely to
restore to married women the personal liberty conferred on them by the
middle Roman law."
It is not possible for me to follow this question further. One thing is
incontrovertibly certain, that woman's position and her freedom can best be
judged by the equity of the moral code in its bearing on the two sexes.
Wherever a different standard of moral conduct is set up for women from
men there is something fundamentally wrong in the family relationship
needing revolutionising. The sexual passions of men and women must be
regulated, first in the interests of the social body, and next in the interests of
the individual. It is the institution of marriage that secures the first end, and
the remedy of divorce that secures the second. It is the great question for
each civilisation to decide the position of the sexes in relation to these two
necessary institutions. In Rome an unusually enlightened public feeling
decided for the equality of woman with man in the whole conduct of sexual
morality. The legist Ulpian expresses this view when he writes—"It seems
to be very unjust that a man demands chastity from his wife while he
himself shows no example of it."[312] Such deep understanding of the unity

of the sexes is assuredly the finest testimony to the high status of Roman
women.
I have now reached the end of the inquiry set before us at the opening of
this chapter. I am fully aware of the many omissions, probable
misjudgments, and the inadequacy of this brief summary. We have covered
a wide field. This was inevitable. I know that to understand really the
position of woman in any country it is necessary to inquire into all the
customs that have built up its civilisation, and to gain knowledge upon
many points outside the special question of the sexual relationships. This I
have not been able even to attempt to do. I have thrown out a few hints in
passing—that is all. But the practical value of what we have found seems to
me not inconsiderable. I have tried to avoid any forcing of the facts to fit in
with a narrow and artificial view of my own opinions. To me the truth is
plain. As we have examined the often-confused mass of evidence, as it
throws light on the position of woman in these four great civilisations of
antiquity, we find that, in spite of the apparent differences which separate
their customs and habits in the sexual relationships, the evidence, when
disentangled, all points in one and the same direction. In the face of the
facts before us one truth cries out its message: "Woman must be free face to
face with man." Has it not, indeed, become clear that a great part of the
wisdom of the Egyptians and the wisdom of the Babylonians, as also of the
Romans, and, in a different degree, of the Greeks, rested in this, they
thought much of the mothers of the race. Do not the records of these old-
world civilisations show us the dominant position of the mother in relation
to the life of the race? In all great ages of humanity this has been accepted
as a central and sacred fact. We learn thus, as we look backwards to those
countries and those times when woman was free, by what laws, habits and
customs the sons of mothers may live long and gladly in all regions of the
earth. The use of history is not alone to sum up the varied experiences of the
past, but to enlarge our vision of the present, and by reflections on that past
to point a way to the future.

FOOTNOTES:

[199] This is the position taken up, for instance, by Letourneau, Evolution of
Marriage, p. 176.
[200] Herodotus, Bk. II. p. 35.
[201] Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, Vol. I. p. 189.
[202] Maspero, Preface to Queens of Egypt, by J.R. Buttles, q. v.
[203] For an account of the reign of Hatschepsut, as well as of the other queens
who ruled in Egypt, I must refer the reader to the excellent and careful work of
Miss Buttles. It is worth noting that the temple built by Queen Hatschepsut is
one of the most famous and beautiful monuments of ancient Egypt. On the walls
are recorded the history of her prosperous reign, also the private events of her
life: "Ra hath selected her for protecting Egypt and for rousing bravery among
men."
[204] We owe our knowledge of the Egyptian marriage contracts chiefly to M.
Revillout, whose works should be consulted. See also Paturet (the pupil of
Revillout), La Condition juridique de la femme dans l'ancienne Égypte;
Nietzold, Die Ehe in Aegypten; Greenfel, Greek Papyri; Amélineau, La Morale
Égyptienne; Müller, Liebespoesie der alten Aegypten, and the numerous works of
M. Maspero and Flinders Petrie. Simcox, writing on "Ownership in Egypt,"
gives a good summary of the subject, Primitive Civilisations, Vol. I. pp. 204-211;
also Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, Vol. I. p. 182, et seq.
[205] Hobhouse regards this dowry as being the original property of the wife in
the forms of the bride-price. Revillout and Müller accept the much more
probable view, that the dowry was fictitious, and was really a charge on the
property of the husband to be paid to the wife if he sent her away.
[206] Paturet, La Condition juridique de la femme dans l'ancienne Égypte; p. 69.
[207] Nietzold, Die Ehe in Aegypten, p. 79.
[208] Études égyptologiques, livre XIII. pp. 230, 294; quoted by Simcox, op. cit.,
Vol. I. p. 210.
[209] Simcox, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 204.
[210] Simcox, op. cit.; Vol. I. pp. 210-211, citing Revillout; Cours de droit, p.
285.
[211] This is the view of Simcox, op. cit., pp. 210-211.
[212] Hobhouse, Vol. I. p. 185 (Note).
[213] Les obligations en droit égyptien, p. 82; quoted by Simcox, op. cit., Vol. I.
pp. 209-210.
[214] Diodorus, bk. i. p. 27. The whole passage is: "Contrary to the received
usage of other nations the laws permit the Egyptians to marry their sisters, after
the example of Osiris and Isis. The latter, in fact, having cohabited with her
brother Osiris, swore, after his death, never to suffer the approach of any man,
pursued the murderer, governed according to the laws, and loaded men with
benefits. 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." The brother-sister marriages, referred to by
Diodorus, which were common, especially in early Egyptian history, are further
witness to the persistence among them of the customs of the mother-age.
[215] Simcox, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 205.
[216] Revue égyptologique, I. p. 110.
[217] Revillout, Cours de droit, Vol. I. p. 222.
[218] Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 393.
[219] Amélineau, La morale égyptienne, p. 194.
[220] Ellis, citing Donaldson, Woman, p. 196. This is also the opinion of Müller.
[221] Revillout, Revue égyptologique, Vol. I. p. 113.
[222] Simcox, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 207.
[223] Donaldson, Woman, pp. 244-245, citing Nietzold, p. 79.
[224] Letourneau (Evolution of Marriage, p. 176) takes this view.
[225] This is, of course, a survival of the old matriarchal custom.
[226] Hobhouse, op. cit., Vol. L. pp. 5-186. Herodotus (Bk. II. p. 42) states that
many Egyptians, like the Greeks, had adopted monogamy.
[227] Burgsch, Hist., Vol. I. p. 262, quoted by Simcox.
[228] Simcox, Vol. I. p. 198-199. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the
help I have received from this writer's careful and interesting chapter on
"Domestic Relationships and Family Law" among the Egyptians.
[229] Maspero, Hist. (German tr.), p. 41; see Simcox, op. cit., p. 199.
[230] This tablet is in the British Museum, London. S. Egyptian Gallery, Bay 29,
No. 1027.
[231] Simcox, Vol. I. pp. 218, 219.
[232] Petah Hotep was a high official in the reign of Assa, a king of the IVth
Dynasty, about 3360 B.C. His precepts consist of aphorisms of high moral worth;
there is a late copy in the British Museum. I have followed the translation given
in the Guide to the Egyptian Collection p. 77.
[233] This passage in other translations reads: "she is a field profitable to its
owner."
[234] The Maxims of Ani are preserved in the Egyptian Museum at Cairo. The
work inculcates the highest standard of practical morality and gives a lofty ideal
of the duty of the Egyptians in all the relations of life.
[235] From the Boulak Papyrus (1500 B.C.). I have followed in part the
translation given by Griffiths, The World's Literature, p. 5340, and in part that of
Maspero given in Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria (trans. by Alice Morton, p.
16).
[236] Southern Egyptian Gallery, Bay 28, No. 964. This statue belongs to later
Egyptian history. It was dedicated by Shashanq, a high official of the Ptolemaic

period.
[237] Wall case 102, Nos. 187, 38, and 430.
[238] Vestibule of North Egyptian Gallery, East doorway, No. 14.
[239] South Gallery, No. 565.
[240] No. 375. This group belongs to the XVIIIth Dynasty: the husband was a
warden of the palace and overseer of the Treasury; the wife a priestess of the god
Amen.
[241] Simcox, Primitive Civilisation, Vol. I. pp. 9, 271.
[242] Hommel, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 271.

[243] Simcox, who quotes Hommel, op. cit., p. 320.
[244] Simcox, Vol. I. p 361.
[245] Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 393. Ellis quotes Revillout, "La femme dans
l'antiquité," Journal Asiatique, 1906, Vol. VII. p. 57.
[246] I quote these facts from Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, Vol. I. p. 179.
[247] Hobhouse, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 181.
[248] Hobhouse, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 180.
[249] There is one case as late as the thirteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar in which
a wife is bought for a slave for one and a half gold minas.
[250] Simcox, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 374, citing Les Obligations, p. 346; also Revue
d'Assyriologie.
[251] This deed was translated by Dr. Peiser, Keilinschriftliche Aktenstücke aus
babylonischen Städte, p. 19.
[252] See Simcox, Chapters, "Commercial Law and Contract Tablets" and
"Domestic Relations and Family Law," op. cit., Vol. I. pp. 320-379.
[253] To give a few examples, Plutarch mentions that the relations between
husband and wife in Sparta were at first secret (Plutarch, Lycurgas). The story
told by Pausanias about Ulysses' marriage points to the custom of the husband
going to live with his wife's family (Pausanias, III. 20 (10), Frazer's translation).
The legend of the establishment of monogamy by Cecrops, because, before his
time, "men had their wives in common and did not know their fathers," points
clearly to a confused tradition of a period of mother-descent. (Athenæus, XIII. 2).
Herodotus reports that mother-descent was practised by the Lycians, and states
that "if a free woman marry a man who is a slave their children are free citizens;
but if a free man marry a foreign woman or cohabit with a concubine, even
though he be the first person in the state, the children forfeit all rights of
citizenship" (Herodotus, Bk. I. 173). The wife of Intaphernes, when granted by
Darius permission to claim the life of a single man of her kindred, chose her
brother, saying that both husband and brother and children could be replaced
(Herodotus, Bk. III. 119). Similarly the declaration of Antigone in Sophocles
(line 905 ff) that neither for husband nor children would she have performed the
toil she undertook for Polynices clearly shows that the tie of the common womb
was held as closer than the tie of marriage.
[254] For a full account of the Homeric woman the reader is referred to Lenz,
Geschichte des Weiber im Heroischen Zeitalter, an admirable work. The fullest
English account will be found in Mr. Gladstone's Homeric Studies, Vol. II. See
also Donaldson, Woman, pp. 11-23, where an excellent summary of the subject is
given.
[255] Odyssey, I. 2.
[256] Iliad, VI. 429-430.
[257] Odyssey, VI. 182.
[258] Gladstone, Homeric Studies, Vol. II. p. 507.
[259] Odyssey, VII. 142 ff.

[260] Donaldson, Woman, p. 18-19.
[261] Odyssey, III. 450; Iliad, VI. 301.
[262] Simcox, Primitive Civilisation, Vol. I. p. 199. Reference may also be made
to the love-charm translated by M. Revillout in his version of the Tales of Selna,
p. 37.
[263] 2 Nic. Ethics, VIII. 14; Econom. I. p. 94.
[264] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, p. 195.
[265] Lycurgus, XXXVII.
[266] Ibid., XXVI.
[267] Donaldson, Woman, pp. 28-29.
[268] Plutarch, Apophthegms of the Lacedemonians.—Demandes Romaines,
LXV.
[269] Lycurgus, Polybius, XII. 6. Xenophon, Rep. Laced. I. Aristotle, Pol. II. 9.
Aristotle notes especially the sexual liberty allowed to women.
[270] Donaldson, op. cit., p. 28.
[271] Polit. II. 9.
[272] Plutarch, Life of Agis; Donaldson, Woman, pp. 34, 35.
[273] Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, Vol. I. p. 208.
[274] Thus Demosthenes bequeathed his two daughters, aged seven and five
years, and also their mother, to his nephews, classing them with his property in
the significant phrase "all these things" (Letourneau, op. cit., p. 196).
[275] Xenophon, Economicus, VII.-IX.
[276] Isæus de Pyrrhi Her., § 14.
[277] Antig. 905-13. These verses are probably interpolated, but the interpolation
was as early as Aristotle. The same views are placed by Herodotus in the mouth
of the wife of Intarphernes (3. 119). See Donaldson, Woman, pp. 53, 54 and note.
[278] "The Position of Women in History"; Essay in the volume The Position of
Woman, Actual and Ideal, p. 37.
[279] Medea.
[280] Theodota, Xen. 'Mem.', III. II. Socrates conversed with Theodota on art and
discussed with her how she could best find true friends.
[281] Symposium.
[282] Pericles, 24. Thargalia used her influence over the Greeks to win them
over to the cause of the King of Persia.
[283] Timandra, Plut., Alcib., c. 39.
[284] Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), Chapters on Human Love, p. 152.
[285] We do not know the circumstances which induced Aspasia to come to
Athens. Plutarch suggests that she was led to do so by the example of Thargalia.
For full accounts of the career of Aspasia see Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, Vol. III.;

Ivo Bruns, Frauenemancipation in Athen; the fine monograph, Aspasie de Milet,
by Becq Fouquières; Donaldson's Woman, pp. 60-67; also Ellis, Psychology of
Sex, Vol. VI. p. 308.
[286] Pericles at the time of his meeting Aspasia was married, but there was
incompatibility of temper between him and his wife. He therefore made an
agreement with his wife to have a divorce and get her remarried. Aspasia then
became his companion and they remained together until the death of Pericles.
Their affection for one another was considered remarkable. Plutarch tells us, as
an extraordinary trait in the habits of a statesman who was remarkable for his
imperturbability and control, that Pericles regularly kissed Aspasia when he went
out and came in. When Pericles died Aspasia is said to have formed a friendship
with Lysicles, and through her influence raised him to the position of foremost
politician in Athens (Donaldson, op. cit., pp. 60, 61 and 63).
[287] Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, Vol. III. p. 124.
[288] Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 308; Donaldson, op. cit., p. 62.
[289] Frauenemancipation in Athen, p. 19.
[290] Medea, Mr. Gilbert Murray's translation.
[291] Frazer thinks that the Roman kingship was transmitted in the female line;
the king being a man of another town or race, who had married the daughter of
his predecessor and received the crown through her. This hypothesis explains the
obscure features of the traditional history of the Latin kings; their miraculous
birth, and the fact that many of the kings from their names appear to have been
of plebeian and not patrician families. The legends of the birth of Servius Tullius
which tradition imputes to a look, or that Cœculus the founder of Proneste was
conceived by a spark that leaped into his mother's bosom, as well as the rape of
the Sabines, may be mentioned as traces pointing to mother-descent (Golden
Bough, Pt. I. The Magic Art, Vol. II. pp. 270, 289, 312).
[292] Quoted from Position of Woman, Actual and Ideal; Essay on "The Position
of Woman in History," p. 38.
[293] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, pp. 120, 201. The usus was similar to
the Polynesian marriage, and was the consecration of the free union after a year
of cohabitation. By it the wife passed as completely under the manum mariti as if
she had eaten of the sacred cake.
[294] Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, Vol. I. p. 210. The eating of the cake
would seem to the ancient mind to have been connected with magic, and was
regarded as actually effacious in establishing a unity of the man and the woman.
[295] Coemption became in time purely symbolic. The bride was delivered to the
husband, who as a formality gave a few pieces of silver as payment; but the
ceremony proves how completely the woman was regarded as the property of the
father.
[296] Romulus, says Plutarch, gave the husband power to divorce his wife in
case of her poisoning his children, or counterfeiting his keys, or committing
adultery (Romulus, XXXVI.). Valerius Maximus affirms that divorce was
unknown for 520 years after the foundation of Rome.

[297] Hobhouse, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 211 (note). He states, "The concubinate we
hear of in Roman Law is a form of union bereft of some of the civil rights of
marriage, not the relation of a married man to a secondary wife or slave-girl."
[298] Donaldson, op. cit., p. 88. He remarks in a note, "The story may not be
historical, but the Romans regarded it as such." Wives were prohibited from
tasting wine at the risk of the severest penalties.
[299] St. Augustine, Confessions, Bk. IX. Ch. IX.
[300] Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, pp. 244, 245. In the ancient law, when
the crime of the woman led to divorce she lost all her dowry. Later, only a sixth
was kept back for adultery, and an eighth for other crimes. In the last stages of
the law the guilty husband lost the whole dowry, while if the wife divorced
without a cause, the husband retained a sixth of the dowry for each child, but
only up to three-sixths.
[301] Psychology of Sex, Vol. VI. p. 396.
[302] Hecker, History of Women's Rights, p. 12.
[303] Ellis, op. cit., p. 395.
[304] Hobhouse, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 213.
[305] Maine, Ancient Law, Ch. V.
[306] McCabe, The Religion of Women, p. 26 et seq.
[307] Santiago (Mediæval Towns Series), p. 21.
[308] Donaldson, Woman, pp. 124-125.
[309] Roman Society, p. 163.
[310] Morals in Evolution, Vol. I. p. 216.
[311] Woman, p. 113.
[312] Digest, XLVIII. 13, 5.

PART III
MODERN SECTION

PRESENT-DAY ASPECTS OF THE WOMAN PROBLEM

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER VIII

SEX DIFFERENCES

The practical application of the truths arrived at—A question to
be faced—The organic differences between the sexes—
Résumé of the facts already established—The error in the
common opinion of the true relationship of the sexes—The
male active and seeking—The female passive and receiving
—Is this true?—An examination of the passivity of the
female—The delusion that man is the active partner in the
sexual relationship—The economic factor in marriage—The
conventional modesty of woman—Concealments and
evasions—The feeling of shame in love—Woman's right of
selection—How this must be regained by women—The new
Ethic—The pre-natal claims of the child—The question of
parenthood as a religious question—The responsibility of
the mother as the child's supreme parent—The mating of the
future—Another question—Woman's superior moral virtue

—Its fundamental error—Woman's imperative need of love
—The maternal instinct—Nature's experiments—The
establishment of two sexes—The feminine and masculine
characters are an inherent part of the normal man and
woman—The female as the giver of life—The deep
significance of this—The atrophy of the maternal instinct—
Modern woman preoccupied with herself—The right
position of the mother—Sex attraction and sex antagonism
—Woman's relation to sexuality—The duel of the sexes—
The prostitution of love—Man's fear of woman—Misogyny
—The rebellion of woman against man—Coercive
differentiation of the sexes in consequence of civilisation—
The ideal of a one-sexed world—Woman as the enemy of
her own emancipation—The attempt to establish a third sex
—The danger of ignoring sex—The future progress of love.

CHAPTER VIIIToC

SEX DIFFERENCES

"Woman is an integral constituent of the processes of civilisation, which,
without her, becomes unthinkable. The present moment is a turning point in the
history of the feminine world. The woman of the past is disappearing, to give
place to the woman of the future, instead of the bound, there appears the free
personality."—Iwan Bloch.

At length we are ready, clear-minded and well-prepared, to deal with the
question of woman's present position in society. Our minds are clear, for we
have freed them from the age-long error that the subjection of the female to
the male is a universal and necessary part of Nature's scheme; we are well

prepared to support an exact opposite view, with a knowledge founded on
some at least of the facts that prove this, by the actual position that women
have held in the great civilisations of the past and still hold among primitive
peoples, as well as by a sure biological basis. We are thus far advanced
from the uncertainty with which we started our inquiry; our investigation
has got beyond the statement of evidence drawn from the past to a stage
whence the status of woman in the social order to-day, and the meaning of
her relation to herself, to man, and to the race may be estimated. The point
we have reached is this: the primary value of the sexes has to some extent,
at least, been reversed under the patriarchal idea, which has pushed the
male destructive power into prominence at the expense of the female
constructive force. This under-valuing of the one-half of life has lost to
society the service of a strong unsubjugated motherhood.
I am now, in this third and last section of my book, going to deal with
what seems to me the practical applications of the truth we have arrived at.
And the preliminary to this is a searching question: To what extent must we
accept a different natural capacity for women and men? or, in other words,
How far does the predominant sexual activity of woman separate her from
man in the sphere of intellectual and social work? The whole subject is a
large and difficult one and is full of problems to which it is not easy to find
an answer. We are brought straight up against the old controversy of the
organic differences between the sexes. This must be faced before we can
proceed further.
To attempt to do this we must return to the position we left at the end of
the fifth chapter. We had then concluded from our examination of the sexual
habits of insects, mammals, and birds that a marked differentiation between
the female and the male existed already in the early stages of the
development of species, and that such divergence, or sex-dimorphism, to
use the biological term, becomes more and more frequent and conspicuous
as we ascend to the higher types. The essential functions of females and
males become more separate, their habits of life tend to diverge, and to the
primary differences there are added all manner of secondary peculiarities.
We found, however, especially in our study of the familial habits, that these
supplementary differences could not be regarded as fixed and unalterable in
either the female or the male organism; but rather that the secondary sexual
characters must be considered as depending on environmental conditions,

among which are included the occupational activities, the scarcity or
abundance of the food supply, the relative numbers of the two sexes, and, in
particular, the brain development and the strength of the parental emotions.
We followed the development of the female element and the male element.
The male at first an insignificant addendum to the female, but the long
process of love's selection, carrying on the expansion and aggrandisement
of the male, led to the reversal of the early superiority of the female,
replacing it by the superiority of the male. The female led and the male
followed in the evolution process. We saw that there are many curious
alternations in the superiority of one sex over the other in size and also in
power of function. Below the line, among backboneless animals, there is
much greater constancy of superiority among the females, and this
predominance persists in many higher types. Even among birds, who afford
the most perfect examples of sexual development, the cases are not
infrequent in which the female equals, and sometimes even exceeds, the
male in size and strength and in beauty of plumage. The curious case of the
Phalaropes furnished us with a remarkable example of a reversal of the rôle
of the sexes. We found further that (1) an extravagant development of the
secondary sexual characters was not really favourable to the reproductive
process, the males thus differentiated belonging to a lower grade of sexual
evolution, being bad fathers and unsocial in their conduct; (2) that the most
oppressed females are as a rule very faithful wives, and (3) that the highest
expression of love among the birds must be sought in the beautiful cases in
which the sexes, though maintaining the essential constitutional
distinctions, are, through the higher individuation of the females more alike,
equal in capacity, and co-operate together in the race-work.
It were well to keep these facts clearly in sight; for, in the light of them, it
becomes evident that there is an error somewhere in the common opinion of
the true relationship of the sexes. Let us go first to the very start of the
matter. It is always held that the sperm male-cell represents the active, and
the germ female-cell the passive principle in sexuality, and on this
assumption there has been based by many a fixed standard for the supposed
natural relation between man and woman—he active and seeking, she
passive and receiving.
But is this really a fair statement of the reproduction process? The
hunger-driven male-cell certainly seeks the female—but what happens

then? The female cellule, the ovule, preserves its individuality and absorbs
the masculine cellule, or is impregnated by it. Thus, to use the term
"passive" in this connection is surely curiously misleading; as well call the
snake passive when, waiting motionless, it charms and draws towards it the
victim it will devour. Illustrations are apt to mislead, nevertheless they do
help us to see straight, and until we have come to find the truth here we
shall be fumbling for the grounds of any safe conclusion as to the natural
relationship of the female and the male. I think we must take a wider view
of the sexual relationship, and conclude that the passivity of the female is
not real, but only an apparent passivity. We may even go so far as to say
that the female element has from the very first to play the more complex
and difficult, the more important part. Herein, at the very start of life, is
typified in a manner at once simple and convincing that differentiation
which divides so sharply the sexual activity of the female from that of the
male. The serious part in sex belongs to the one who gives life, while in
comparison the activity of the male can almost be regarded as trifling. And I
believe that this view will be found to be amply supported by facts if we
turn now to consider the later and human relation of the sexes. In all cases it
is the same, the serious business in sex belongs to the woman. As it was in
the beginning, so, it seems to me, it continues to the end—it is woman who
really leads, she who in sex absorbs and uses the male.
"The passivity of the female in love," it has been said wisely by Marro in
his fine work La Pubertà, "is the passivity of the magnet, which in its
apparent immobility is drawing the iron towards it. An intense energy lies
behind such passivity, an absorbed pre-occupation in the end to be
attained."[313] In the examples we have studied of the courtships of birds we
saw that it is by no means a universal law that the male is eager and the
female coy. I need only recall the instance noted by Darwin[314] in which a
wild duck forced her love on a male pintail, and such cases, as is well
known, are frequent. High-bred bitches will show sudden passions for low-
bred or mongrel males. According to breeders and observers it is the female
who is always much more susceptible of sentimental selection; thus it is
often necessary to deceive mares. Among many primitive peoples it is the
woman who takes the initiative in courtship. In New Guinea, for instance,
where women hold a very independent position, "the girl is always regarded
as the seducer. 'Women steal men.' A youth who proposed to a girl would be
making himself ridiculous, would be called a woman, and laughed at by the

girls. The usual method by which a girl proposes is to send a present to the
youth by a third party, following this up by repeated gifts of food; the young
man sometimes waits a month or two, receiving presents all the time, in
order to assure himself of the girl's constancy before decisively accepting
her advances."[315]
In the face of this, and many similar cases, it becomes an absurdity to
continue a belief in the passivity of the female as a natural law of the sexes.
Such openness of conduct in courtship is, of course, impossible except
where woman holds an entirely independent position. Still, it would not be
difficult to bring forward similar manifestations of the initiative being taken
by the woman—though often exercised unconsciously as the expression of
an instinctive need—in the artificial courtships of highly civilised peoples.
But enough has perhaps been said; and such examples can, I doubt not, be
readily supplied by each of my readers for themselves. I will only remark
that the true nature of the passivity of the woman in courtship is made
abundantly clear from the ease with which the pretence is thrown off in
every case where the necessity arises.
Nothing is more astounding to me than this delusion that the man is the
active partner in sex. I believe, as I have once before stated, that Bernard
Shaw[316] is right here when he says that men set up the theory to save their
pride. Having taken to themselves the initiative in all other matters, they
claim the same privilege in love; and women have acquiesced and have
helped them, so that the duplicity has become almost ineradicable. Few
women are brave enough to admit this even if they have clear sight to see
the truth; they know that it is not permitted to them to exercise openly their
right of choice. They understand that the male pride of possession—the
hunter's and the fighter's joy—must be respected. But this makes not the
least difference to the result, only to the way in which that result is gained.
So the whole of our society is filled with half-concealed sex-snares and
pitfalls set by women for the capture of men. The woman waits passive!
Yes, precisely, she often does. But exactly the same may be said of the
female spider when she has spun her web, from which she knows full well
the victim fly will not escape.
There is another point that must be noticed. Under our present sexual
relationships the price the woman asks from the man for her favours is
marriage as the only means of gaining permanent maintenance for herself

and for her children. Now that these economic considerations have entered
into love she has to act with a new and greater caution, for she has to gain
her own ends as well as Nature's ends. In the matriarchal society the girl
was allowed openly to pick her lover, and forthwith he went with her. But to
the modern woman, under the patriarchal ideals, if she shows the modesty
that convention requires of her, all that is permitted is the invitation of a
lowered eyelid, a look, or perchance a touch, at one time given, at another
withheld.
Now, I find it the opinion of most of my men friends that such half-
concealed encouragements, such evasions and drawings back are a
necessary part of the love-play—the woman's unconscious testing of the
fussy male. There is one friend, a doctor, who tells me that the woman's
dissimulation of her own inclination has come to be a secondary sexual
characteristic, a manifestation of the operation of sexual selection, diluted,
perhaps, and altered by civilisation, but an essential feature in every
courtship, so that the woman follows a true and biologically valuable
instinct when she temporises and dissembles, and tests and provokes, and
entices and repels. She is proving herself and testing her lovers before she
permits that awful "merging" that no after-thought can undo.
Now, on the face of it this seems true. There is a passionate uncertainty
that all true lovers feel. It is, I think, a holding back from the yielding up of
the individual ego—an unconscious revolt from the sacrifice claimed by the
creative force before which both the woman and the man alike are helpless
agents. It is very difficult to find the truth. Throughout Nature love only
fulfils its purpose after much expenditure of energy. But dissimulation on
the side of the woman is not, I am sure, a true or necessary incitement to
love. Love, as I see it, is a breaking down of the boundaries of oneself, the
casting aside of reserve and defences, with a necessary throwing off of
every concealment.
In our restricted society, where the sexual instincts are at once both
unnaturally repressed and unnaturally stimulated, this openness may not be
possible. Concealments and evasions may be an aid at one stage of sex
evolution. Just as the half-concealed body is often a more powerful sensual
stimulus than nudity; the less one sees, the more does the imagination
picture. But the need of such artificial excitants speaks of the poverty of
love and not of its fullness. For most of us the strain of sensuality in our

loves is very strong. To have lived in the bonds of slavery makes us slaves,
and the price that woman has paid is the sacrifice of her purity. The feeling
of shame in love, like chastity, arose in the property value of the woman to
her owner; it is no more a part of the woman's character than of the man's.
Woman must capture her mate because the race must perish without her
travail; she is fulfilling Nature's ends, as well as her own, whatever means
she uses.
So I am certain that, as woman's right of selection is given back to her to
exercise without restraint, we shall see a freer and more beautiful mating.
With greater liberty of action she will be far better armed with knowledge to
demand a finer quality in her lovers. Her unborn children importuning her,
her choice will be guided by the man's fitness alone, not, as now it is, by his
capacity and power for work and protection. We are only awakening to the
terrible evils of these powerful economic restraints, which now limit the
woman's range of choice. It is this wastage of the Life-force that, as I
believe, above all else has driven women into revolt.
The free power of Selection in Love! Yes; that is the true Female
Franchise. It must be regained by woman, to be used by her to ennoble the
sex relation and thereby to cleanse society of the unfit. The means by which
this most important end can be attained will be brought about by giving
woman such training and education and civic rights, as well as the framing
of such laws and changes in the rights of property inheritance, as shall
render her economically independent. Existing marriage is a pernicious
survival of the patriarchal age. The "patriarch's" wife was significantly
reckoned in the same category with a man's "ox" and his "ass," which any
other male was forbidden "to covet." The wife was the husband's—her
owner's private property—and the curse of this dependence and the old
ferocious potestas and manus, from which the Roman wife freed herself,
are upon women to-day. With the regaining of their economic freedom by
women—by whatever means this is to be accomplished—a truer marriage
will be brought within reach of every one, and the sexual relationship will
be freed from the jealous chains of ownership that cause such bitter
mistrusts in the wreckage of our loves.
Mating will be a much more complex affair, and yet one much more
directly in harmony with the welfare of the race. A recognition of the pre-
natal claims of the child is the new Ethic that is slowly but surely dawning

on womankind and on man. He who destroys human life, however unfit that
life may be, is remorselessly punished by society, but the woman and man
who beget diseased and imbecile children—the necessarily unfit—are not
only exonerated from sin, but applauded by both Church and State. Could
moral inconstancy go further than this? It is only in the begetting of men
that breeding from the worst stocks may be said to be the rule. As long as in
our ideas on these questions superstition remains the guide there is nothing
to hope for and much to fear. The new ideal is only beginning, and
beginning with a tardiness that is a reproach to human foresight. But herein
lies the glad hope of the future. I place my trust in the enlightened
conscience of the economically emancipated mothers, and in the awakened
fathers, to work out some scheme of sexual salvation as will ensure a race
of sounder limb and saner intelligence than any that has yet appeared in our
civilisation.
It is woman, not man, who must fix the standard in sex. The problems of
love are linked on to the needs of the race. Nature has, as we have seen,
made various experiments as to which of the sexes was to be the
predominant partner in this relation. But the decision has been made in the
favour of the mother. She it is who has to play the chief part in the racial
life. There is no getting away from this, in spite of the many absurdities that
man has set up, as, for instance, St. Paul's grandmotherly old Tory dogma,
making "man the head of the woman."
The differences between woman and man are deep and fundamental.
And, lest there be any who fear the giving back to woman of her power, let
me say that in this change there will be no danger of unsexing, least of all of
the unsexing of woman. Nature would not permit it, even if she in any
foolishness of revolt sought such a result, for it is her body that is the
sanctuary of the race. Love and courtship will not, indeed, be robbed of any
charm, that would be fatal, but they will be freed from the mockeries of
love that have always selfishness in them, jealous resentments and fearing
distrusts—the man of the woman, not less than the woman of the man. To-
day coquetry serves not only as a prelude to marriage, but very often serves
as a substitute for it; an escape from the payment of the sacrifices which
fulfilled love claims. There is a confusion of motives which now force
women and men alike from their service to the race. Sex must be freed from
all unworthy necessities. Courtship must be regarded, not as a game of

chance, but as the opening act in the drama of life. And the woman who
comes to know this must play her part consciously, realising in full what
she is seeking for; then, indeed, no longer will her sex be to her a light or a
saleable thing. At present economic and social injustices are strangling
millions of beautiful unborn babes.
There is another error that I would wish to clear up now. It is a tenet of
common belief that in all matters of sex-feeling and sex-morality the
woman is different from, and superior to, the man. I find in the writings of
almost all women on sex-subjects, not to speak of popular novels, an
insistence on men's grossness, with a great deal in contrast about the soulful
character of woman's love. Even so illuminated a writer as Ellen Key
emphasises this supposed trait of the woman again and again. Another
woman writer, Miss May Sinclair, in a brilliant "Defence of Men" (English
Review, July 1912), speaks of "the superior virtue of women" as being
"primordially and fundamentally Nature's care." And again, woman "has
monopolised virtue at man's expense," which the writer, with the most
perfect humour and irony, though apparently quite unconscious, regards as
"men's tragedy." The woman has received the laurel crown by "Nature's
consecration of her womanhood to suffering," the man "has paid with his
spiritual prospects as she has paid with her body."
Now, from this view of the sex relationship I most utterly dissent. I
believe that any difference in virtue, even where it exists in woman, is not
fundamental, that it is against Nature's purpose that it should be so; rather it
has arisen as a pretence of necessity, because it has been expected of her,
nourished in her, and imposed on her by the unnatural prohibitions of
religious and social conventions. The female half of life has not been pre-
ordained to suffer any more than the male half: this belief has done more to
destroy the conscience of woman than any other single error. You have only
to repeat any lie long enough to convince even yourself of its truth. But
assuredly free woman will have to yield up her martyr's crown.
I grant willingly that men often talk brutally of sex, but I am certain that
few of them think brutally. We women are so easily deceived by the outside
appearance of things. The man who calls "a spade a spade" is not really
inferior to him who terms it "an agricultural implement for the tilling of the
soil." And women also express their sensuality in orgies of emotion, in

hypocrisies of chastity, and in many other ways that are really nothing but a
subtle sensuality disguised.
I confess that I doubt very much the existence of any special soulful
character in woman's love. I wish that I didn't. But my experience forces me
to admit that this is but another of those delusions which woman has
wrapped around herself. Of course I may be wrong. I find Professor Forel
and other distinguished psychologists lending their support to this idol of
the woman's superior sexual virtue. Krafft-Ebing goes much further,
holding "that woman is naturally and organically frigid." It may be then that
some difference does exist in the driving force of passion in men and
women. I do not know the exact character of men's love to compare it with
my own, and I hesitate to write with that assurance of the passions of the
other sex with which they have written of mine. Yet I believe that the male
receiving life from the female is not more mindful of the physical needs of
love than the woman, though possibly she has less understanding of its joys.
For the woman with a much more complex sexual nature is carried by
passion further than the male; the continuance of life rests with her. Under
this imperative compulsion woman, if needs be, will break every
commandment in the Decalogue and suffer no remorse for having done so. I
think this seeking to give life remains a necessary element in the loves of all
women. At its lowest it will stoop to any unscrupulousness. Bernard Shaw
tells us that "if women were as fastidious as men, morally or physically,
there would be an end to the race." Perhaps this is true. Yet I think woman's
love is always different in its fundamental essence from the excitements of
the male. We throw the whole burden of sex-desire on to men, because we
have not yet faced the truth that they are our helpless agents in carrying on
Nature's most urgent work. It has been so from the beginning, since that
first primordial mating when the hungry male-cell gained renewal of life
from the female, it is so still, I believe it will be thus to the end.
It is when we come to the emotions and actions connected with the
maternal instinct in woman that we reach the real point of the difference
between the sexes. In its essential essence this belongs to women alone. The
male may be infected with the reproduction energy (we have witnessed this
in its finest expression among birds, where the parental duties are shared in
and, in some cases, carried out entirely by the male), but man possesses, as
yet, its faint analogy only. It is the most primary of all woman's qualities,

and, being fundamental, it is, I believe, unalterable, and any attempt to
minimise its action is very unlikely to lead to progress. It is a two-sexed
world; women and men are not alike; I hope that they never will be.
This radical truth is so plain. Yet it seems to me that in the present
confusion many women are in danger of overlooking it. We saw in an
earlier chapter how very early in the development of life it was found by
Nature's slow but certain experiments that the establishment of two sexes in
different organisms, and their differentiation, was to the immense advantage
of progress. This initial difference leads to the functional distinctions
between the female and the male, but it goes much further than this, finding
its expression in many secondary qualities, not on the physical side alone,
but on the mental and psychical, and is, indeed, a saturating influence that
determines the entire development of the organism into the feminine or the
masculine character. Take again the fact that this dynamic action of sex has
manifested itself in a continual progress through the uncounted centuries.
Developed by love's selection, the differentiation of the sexes increased in
the evolution of species, and as the differentiation increased the attraction
also increased, until in all the higher forms we find two markedly different
sexes, strongly drawn together by the magnetism of sex, and fulfilling
together their separate uses in the reproductive process. These are the
natural features of sex-distinction and sex-union.
The belief, therefore, is forced upon us that the characteristic feminine
and masculine characters are an inherent part of the normal woman and
man, a duality that goes back to the very threshold of sexuality. So Nature
created them, female and male created she them. To change the metaphor,
we have the woman and the man=the unit—the race. While there is no
fixing of the precise nature of this constitutional difference between the two
sexes, we may yet, broadly speaking, reach the truth. The female, as the
giver and keeper of life, is relatively more constructive, relatively less
disruptive than the male. It is here, I believe, we touch the spring of those
sex differences, which do exist, in spite of all efforts to explain them away
between the woman and the man. It is a quality that crops up in many
diverse directions and penetrates into every expression of the feminine
character.
Now, we cannot get away from a difference so fundamental, so
primordial as this. The consecration of the woman's body as the sanctuary

of life—that perpetual payment in giving is not safely to be altered. And
this I contest against all the Feminists: the real need of the normal woman is
the full and free satisfaction of the race-instinct. Do I then accept the
subjection of the woman. Assuredly not! To me it is manifest that it is just
because of her sex-needs and her sex-power that woman must be free. To
leave such a force to be used without understanding is like giving a weapon
to a child, in whose hands a cartridge suddenly goes off, leaving the empty
and smoking shell in his trembling hands.
It is well to remember, however, that for all women there is conceivably
no one simple rule. It is quite possible that the maternal instincts may be
overlaid and even destroyed, being replaced by others more clearly
masculine. In our artificial social state this is indeed bound to be so. It may
be regretted, but it cannot be blamed. And each woman must be free to
make her own choice; no man may safely decide for her; she must give life
gladly to be able to give it well. This is why any effort to force maternity,
even as an ideal, upon women is so utterly absurd. To-day woman is
coming slowly and hesitatingly to a new consciousness of herself, and this
at present is perhaps preoccupying her attention. But the freed woman of to-
morrow will have no need to centre her thoughts in herself, for by that time
she will understand. There will come a day when women will no longer live
in a prison walled up with fear of love and life. And when she has done with
discovering herself and playing at conquests, she will come to the most
glorious day of all, when she will know herself for what she is. And to those
of us who see already the goal the way is surely clear—let us work to find
how best it can be made easy for all women to love gladly and to bring
forth their children in joy.
Hitherto, dating from the times of the subjection of mother-right to
father-right, the woman's insecure position, with her need of protection
during the period of motherhood, has forced her into a state of dependence
and subordination to men, which has accentuated and made permanent that
physical disadvantage which, apart from motherhood, would scarcely exist,
and even with motherhood would not become a source of weakness, under a
wiser social organisation, which, understanding the primary importance of
the mother, so arranged its domestic and social relationships as to place its
women in a position of security. We have seen how this was done in Egypt,
and how happy were the results; we have seen, too, that among all primitive

peoples women are practically as strong as the men, and as capable in the
social duty of work. It is only under the fully established patriarchal system,
with its unequal development of the sexes, that motherhood is a source of
weakness to women. From the time that society comes again to recognise
the position of mothers and their right as the bearers of strength to the race,
not only to protection while they are fulfilling that essential function for the
community, but to their freedom after they have fulfilled it—the same
freedom that men claim for the work they do for the community—from that
time will arise a new freedom of women which will once again unite
mother-right with father-right. This change will touch and vitally affect
many of the deepest problems of the sexual relationship and the race.
We hear much to-day of women, and also men, being over-sexed; to me it
seems much nearer the truth to say we are wrongly sexed. It is
unquestionable that the progress of civilisation has resulted in a markedly
accentuated differentiation between the sexes, which, through inheritance
and custom, has become continually more sharply defined. Now, up to a
certain point sex differences lead to sex-attraction, but whenever such
variability—whether initiated by some natural process or by some
intentional guidance of the pressure of civilisation—is unduly exaggerated,
the way is opened up for sex-antagonism. That this, indeed, occurs may be
seen from the fact we have already established, that an exaggerated
outgrowth of the secondary sexual characters is not really favourable to
development; the species thus differentiated being bad parents and unsocial
in their conduct. The large felines, which are often inclined to commit
infanticide in their own interests, the male turkey and other members of the
gallinaceæ afford examples, and so does the female phalarope, whose
maternal instincts are completely atrophied. Another illustration may be
drawn from the debased position of the Athenian women, where the sharp
separation between the sexes led, without doubt, not only to the debasing of
the marriage relationship, but to the establishment of the hetairæ, and also
to the common practice of homo-sexual love.
Under our present civilisation, and mainly owing to the unnatural relation
of the sexes, which has unduly emphasised certain qualities of excessive
femininity, sex-feeling has been at once over-accentuated and under-
disciplined. Thus, an extreme outward sex-attraction has come to veil but
thinly a deep inward sex-antipathy, until it seems almost impossible that

women and men can ever really understand one another. Herein lie the
roots, as I believe, of much of the brutal treatment of women by men and
the contempt in which too often they are held. For what is the truth here? In
this so-called "duel of sex," while woman's moral equality has not been
recognised, women have employed their sex-differences as the most
effective weapon for compassing their own ends, and men in the mass—
unmindful of the truth that love is an understanding of the contrasted
natures, a solution of the riddle—have wished to have it so. What
significance arises out of this in the so-much-lauded cry, "Woman's
influence!" "By thy submission rule," really means in ninety-nine cases out
of a hundred, "Rule by sex-seduction and flattery." Yes, we women cannot
burk the truth—the seduction and flattery of man by woman is writ large
over the face of our present society, it speaks in our literature and in our art.
It is to this prostitution of love that sex-differences have carried us.
There is, of course, nothing new in these conditions; and there have
always been times when men have rebelled against this sexual tyranny of
woman. Misogyny is an old story. It is Euripides who betrays to us the real
meaning of such revolt. In a fragment of his we read, The most invincible of
all things is a woman! Men are so little sure of themselves that they fear
suffering from woman an annihilation of their own personality. There is
nothing surprising in this; rather it is one of Nature's laws that may not be
overlooked, traceable back to that first coalescence when the female cellule
absorbs the male. In one way or another, for Nature's ends or for her own,
the female will always absorb the male—the woman the man; she is the
river of life, he but the tributary stream. Paracelsus long ago gave utterance
to the profound truth, "Woman is nearer to the world than man." Hence the
army of misogynists—a Schopenhauer, a Strindberg, a Weininger, even a
great Tolstoi, alike moved in a rebellion of disillusion, or satiety, against the
power of woman that has been turned into turbid channels of misusage.
Thence, too, the hateful Christian doctrine of the fundamentally sinful, evil,
devilish nature of woman.
This rebellion of men, and their efforts to free themselves from the thrall
of women has been of little avail. We have reached now a new stage in the
age-long conflict of the sexes—the rebellion of the woman. There has come
a time when the old cry, "Woman, what have I to do with you?" is being
changed. It is woman who is whispering to herself and to her sisters, and, as

she gains in courage, crying it aloud, "Men, what have we to do with you?
We belong to ourselves." It is to this impasse in the confusion and
antagonism of the present moment of transition that sex-differences are
bringing us.
In face of this we may well pause.
What to do is another matter. But I am mainly concerned just now in
trying to see facts clearly. And to me it often seems that woman is in grave
danger to-day of becoming intoxicated with herself. She stands out self-
affirming, postulating her own—or what she thinks to be her own—nature.
In her, perhaps too-sudden, awakening to an entirely new existence of a free
personality, an over-consciousness of her rights has arisen, causing a
confusion of her instincts, so she fails to see the revelation begotten in her
inmost self.
There is no getting away from the truth that there is this vital organic
distinction between woman and man; and further, that this sexual difference
does, and it is well that it should, find its expression in a large number of
detailed characters of femaleness and maleness, various in value, some,
perhaps, trivial, and some important. These characters are natural in origin
and natural also in having survived ages of eliminative selection. But the
point I want to make clear is that, side by side with these fundamental
differences, have arisen in women a number of what may be called coercive
differentiations, inconsistent with, and absolutely hurtful to the natural
distinctions, being destructive to the love and understanding of woman and
man, and not less destructive to the vigour of the race. This
misdifferentiation of women, it is true, is passing, but the progressive gain
in this direction is counterbalanced by a new and hardly less grave danger.
I am dealing here with what seems to me to be a perilous quicksand in
woman's struggle for free development. To hear many women talk it would
appear that the new ideal was a one-sexed world. A great army of women
have espoused the task of raising their sex out of subjection. For such a duty
the strength and energy of passion is required. Can this task be performed if
the woman to any extent indulges in sex—otherwise subjection to man.
Sexuality debases, even reproduction and birth are regarded as
"nauseating." Woman is not free, only because she has been the slave to the
primitive cycle of emotions which belong to physical love. The

renunciation, the conquest of sex—it is this that must be gained. As for
man, he has been shown up, women have found him out; his long-worn
garments of authority and his mystery and glamour have been torn into
shreds—woman will have none of him.
Now obviously these are over-statements, yet they are the logical
outcome of much of the talk that one hears. It is the visible sign of our
incoherence and error, and in the measure of these follies we are sent back
to seek the truth. Women need a robuster courage in the face of love, a
greater faith in their womanhood, and in the scheme of Life. Nothing can be
gained from the child's folly in breaking the toys that have momentarily
ceased to please. The misogamist type of woman cannot fail to prove as
futile as the misogamist man. Not "Free from man" is the watch-cry of
women's emancipation that surely is to be, but "Free with man."
Let us pass to a somewhat different instance—the perversion of the
natural instincts of woman which has led to the attempt to establish what
has been called a "third sex,"[317] a type of woman in whom the sexual
differences are obscured or even obliterated—a woman who is, in fact, a
temperamental neuter. Economic conditions are compelling women to enter
with men into the fierce competition of our disordered social State. Partly
due to this reason, though much more, as I think, to the strong stirring in
woman of her newly-discovered self, there has arisen what I should like to
call an over-emphasised Intellectualism. Where sex is ignored there is
bound to lurk danger. Every one recognises the significance of the advance
in particular cases of women towards a higher intellectual individuation,
and the social utility of those women who have been truly the pioneers of
the new freedom; but this does not lessen at all the disastrous influence of
an ideal which holds up the renunciation of the natural rights of love and
activities of women, and thus involves an irreparable loss to the race by the
barrenness of many of its finest types. The significance of such Intellectuals
must be limited, because for them the possibility of transmission by
inheritance of their valuable qualities is cut off, and hence the way is closed
to a further progress. And, thus, we are brought back to that simple truth
from which we started; there are two sexes, the female and the male, on
their specific differences and resemblances blended together in union every
true advance in progress depends—on the perfected woman and the
perfected man.

FOOTNOTES:

[313] See Havelock Ellis, "The Sexual Impulse in Woman," Psychology of Sex,
Vol. III. p. 181, who gives this quotation from Marro.
[314] See page 111.
[315] Haddon, "Western Tribes of Torres Straits," Journal of the Anthropological
Society, Vol. XIX., Feb. 1890; cited by Ellis, op. cit., p. 185.
[316] See page 66.
[317] E. von Wolzogen gives this name, The Third Sex, to a romance in which he
describes a kind of barren, stunted woman, capable, however, of holding her
place in all work in competition with men. The writer compares these types of
women to the workers among ants and bees. See p. 62. I have quoted from Iwan
Bloch, The Sexual Life of Our Times, p. 13.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER IX

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING CHAPTER WITH SOME
FURTHER REMARKS ON SEX DIFFERENCES

I.—Women and Labour

A further examination of the sexual differences—The knowledge
we have gained does not enable us definitely to settle the

problem—The necessity of considering Nurture—Woman's
character to some extent the result of circumstance, to some
extent organic—The difficulties of the problem—Standards
of comparison—Incompleteness of our knowledge—New
researches on sex-differences—The confusion of opinions—
Women and men different, but neither superior to the other
—The position of women in society to-day—The increasing
surplus of women—How can a remedy be found?—
Woman's place in the home—The changes in modern
conditions—Women and labour—The damning struggle for
life—Sweated work—Women's wages—The marketable
value of woman's sex—This the explanation of the
smallness of women's wages—The prostitute better paid
than the worker—Woman's strength as compared with man's
—Are women really the weaker sex?—Woman's work
capacity equal to man's, but different—The Spanish women
—The intolerable conditions of labour in commercial
countries—Women more deeply concerned than men—The
real value of women's work—This must be recognised by
the State—The social service of child-bearing—The primary
and most important work of women—The present revolt of
women—How far is this justifiable—A caution and some
reflections.

II.—Sexual Differences of the Mind and the Artistic Impulse in Women

The mental and psychical sexual differences—Ineradicability of
these—Can they be modified or disregarded?—The
masculine and feminine intellectual qualities—Caution
necessary in making any comparison—Example, a tenacious
memory—Is this a feminine characteristic?—Woman's
intuition—Its value—Each sex contributes to the thought
power of the other—The artistic impulse—Is genius to be
regarded as an endowment of the male?—An examination of
the grounds for this view—Untenability of the opinion of the
greater variational tendency of men—The question needs

reopening—The influence of environment and training on
woman's mind—What woman can, or can not, do as yet
unproved—Woman's talent for diplomacy—The separation
between the mental life of the sexes—The result on woman's
mind—The revolt against repression—Woman as she is
represented in literature—The woman of the future—
Woman the cause of emotion in men—Part played by
women in early civilisations—What men learnt from them—
Woman's emotional endowment—Her affectability and
response to suggestion—These the qualities essential to
success in the arts—A comparison between the qualities of
genius and the qualities of woman—This opens up questions
of startling significance—What women may achieve in the
future—Some suggestions as to the effect of the entrance of
women into the arts.

III.—The Affectability of Woman—Its Connection with the Religious
Impulse

Woman's aptitude for religion—Her need for a protection—
Relation between the sexual and religious emotions—
Deprivation of love and satiety of love the sources of
religious needs—Religious prostitution—Religio-erotic
festivals—Sexual mysticism in Christianity—The lives of
the saints—Religious sexual perceptions—Their influence
on the emotional feminine character—A personal experience
—The association between love and salvation—The same
sense of the eternal in the religious and the sexual impulse—
Asceticism—Its origin in the sexual emotions—
Preoccupation of the ascetic with sex needs—The
transformation of the sex-impulse into spiritual activities—
Examples—The modern ascetic—The fear of love—This
the ultimate cause of the contempt of woman—Example of
Maupassant's priest—In love the way of salvation.

CHAPTER IXToC

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING CHAPTER WITH SOME
FURTHER REMARKS ON SEX DIFFERENCES

I.—Women and Labour

"The fullest ideal of the woman-worker is she who works not merely or
mainly for men as the help and instrument of their purpose, but who works with
men as the instrument yet material of her purpose."—Geddes and Thompson.

When we come to consider the detailed differences between woman and
man, a sharp separation of them into female qualities and male qualities no
longer squares with the known facts. Any attempt to lessen the natural
differences, as also to weaken at all the attractions arising from this
divergence, must be regarded with extreme distrust. There is a real and
inherent prejudice against the masculine woman and the feminine man. It is
nevertheless necessary very carefully to discriminate between innate
qualities of femaleness and maleness and those differences that have been
acquired as the direct result of peculiarities of environmental conditions. It
is certain that many differences in the physical and mental capacity of
women must be referred not to Nature but to Nurture, i.e. the effects of
conditions and training. Let me give one concrete case, for one clear
illustration is more eloquent than any statement. Long ago Professor Karl
Vogt pointed out that women were awkward manipulators. Thomas, in Sex
and Society, answers this well: "The awkwardness in manual manipulation
shown by these girls was surely due to lack of practice. The fastest type-
writer in the world is to-day a woman; the record for roping steers (a feat

depending on manual dexterity rather than physical force) is held by a
woman." I may add to this an example of my own observation. In a recent
International Fly and Bait Casting Tournament, held at the Crystal Palace, a
woman was among the competitors, and gave an admirable exhibition of
skill in salmon fly-casting. In this competition she threw one cast 34 feet
and two of 33 feet, making an aggregate of 100 yards, which gained her the
prize over the male competitors. It has also been recently stated that women
show equal skill with men in shooting at a target.
It is plain that the more we examine the question of sex-differences the
more it baffles us. The only safeguard against utter confusion and idleness
of thought is to fall back on the common-sense view that woman is what
she is largely, because she has lived as she has, and further, that in the
present transition no arbitrary rules may be laid down by men as to what
she should, or should not, can, or cannot do. Even in fear of possible
danger to be incurred, woman must no longer be "grandfathered." The
scope of this chapter is to make this clear.
It is no part of my purpose, even if it were possible for me within the
limits at my command, to enter into an examination of all the numerous
statements and theories with regard to the real or supposed secondary
sexual characters of woman. For though the practical utility of such detailed
knowledge is obvious, while there is no certainty of opinion even among
experts to fix the distinctions between the sexes, it is wiser in one who, like
myself, can claim no scientific knowledge to avoid the hazard of any
conclusion. I confess that a most careful study of the many differing
opinions has left me in a state of mental confusion. One is tempted to adopt
those views that fit in with one's own observations and to neglect others
probably equally right that do not do this. What is wanted is a much larger
number of careful experiments and scientific observations. Some of these
have been made already, and their value is great, but the basis is still too
narrow for any safe generalisations. All kinds of error are clearly very likely
to arise. I may, perhaps, be allowed to state my surprise, not to say
amusement, at the conviction evidenced by some male writers in their
estimate of the character of my sex. I find myself given many qualities that
I am sure I have not got, and deprived of others that I am equally certain I
possess. Thus, I have found myself wondering, as I sought sincerely to find
truth, whether I am indeed woman or man? or, to be more exact, whether

the female qualities in me do not include many others regarded as
masculine? This has forced the thought—is the difference between the
sexes, after all, so complete?
I am aware that what I am now saying appears to be in contradiction with
my other statements. I cannot help it. The fact is, that truth is always more
diverse than we suspect. This is a question that reaches so deeply that
apparent contradiction is sometimes inevitable. We find we are rooted into
outside things, and we melt away, as it were, into them, and no woman or
man can say, "I consist absolutely of this or that"; nor define herself or
himself so certainly as to be sure where the differences between the sexes
end and the points of contact begin. Many qualities of the personality
appear no more female than male; no more belonging to the woman than
the man. And yet, underlying these common qualities there is a deep under-
current in which all our nature finds expression in our sex.
Science has of late years advanced far in this matter, yet it has not much
more than begun. There is, as yet, no approximation to unanimity of
decision, though the way has been cleared of many errors. This is all that
has really been done by the ablest observers, who seem, however,
unwilling, if one may say so without presumption, to accept the conclusions
to which their own experiments and observations would seem to point. Take
an illustration. The early certitude on the sex-differences in the weight of
the brain and in the proportion of the cerebral lobes has been completely
turned upside down. The long believed opinion of the inferiority of the
woman in this direction has been proved to be founded on prejudice,
fallacies, and over-hasty generalisations, so that now it is allowed that the
sexual differences in the brain are at most very small. An even more
instructive example arises from the ancient theory that there was a natural
difference in the respiratory movements of the sexes. Hutchinson even
argued that this costal breathing was an adaptation to the child-bearing
function in woman. Further investigations, however, with a wider basis and
more accurate methods—and one may surely add more common-sense—
have changed the whole aspect of the matter. This difference has been
proved to be due, not to Nature at all, but wholly to the effect of corset-
wearing and woman's conventional dress. There is, it would seem, no limit
to the quagmire of superstition and error into which sex-difference have
drawn even the most careful inquirers if once they fail to cut themselves

adrift from that superficial view of Nature's scheme, by which the woman is
considered as being handicapped in every direction by her maternal
function.
Enough has now been said to indicate the complication of the facts, to
say nothing of their practical application. I must refer my readers for further
details to convenient summaries of the sexual differences, in Havelock
Ellis's Man and Woman; Geddes and Thomson's Sex and Evolution;
Thomas's Sex and Society; and H. Campbell's Differences in the Nervous
Organisation of Men and Women: the first of these is a treasure store of
facts, and may be regarded as the foundation of all later research; the last is,
perhaps, the most generally interesting, certainly it is the most favourable in
its estimate of women. Dr. Campbell urges with much force the fallacy of
many popular views. He does not seem to believe in the fundamental origin
of maleness and femaleness, holding them rather to be secondary and
derived, the result, in fact, of selection.
I have already sufficiently guarded against being supposed to have any
desire to establish identity between woman and man. I do, however, object
to any general conclusion of an arbitrary and excessive sex-separation,
without the essential preliminary inquiry being made as to the effects of
conditions and training; that is, whether the opportunities of development
have been at all equal. But here, to save falling into a misconception, it is
necessary to point out that I do not say the same opportunities, but equal.
This difference is so important that, risking the fear of being tedious, I must
restate my belief in the unlikeness of the sexes. As Havelock Ellis says, "A
man is a man to his very thumbs, and a woman is a woman down to her
little toes." What I do mean, then, is this: Have the opportunities of the
woman to develop as woman been equal to the opportunities of the man to
develop as man? It is on this question, it seems to me, that our attention
should be fixed.
Leaving for a little any attempt to find out in what directions this
development of woman can be most fully carried out, let us now clear our
way by glancing very briefly at certain plain facts of the actual position of
women as they present themselves in our society to-day.
In 1901 there were 1,070,000 more women than men in this country; this
surplus of women has increased slowly but steadily in every census since

1841! Thus, those who hold (as all who look straight at this matter must)
that the essential need for the normal woman are conditions that make
possible the fulfilment of her sex-functions, are placed in an awkward
dilemma when they wish to restrict her activities to marriage and the home.
By such narrowing of the sexual sphere they are not taking into
consideration the facts as they exist to-day. In a society where the women
outnumber the men by more than a million, it is sufficiently evident that
justice can be done to these primary needs of woman only by adopting one
of two courses, the placing of women in a position which secures to them
the possession of property, or, if their dependence on the labours of men is
maintained, the recognition of some form of polygamy. Here is no advocacy
of any sexual licence or of free-love, but I do set up a claim for free
motherhood, and however great the objections that may, and, as I think,
must be raised against polygamy, I am unhesitating in stating my belief that
any open and brave facing of the facts of the sex relationship is better than
our present ignorance or hypocritical indifference, which is spread like a
shroud over our national conditions of concealed polygamy for men, side
by side with enforced celibacy and unconcealed prostitution for a great
number of women. The most hopeful sign of the woman's movement is a
new solidarity that is surely killing the fatalism of a past acquiescing in
wrongs, and is slowly giving birth to a fine spiritual apprehension of the
great truth that what concerns any woman concerns all women, and, I
would add, also all men. This last—that there can be no woman's question
that is not also a man's question—is so essentially a part of any fruitful
change in our domestic and social relationship that women must not permit
themselves for a moment to forget it. It is the very plain things that so often
we do overlook.
So it becomes clear that the parrot cries "Woman's Place!" "Woman's
Sphere!" "Her place is the home!" have lost much, even if not all, their
significance. For, in the first place, it is obvious that under present
conditions there are not enough homes to go round; and second, even if we
neglect this essential fact, women may well answer such demands by saying
"much depends on the character and conditions of the home we are to stay
in." It was a many-sided home of free and full activity in which woman
evolved and wherein for long ages she worked; a home, in fact, which gave
free opportunities for the exercise of those qualities of constructive energy
that women, broadly speaking, may be said to possess. The woman's so-

called natural position in the home is not now natural at all. The conditions
of life have changed. Everything is drifting towards separation from worn-
out conditions. We are increasingly conscious of a growing discontent at
waste. The home with its old full activities has passed from women's hands.
But woman's work is not less needed. To-day the State claims her; the
Nation's housekeeping needs the vitalising mother-force more than anything
else.
The old way of looking at the patriarchal family was, from one point of
thought, perfectly right and reasonable as long as every woman was ensured
the protection of, and maintenance by, some man. Nor do I think there was
any unhappiness or degradation involved to women in this co-operation of
the old days, where the man went out to work and the woman stayed to do
work at least equally valuable in the home. It was, as a rule, a co-operation
of love, and, in any case, it was an equal partnership in work. But what was
true once is not true now. We are living in a continually changing
development and modification of the old tradition of the relationship of
woman and man. It is very needful to impress this factor of constant change
on our attention, and to fix it there. To ignore it, and it is too commonly
ignored, is to falsify every issue. "The Hithertos," as Mr. Zangwill has aptly
termed them, are helpless. Things are so, and we are carried on; and as yet
we know not whither, and we are floundering not a little as we seek for a
way. The women of one class have been forced into labour by the sharp
driving of hunger. Among the women of the other class have arisen a great
number who have turned to seek occupation from an entirely different
cause; the no less bitter driving of an unstimulating and ineffective
existence, a kind of boiling-over of women's energy wasted, causing a
revolt of the woman-soul against a life of confused purposes, achieving by
accident what is achieved at all. Between the women who have the finest
opportunities and the women who have none there is this common kinship
—the wastage not so much of woman as of womanhood.
Let us consider for a moment the women who have been forced into the
cheating, damning struggle for life. There are, according to the estimate of
labour experts, 5,000,000 women industrially employed in England. The
important point to consider is that during the last sixty years the women
who work are gaining numerically at a greater rate than men are. The
average weekly wage paid is seven shillings. Nine-tenths of the sweated

work of this country is done by women. I have no wish to give statistics of
the wages in particular trades; these are readily accessible to all.
Unfortunately the facts do not allow any exaggeration; they are saddening
and horrible enough in themselves. The life-blood of women, that should be
given to the race, is being stitched into our ready-made clothes; is washed
and ironed into our linen; wrought into the laces and embroideries, the
feathers and flowers, the sham furs with which we other women bedeck
ourselves; it is poured into our adulterated foods; it is pasted on our matches
and pin-boxes; stuffed into our furniture and mattresses; and spent on the
toys we buy for our children. The china that we use for our foods and the
tins in which we cook them are damned with the lead-poison that we offer
to women as the reward of labour.
It is these wrongs that the mothers with the fathers of the race have to
think out the way to alter. There is no one among us who is guiltless in this
matter. Things that are continuously wrong need revolutionising, and not
patching up.
What, then, is the real cause of the lowness of remuneration offered to
women for work when compared with men? Thousands of women and girls
receive wages that are insufficient to support life. They do not die, they
live; but how? The answer is plain. Woman possesses a marketable value
attached to her personality which man has not got. This enables her to live,
if she has children, to feed them, and also not infrequently to support the
man, forced out of work by the lowness of the wages she can accept. The
woman's sex is a saleable thing. Prostitution is the door of escape freely
opened to all women. It is because of the reserve fund thus established that
their honest wages suffer. Not all sweated women are prostitutes. Many are
legally married, they exist somehow; but the wages of all women are
conditioned by this sexual resource. It can be readily seen that this is a
survival of the patriarchal idea of the property value of woman. To-day it
affords a striking example of the conflict between the old rights of men with
the rising power of women. The value of woman is her sexual value; her
value as a worker is as yet unrecognised, except as a secondary matter. You
may refuse to be convinced of this. Yet the fact remains that our society is
so organised that women are more highly paid and better treated as
prostitutes than they are as honest workers.

I shall say no more on this question here, as I propose to deal with
prostitution more fully in a later chapter. I would, however, point out that
what I have said in no way implies an opinion that women should be driven
out of the labour market. This is as unfair as that they should be driven into
it. It is the conditions of labour that must be changed. I am not even able to
accept the opinion that the strength of woman is necessarily less than that of
man, only that it is different. It is, in fact, just this difference that is so
important. If woman's capacity in work was the same as men's no great
advantage could arise from women's entrance into the work of the State. It
might well lead to even worse confusion. It is the special qualities that
belong to woman that humanity is waiting for. Just as at the dawn of
civilisation society was moulded and in great measure built up by women,
then probably unconscious of their power and the end it made towards, so,
in the future, our society will be carried on and humanised by women,
deliberately working for the race, their creative energy having become self-
conscious and organised in a final and fruitful period of civilisation.
I want to look a little further into this question of the strength of woman
as compared with the strength of man. On the whole it seems right to say
that the man is the more muscular type, and stronger in relation to isolated
feats and spasmodic efforts. But against this may be placed the relative
greater tenacity of life in women. They are longer lived, alike in infancy
and in old age; they also show a greater power of resisting death. The
difference in the incidence of disease, again, in the two sexes is far from
furnishing conclusive evidence as to the greater feebleness of women. Their
constitution seems to have staying powers greater than the man's. The
theory that women are "natural invalids" cannot be accepted. Every care
must be taken to guard against any misdifferentiation of function in the kind
of work women are to do, but there is no evidence to prove that healthy
work is less beneficial to women than to men. Indeed, all the evidence
points in the opposite direction. Even in the matter of muscular power it is
difficult to make any absolute statement. The muscular development of
women among primitive peoples is well known. Japanese women will coal
a vessel with a rapidity unsurpassable by men. The pit-brow women of the
Lancashire collieries are said to be of finer physical development than any
other class of women workers. I have seen the women of Northern Spain
perform feats of strength that seem extraordinary.

It is worth while to wait to consider these Spanish women, who are well
known to me. The industrial side of primitive culture has always belonged
to women, and in Galicia, the north-west province of Spain, the old custom
is still in active practice, owing to the widespread emigration of the men.
The farms are worked by women, the ox-carts are driven by women, the
seed is sown and reaped by women—indeed, all work is done by women.
What is important is that these women have benefited by this enforced
engaging in activities which in most countries have been absorbed by men.
The fine physical qualities of these workers can scarcely be questioned. I
have taken pains to gain all possible information on this subject. Statistics
are not available, because in Galicia they have not been kept from this point
of view. I find, however, that it is the opinion of many eminent doctors and
the most thoughtful men of the province, that this labour does not damage
the health or beauty of the women, but the contrary, nor does it prejudice
the life and health of their children. As workers they are most conscientious
and intelligent, apt to learn, and ready to adopt improvements. From my
personal observations I can bear witness that their children are universally
well cared for. What impressed me was that these women looked happy.
They are full of energy and vigour, even to an advanced age. They are
evidently happy, and the standard of beauty among them will compare
favourably with the women of any other nation. I once witnessed an
interesting episode during a motor-ride in the country. A robust and comely
Gallegan woman was riding a ancas (pillion fashion) with a young
caballero, probably her son. The passing of our motor-car frightened the
steed, with the result that both riders were unhorsed. Neither was hurt, but it
was the woman who pursued the runaway horse. She caught it without
assistance and with surprising skill. What happened to the man I cannot say.
When I saw him he was standing in the road brushing the dust from his
clothes. I presume the woman returned with the horse to fetch him.
Women were the world's primitive carriers. In Galicia I have seen women
bearing immense burdens, unloading boats, acting as porters and firemen,
and removing household furniture. I saw one woman with a chest of
drawers easily poised upon her head, another woman bore a coffin, while
another, who was old, carried a small bedstead. A beautiful woman porter in
one village carried our heavy luggage, running with it on bare feet, without
sign of effort. She was the mother of four children, and her husband was at
the late Cuban war. She was upright as a young pine, with the shapeliness

that comes from perfect bodily equipoise. I do not wish to judge from trivial
incidents, but I saw in the Gallegan women a strength and a beauty that has
become rare among women to-day. I recall a conversation with an
Englishman I met at La Coruña, of the not uncommon strongly patriotic and
censorious type. We were walking together on the quay; he pointed to a
group of the Gallegan burden-bearers, who were unloading a vessel,
remarking in his indiscriminate British gallantry, "I can't bear to see women
doing work that ought to be done by men." "Look at the women!" was the
answer I made him.
It is, of course, impossible to compare the industrial conditions of such a
country as Spain with England. We may associate the position of women in
Galicia with some of the old matriarchal conditions. Women are held in
honour. There is a proverb common over all Northern Spain to the effect
that he who is unfortunate and needs assistance should "seek his Gallegan
mother." Many primitive customs survive, and one of the most interesting is
that by which the eldest daughter in some districts takes precedence over
the sons in inheritance. In no country does less stigma fall upon a child born
out of wedlock. As far back as the fourth century Spanish women insisted
on retaining their own names after marriage. We find the Synod of Elvira
trying to limit this freedom. The practice is still common for the children to
use the name of the mother coupled with that of the father, and in some
cases, alone, showing the absence of preference for the paternal descent.
[318] The introduction of modern institutions, and especially the empty
forms of chivalry, has lowered the position of women. Yet there can be no
question that some feature of the ancient mother-right customs have left the
imprint on the domestic life of the people. Spanish women have, in certain
directions, preserved a freedom and privilege which in England has never
been established and is only now being claimed.[319]
How completely all difficulties vanish from the relationship of the sexes
where society is more sanely organised—with a wiser understanding of the
things that really matter. The question is not: are our women fit for labour?
but this: are the conditions of labour in England fit either for women or
men? The supply of cheap labour on which the whole fabric of our society
is built up is giving way—and it has to go. We have to plan out new and
more tolerable conditions for the workers in every sort of employment. But

first we have to organise the difficult period of transition from the present
disorder.
I will not dwell on this. I would, however, point out that women must be
trained and ready to take their part with men in this work of industrial re-
organisation. They are even more deeply concerned than men. The
conditions of under-payment for woman's work are not restricted to sweated
workers; it is the same in skilled work, and in all trades and professions that
are open to women. For exactly the same work a lower rate of payment is
offered. Female labour is cheap, just as slave labour is cheap, the woman is
not considered as belonging to herself.
There is no question here of the real value of woman's labour. The cry of
man to woman under the patriarchal system has always been, and still for
the most part is, "Your value in our eyes is your sexuality, for your work we
care not." But mark this! The penalty of this false adjustment has fallen
upon men. For women, in their turn, have come to value men first in their
capacity as providers for them, caring as little for the man's sex-value as
men care for woman's work-value. From the moment when woman had to
place the economic considerations in love first, her faculties of
discrimination were no more of service for the selection of the fittest man.
Here we may find the explanation of the kind of men girls have been
willing to marry—old men, the unfit fathers, the diseased. Yes, any man
who was able to do for them what they have not been allowed to do for
themselves. And it is the race that suffers and rots; the sins of the mother
must be visited on the child.
It is clear, then, there is one remedy and one alone. This separation of
values must cease. All women's work must be paid at a rate based on the
quality and quantity of the work done; not upon her sexuality. I do not mean
by this that there should be any ignoring of woman's special sex-function;
to do this, in my opinion, would be fatal. The bearing of fit children is
woman's most important work for the State. The economic stress which
forces women into unlimited competition with men is, I am certain,
harmful. Women do not do this because they like it, but because they are
driven to it.
The true effort of women, I conceive, should be centred on the freeing of
the sexual relationship from the domination of a viciously directed

compulsion, and from the hardly less disastrous work-struggle of sex
against sex. The emancipated woman must work to gain economic
recognition, not necessarily the same as the man's, but her own. It is to the
direct interest of men to stop under-cutting by women; but the way to do
this is not to force women out of labour, compelling their return to the home
—that is impossible—rather it rests in an equal value of service being
recognised in both sexes. The fully developed woman of the future is still to
be, and first there must be a time of what may well prove to be dangerous
experiments. This may be regretted, it cannot be avoided. The finding out of
new paths entails some losing of the way.
Women have to find out what work they can best do; what work they
want to do, and what work men want them to do. I must insist, against all
the Feminists, on this factor of men's wishes being equally considered with
woman's own. It may not safely be neglected. Woman without man at her
side, after obtaining her freedom, will advance even less far than man has
advanced with his freedom, without her help. To deny this is to show an
absurd misunderstanding of the problem. Neither the male-force alone, nor
the female-power is sufficient; no theory of sex-superiority shall prevail.
The setting up of women against men, or men against women, to the
disadvantage of one or the other, belongs to a day that is over. We must
recognise that both the work of women and the work of men are in equal
measure essential to satisfy the needs of the State; the force of both sexes
must be united to plan and carry out those measures of reform now called
for by the new ideals of a civilised humanity. It is only by loosening all the
chains of all women and all men alike that the inherent energies of the
world's workers can be set free for the eventual ennobling of the race.
There is a fundamental difference in respect to the modes of energy in
woman and man. Is it, then, too much to hope for, that in the enlightened
civilisation, whose dawn is even now breaking the darkness, we shall
recognise and use this difference in work-power and claim from women the
kinds of labour they can give best to the State; and reward them for doing
this in such a way that their primary social service of child-bearing is in no
way impaired? But as yet the day is not. There is an outlook that causes
foreboding. The female sex is in a dangerous state of disturbance. New and
strange urgencies are at work amongst us, forces for which the word
"revolution" is only too faithfully appropriate. Little is being done to allay

these forces, much conspires to exasperate them. Whither are they taking
us? To this we women have to find an answer.
Other questions force themselves as wisely we wait to think. What will
women do when they have gained the voice to control the attitude the State
shall assume in the regulation of their work? Will their decisions be
founded on wide knowledge, that recognises all the facts and accepts the
responsibilities and restrictions that any true freedom for their sex entails,
or will it be merely continued revolt, tending to embitter and intensify the
struggle of sex against sex? Will their action reveal the wise patience, the
sympathy and understanding of the mother, or will it prove to be the
illogical, short-sighted, and bewildered behaviour of the spoilt child? No
one can answer these questions. Hitherto, it has seemed that women stand
in danger of losing sight of great issues in grasping at immediate gains.
Goaded by the wrongs they see so plainly waiting to be righted, they are in
such a desperate hurry. But "hurry" should not belong to the woman's
nature. There is a "grasp" quality of this age that can bring nothing but harm
to women. It is a great thing to be a woman, greater, as I believe, than to be
a man. For the first time for long ages women are beginning again to
understand this and all that it signifies. Women and not men are the
responsible sex in the great things of life that really matter. They are that
"Stubborn Power of Permanency" of which Goethe speaks. The female not
only typifies the race, she is the race. It is man who constitutes the
changing, the experimenting, sex. Thus, woman has to be steadier than man,
yes, and more self-sacrificing. She may not safely escape from her work as
"the giver," and if she does not give in life, she must give in something. We
have got to do more than bear men, we have to carry them with us through
life—our sons, our lovers, our husbands. We must free them now as well as
ourselves, if our freedom is to count for anything. Let us not, then, in any
impatience, neglect to pause, to prepare, to be ready, that the pregnancy of
the present may bring fair birth when the days are fulfilled. For, after all,
what shall it profit women if, in gaining the world, they lose themselves?

II.—Sexual Differences in Mind and the Artistic Impulse in Women

"The most secret elements of woman's nature, in association with the magic
mystery of her organisation, indicate the existence in her of peculiar and deep-
lying creative ideas."—Theodor Mundt.

What is true of the physical differences between women and men is true
also of the mental differences. We may readily accept the saturating
influence of sex on woman's mind. I mean a deep-lying distinction, not
superficial and to be explained away as due to outside things, but based on
the essential fact of her womanhood—her capacity for maternity. But the
impracticability of making any definite statement as to the exact nature or
extent of such mental sexual differentiation is evident. First must be cleared
up the difficulty of distinguishing between those differences that are
fundamental and constitutional as being directly dependent on the woman
character and those that have, or seem to have, arisen through distinction of
training or environment, which may be termed evolutionary differences,
and are likely to be changed by altered conditions. Even the trained
biologist is unable to draw an undisputed line of demarcation between the
two kinds of differences, and, even if it were drawn, the conclusion would
not help us very much. For with regard to these evolutionary differences
that are liable to change many questions have to be considered. Can they
safely be modified or disregarded? Do we want them changed? Will the
alteration really be of benefit to women? Only such qualities as can be
proved clearly to be mis-differentiations—i.e. directly harmful—can be
contemptuously dismissed. Thus the problem is an extraordinarily difficult
one. I can only touch its outer fringe.
It is held that men have greater mental variability and more originality,
while women have greater stability and more common sense. In this
connection may be noticed the characteristic male restlessness; man is
probably more inclined to experiment with his body and his mind and with
other people, while woman's constitution and temper is relatively more
conservative. It is held that women have the greater integrating intelligence,
while men are stronger in differentiation. The thinking power of woman is
deductive, that of man inductive; woman's influence on knowledge is thus
held to be indirect rather than direct. But women have greater receptive
powers, retain impressions better and have more vivid and surer memories;
for which reason women are generally more receptive for facts than for
laws, more for concrete than for general ideas. The feminine mind shows
greater patience, more open-mindedness and tact, and keener insight into

character, greater appreciation of subtle details and, consequently, what we
call intuition. The masculine mind, on the other hand, tends to a greater
height of sudden efforts, of scientific insight and experiment, greater
frequency of genius, and this is associated with an unobservant or impatient
disregard of details, but a stronger grasp of general ideas.
Now it is easy to make comparisons of this kind, but to accept them as at
all final calls for great caution. Let me take, as an instance, the opinion so
continuously affirmed, that women are distinguished by good memories, in
particular, for details. Now to regard this as necessarily a mental sexual
character is entirely to mistake the facts. A tenacious memory for details
that are often quite unimportant, belongs to all people of limited
impressions and unskilled in thought; it maybe noticed in all children.
Without a wide experience of life and practice in constructive thinking the
mind inevitably falls back on fact-memory. I knew an agricultural labourer
who could only tell his age by reckoning the years he had been dung-
spreading. Thus a good memory for details may be a sign of an untrained
mind. It is an entirely different thing from that acuteness of true memory,
which ensures the retention of all experiences that have made an impression
on the mind, with a corresponding rejection of what has failed to interest.
Thus before anything can be said with regard to this memory power of
woman, we have to decide on what it depends—i.e. is it really a mental
quality of woman, or is it simply dependent on, and brought about by, the
circumstances of her life and a limited experience? But to answer this
question I shall wait till later in this chapter.
It would be easy to follow a similar train of argument with regard to each
of these mental differences of the sexes. Few women have yet entered even
the threshold of the mental world of men, and those who have done this
stand in the position of strangers or visitors. To be in it, in any true sense,
would be to be born into it and to live in it by right; to absorb the same
experiences, not consciously and by special effort, but unconsciously as a
child absorbs words and learns to speak. Whenever this happens, and not till
then, shall we be in a position to compare positively the mental efficiency
of woman with men. At present no more can be affirmed than that the
differences in woman's mental expression are no greater than they must be
in view of the existing differences in their experience. And I am not sure,
even if such similarity of mental life were possible, that it would be of

benefit to women. Indeed, I am almost sure that it would not. What is
needed is an ungrudging recognition of the value of the special feminine
qualities. This would do much to lessen the regrettable competition that
undoubtedly prevails at present, which is due, it seems to me, to the foolish
denial of the value of any save masculine characteristics in our art, as also
in our public and professional life.
But leaving this point for the present, there is another question arising
from this first that also brings me doubt. Few will deny that women are
more instinctive than logical; more intuitive than cerebral. Men find their
conclusions by searching for and observing facts, while women, to a great
extent, arrive at the same end by instinct. They know, rather than know how,
or why, they know. Now, too often we hear these qualities of woman treated
with contempt. Is this wise? What I doubt is this: when women by
education and evolution have been able to learn and to practise the
inductive process of reasoning—if, indeed, they do come to do this—will
they lose their present faculty of gaining conclusions by instinct? I believe
that they must do so to a large extent, and I am not convinced that the gain
would at all fully make up for the loss. Looking at human conduct, it is
regulated quite as much by instinct as by reason. I think it will be
impossible to prevent this being so, and if this is true, woman's instinct may
remain of greater service to her than the gaining of a higher reasoning
faculty. The true distinction between the psychology of woman and man is
as the difference between feeling and thought. Woman thinks through her
emotions, man feels through his brain. This is obviously an exaggeration,
but it will show what I mean by the different process of thought that,
broadly speaking, is usual to the two sexes. Mistakes are, of course, made
by both processes, but more often, as I believe, by reasoning than by
instinct—this is probably because I am a woman. But it is certain that each
sex contributes to the thought-power of the other, each is indispensable to
the other, on the mental plane no less than on the physical.
The importance of the above will become obvious when we consider, as
we will now do, the artistic impulse in woman. Strange difficulties have
been raised on all sides concerning the occurrence of genius among women.
It seems to be accepted that in respect of artistic endowment the male sex is
unquestionably superior to the female. Havelock Ellis, for instance, in
dealing with this question says, "The assertion of Möbius[320] that the art

impulse is of the nature of a male secondary sexual character, in the same
sense as the beard, cannot be accepted without some qualification, but it
may well represent an approximation of the truth." By some it is held that
genius is linked with maleness: that it represents an ideal masculinity in the
highest form; and from genius the feminine mind must, therefore, be
excluded. But in truth it is not easy to credit such assumptions, or to see the
strangeness of the difficulties in an exact opposite view, if we understand
the significance of those qualities of femaleness which are allowed to
women by those who most deny to her the possibility of genius. Such a
denial serves only to show the absurd presumption of present knowledge of
this kind in its hope to solve a problem so difficult.
Let me try to sift out the facts. And first we must inquire on what grounds
this opinion is based. I have already alluded to the general belief in the
greater degree of variability in men, which, if established, would on the
psychical side involve an accentuated individualism and hence a greater
possibility of genius. This view has been supported by John Hunter,
Burdach, Darwin, Havelock Ellis, and others. Ellis, in the chapter on "The
Artistic Impulse" in Man and Woman, says, "The rarity of women artists of
the first rank is largely due to the greater variational tendency of men."
Now, this biological fact is certainly of great importance, if it can be
proved. But can it? It has recently been contested by anthropologists at least
as distinguished as those who have given it their support. Manouvrier, Karl
Pearson, Frossetto, and especially Guiffrida-Ruggieri have brought forward
evidence to prove the fallacy of this belief in the slighter variability and
infantile character of woman. Now, it is clearly impossible for me in the
space at my command to go into the conclusions brought forward on both
sides of this difficult question. What I want to make clear is that this greater
variability of man has not been established, and therefore cannot be
accepted as a condition of male genius. I am glad to be able to give a
statement on this question by Professor Arthur Thomson, which will
sufficiently show that my opinion is not put forward wantonly and without
due consideration, but that it coincides with the conclusion of one who is an
acknowledged leader in the advanced biological study of the sexes.
Professor Thomson writes thus[321]—
"We would guard against the temptation to sum up the contrast of the sexes in
epigrams. We regard the woman as relatively more anabolic, man as relatively
more katabolic, and whether this biological hypothesis is a good one or not, it

certainly does no social harm. But when investigators begin to say that woman is
more infantile and man more senile, that woman is "undeveloped man" and man
is "evolved woman," we get among generalisations not only unscientific but
practically dangerous. Not the least dangerous of these generalisations is one of
the most familiar, that man is more variable than woman, that the raw materials
of evolution make their appearance in greatest abundance in man. There seems to
be no secure basis for this generalisation; it seems doubtful whether any
generalisation of the kind is feasible. Prof. Karl Pearson has made seventeen
groups of measurements of different parts of the body, in eleven groups the
female is more variable than the male, and in six the male is more variable than
the female. Moreover the differences of variability are slight, less than those
between members of the same race living in different conditions. Furthermore, an
elementary remark may be pardoned. Since inheritance is bi-parental, and since
variation means some peculiarity in the inheritance, a greater variability in men,
if true, would not mean that men had any credit for varying. The stimulus to
variation may have come from the mother as well as the father. If proved it would
only mean that the male constitution gives free play to the expression of
variations, which are kept latent in the female constitution. But what is probably
true is that some variations find expression more readily in man and others more
readily in woman."

The italics in the passage are mine, for they make abundantly clear the
falseness of the old view, and show how much the question needs reopening
from the common-sense standpoint of opportunity. I shall, therefore, only
restate my opinion that it is impossible to assume a fundamental difference
in individuality as existing between woman and man until it can be proved
that the same free-play to the expression has been common alike to both
sexes.
To me it seems probable that what Samuel Butler insists upon is true, and
that the origin of variations must be looked for in the needs and experiences
of the creature varying. But let this pass, as it opens up too large and
difficult a question to enter upon here. The effects of environment and
function must act as a kind of arbiter directing conduct and, in particular,
mental expression. It is the very A B C of the question that appropriate
training and opportunities of use are essential if any mind is to develop.
Supply such mental stimuli to the boy and man, deny them to the girl and
woman, and then call "the art impulse of the nature of a male secondary
sexual character," because woman has as yet played but a small and
secondary part in any of the arts! The source of error is so plain that one can
only wonder at the fallacies that have been accepted as truth. Thus, when
one finds so just and careful an investigator as Havelock Ellis saying, "It is
unthinkable that a woman should have discovered the Copernician system!"

it can but be regarded as an example of that sex-bias which marks so
strikingly men's statements on this subject of mental sex-differences. We
may well ask, Why unthinkable? As answer I will give the finely just
acknowledgment of Iwan Bloch on this very question. He refers to this
statement of Havelock Ellis, and then says, "I need merely call to mind the
widely known physical discoveries of Madame Curie, whose thoroughly
independent work qualified her to succeed her husband as professor at the
Sorbonne. We cannot, therefore, exclude the possibility that in the sphere of
the natural sciences notable discoveries and inventions may be made in the
future in consequence of the independent work of women."[322] To take
another instance. We find the fact that so far women have gained very small
distinction in music, contrasted with the great number of girls who are
trained to play on musical instruments. But this is surely to show a
complete misunderstanding of the question. It is like saying that the best
preparation for a painter to know the colours reflected on water by a cloudy
or sunny sky would be a course of optics. Music is at once the most
imaginative and the most severely abstract of the arts, and the absence of
women from music must be referred to deeper causes, which yet, it seems
to me, are not far to seek.
Mind, I make no claim for women. I acknowledge fully that in all the
arts, except in acting and in dancing, woman's achievement has been
infinitely less than man's. There have been a few great women poets—
notably a Sappho, many good writers of fiction, and some capable painters.
But to bring forward these particular women and to try either to exaggerate
or belittle their importance can serve nothing. This search for ability among
women is absurd. It already exists widely, though unused or directed into
channels of waste. Of this I am convinced. The thing that has been rare is
opportunity. The fact that some few women have struggled up out of
obscurity does not so much show that they possessed a special masculine
superiority as that they have been less inextricably bound down than others
by the conventional bonds of a man-ruled society. I believe that this could
be proved in the case of every woman who has attained to fame. And there
is another point. The women who have succeeded in bursting these bonds
have, in most cases, done so at such great cost of energy and fighting, that
their work is rendered crude and often valueless. Self-assertion can never be
the best preparation for achievement. All this narrows the mental horizon
and tends to make the results gained superficial and unenduring. We have