The Position of Woman in Primitive Society Part 5

Recognising s.e.xual jealousy as the moving force in brute man, I have accepted that the primeval family was of the patriarchal type. I have traced the probable development of the group-family, expanding by successive steps into larger groups living in peaceful a.s.sociation. In the earlier stage, whilst the men lived as solitary despots, the women enjoyed a communal life. It is thus probable that the leading power in the upward movement of the group developing into the clan and tribe arose among the united mothers, and not with the father. The women were forced into social conduct. On this belief is based the theory of mother-power.

The most important result we have gained is the proof that the maternal system was framed for order, and has no connection with s.e.xual disorder. It is enough if I have suggested reasons to show that this widespread custom, which is practised still among many peoples, has nothing about it that is exceptional, nothing fantastic, nothing improbable. I hold it to be a perfectly natural arrangement--the practical outgrowth of the practical needs of primitive peoples. The strongest and the one certain claim for a belief in mother-right and mother-power must rest on this foundation. It is left for the second part of my book to prove how far I am right in what I claim.

PART II

THE MOTHER-AGE CIVILISATION

"It's not too late to seek a newer world:

Tho' much is taken, much abides: and tho'

We are not now the strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts; Made weak by time and rule, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

TENNYSON.

CHAPTER V

THE MATRIARCHAL FAMILY AMONG THE AMERICAN INDIANS

It is time now to turn to the actual subject of this investigation, in order to see how far the theory of mother-right has been helped by the lengthy examination of the patriarchal group.

Since the publication of _Das Mutterrecht_ much has been written that has tended to raise doubts as to the soundness of the matriarchal theory, at least in the form held by its early supporters. A reaction in the opposite direction has set in, before which the former belief in mother-power has been transformed, and now seems likely to disappear altogether. In recent years, Westermarck, Starcke, Andrew Lang, N. W. Thomas, and Crawley among others have given utterance to this view. The prevalence of a system tracing descent through the mother is accepted by the majority of learned opinion, though it would seem somewhat grudgingly. Mr. Crawley is the only writer, as far as I know, who denies that such a practice was ever common; the cases in which it still exists, as these cannot be denied, he regards as exceptions. He affirms: "There is no evidence that the maternal system was ever general or always preceded the paternal system." And again: "Though frequent, maternal descent cannot have been either universally or generally a stage through which man has pa.s.sed."[40]

[40] _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 460-461.

Mr. Crawley considers this a.s.sumption may be taken for granted; so that he does not trouble himself about proofs. The subject of mother-right is dismissed as unworthy of serious attention. Such an att.i.tude is surely instructive, and ill.u.s.trates the failure, to which I have already pointed, in considering the woman's side in these questions. There would seem to be a tendency to doubt as being possible any family arrangement favourable to the authority of women.

Even when descent through the mother is accepted as a phase in social development, it is denied that such descent confers any special rights to women.

One reason of this prejudice must be sought in the persistence of the puritan spirit: the objection to mother-kin rests mainly on the objection to loose s.e.xual relations.h.i.+ps. Thus it became necessary to attempt a new explanation of the origin of the custom, and hence my examination of the primordial patriarchal group. It may be thought that I should have done better to confine my inquiry to existing primitive peoples. But, if I am right, mother-power is rooted much further back than history, and arose first in the dawn of the human family. This had to be established.

It is clearly of vital importance to an inquiry that claims to set up a new belief in a discredited theory to protect it from those objections which hitherto have prevented its acceptance. This I have attempted to do. I have shown that the customs connected with mother-right had no connection at all with a state of promiscuity; that they were the result of order in the s.e.xual relations.h.i.+ps, and not of disorder. I have traced the causes which appear to have given rise to such a system, showing that the maternal order was not the first phase of the family, but was a natural forward movement--one which developed slowly and quite simply from the conditions of the patriarchal group. Moreover, I have maintained, and tried to prove, that the initiative in progress was taken by the women, they being inspired by their collective interest to overcome the individual interests of the male members of the group. If this is not a.s.sented to, then indeed, my view of mother-power can find no acceptance.

It is necessary, however, once more to guard against any mistake. I do not wish to prove a theory of gynaecocracy, or rule of woman. The t.i.tle chosen for this chapter at once opens the way to misinterpretation. It might appear as if I supported Bachofen's supposition that, under a system of maternal descent women possessed supreme rule in the family and in the clan: this is a dream only of visionaries. I declare here that I consider the theory of the so-called matriarchate at once false and injurious: false, because it can lead to nothing; and injurious, because, while it cannot be supported by facts, it overthrows what can be proved by the evidence that is open to all investigators. Nothing will be gained by exaggeration and by claiming over much for women.

The term "matriarchal" takes too much for granted that women at one period ruled. Such a view is far from the truth. All I claim, then, is this: the system by which the descent of the name and the inheritance of property pa.s.ses through the female side of the family placed women in a favourable position, with definite rights in the family and clan, rights which, in some cases, resulted in their having great and even extraordinary power. This, I think, may be granted. _If descent through the father stands, as it is held to do, for the predominance of man over woman--the husband over the wife, then it is at least surely possible that descent through the mother may in some cases have stood for the predominance of the wife over the husband._ The reader will judge how far the examples of the maternal family I am able to bring forward support this claim.

The evidence for mother-right has never yet been fully brought into notice; but much of the evidence is now available. Our knowledge of the customs of primitive peoples has increased greatly of late years, and these afford a wide field for inquiry. And although the examples of the complete maternal family existing to-day are few in number--probably not more than twenty tribes,[41] yet the important fact is that they occur among widely separated peoples in all the great regions of the uncivilised world. Moreover, side by side with these, are found a much larger number of imperfect systems, which give unmistakable evidence of an earlier maternal stage. Such examples are specially instructive; they belong to a transitional period, and show the maternal family in its decline as it pa.s.ses into a new patriarchal stage; often, indeed, we see the one system competing in conflict with the other.

[41] This is the number given by Prof. Tylor. "The Matriarchal Family System," _Nineteenth Century_, July 1896.

In this connection I may note that Westermarck does not accept an early period when descent was traced exclusively through the mother; he gives a long list of peoples among whom the system is not practised. These pa.s.sages occur in his well-known _Criticism of the Hypothesis of Promiscuity_,[42] and his whole argument is based on the a.s.sumption that mother-right arose through the tie between the father and the child being unrecognised. But mother-descent has no connection at all with uncertainty of paternity. I venture to think Dr.

Westermarck has not sufficiently considered this aspect of the question, and, if I mistake not, it is this confusion of mother-descent with promiscuity which explains his att.i.tude towards the maternal system, and his failure to recognise its favourable influence on the status of women. In his opinion this system of tracing descent does not materially affect the relative power of the two s.e.xes.[43] In such a view I cannot help thinking he is mistaken; and I am supported in this by the fact that he makes the important qualification that the husband's power is impaired when he lives among his wife's kinsfolk. Now, it is this form of marriage, or the more primitive custom when the husband only visits his wife, that is practised among the peoples who have preserved the complete maternal family. Under such a domestic arrangement, which really reverses the position of the wife and the husband, mother-right is found; this maternal marriage is, indeed, the true foundation of the woman's power. Where the marriage system has been changed from the maternal to the paternal form, and the wife is taken from the protection of her own kindred to live in the home of her husband, even when descent is still traced through the mother, the chief authority is almost always in the hands of the father. Thus it need not cause surprise to find mother-descent combined with a fully established patriarchal rule. But among such peoples practices may often be met with that can be explained only as survivals from an earlier maternal system. Moreover, in other cases, we meet with tribes that have not yet advanced to the maternal stage. A study of existing tribes, and of the records of ancient civilisations, will yield any number of examples.

[42] _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 97-104.

[43] "The Position of Woman in Early Civilisations,"

_Sociological Papers_, 1904.

Unmistakable traces of mother-right may, indeed, be found by those, whose eyes are opened to see, in all races. In peasant festivals and dances, and in many religious beliefs and ceremonies, we may meet with such survivals. They may be traced in our common language, especially in the words used for s.e.x and for kin relations.h.i.+ps. We can also find them shadowed in certain of our marriage rites, and s.e.x habits to-day. Another source of evidence is furnished by the widespread early occurrence of mother-G.o.ddesses, who must be connected with a system which places the mother in the forefront of religious thought. Further proof may be gathered from folk stories and heroic legends, whose interest offers rich rewards in suggestions of a time when honour rested with the s.e.x to whom the inheritance belonged.

Thus, the difficulty of establis.h.i.+ng a claim for mother-right and mother-power does not rest in any paucity of proof--but rather in its superabundance.

It would be superfluous for me to dwell on the difficulties of such an inquiry. The subject is immensely complicated and wide-reaching, so that I must keep strictly to the path set before me. It is my purpose to outline the domestic relations in the maternal family clan, and to examine the s.e.x-customs and forms of marriage. I shall limit myself to those matters which throw some light on the position of women, and shall touch on the features of social life only in so far as they ill.u.s.trate this. These questions will be discussed in the three succeeding chapters. Some portion of the matter given has appeared already in the section on the "Mother-Age Civilisation" in _The Truth about Woman_, which gives examples of the maternal family in America, Australia, India and other countries. Such examples formed a necessary part of the historical section of that work; they are even more necessary to this inquiry. Many new examples will be given, and the examination of the whole subject will be more exhaustive. These chapters will be followed by a discussion of certain difficulties, and an examination of the transition period in which the maternal family gave way to the second patriarchal stage with the family founded on the authority of the father. A short chapter will be devoted to the work done by women in primitive tribes and its importance in relation to their position. Then will come as full an account as is possible of the traces of the mother-age to be found in the records of ancient and existing civilised races; while a brief chapter will be added on certain myths and legends which help to elucidate the theory of women's early power. The final chapter will treat of general conclusions, with an attempt to suggest certain facts which seem to bear on present-day problems. Throughout I shall support my investigation (as far as can be done in a work primarily designed for a text-book) by examples, which, in each case, have been carefully chosen from trustworthy evidence of those who are personally acquainted with the habits of the peoples of whom they write. I shall try to avoid falling into the error of a one-sided view. Facts will be more important than reflections, and as far as possible, I shall let these speak for themselves.

Let us now concentrate our attention on the complete maternal family, where the clan is grouped around the mothers.

The examples in this chapter will be taken from the aboriginal tribes of North and South America among whom traces of the maternal system are common, while in some cases mother-right is still in force. At the period of European discovery the American Indians were already well advanced in the primitive arts, and were very far removed from savagery. Their domestic and social habits showed an organisation of a very remarkable character; among certain tribes there was a communal maternal family, interesting and complicated in its arrangements. Such customs had prevailed from an antiquity so remote that their origin seems to have been lost in the obscurity of the ages. It is possible, however, to see how this communism in living may have arisen and developed out of the conditions we have studied in the far distant patriarchal groups. For this reason they afford a very special interest to our inquiry.

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."[44]

[44] Morgan, _Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines_, p. 64.

We see here, at once, the persistence and development of the conditions and later customs of the patriarchal family-group, now evolved into the clan. In the far-distant days the jealous spirit was still strong; now it has been curbed and regulated, and the female yoke binds the clan together. We have the mothers as the centre of the communal home; the sons bringing their wives to live in the circle, while the daughters' husbands are received as permanent guests. Under such a system the mothers are related to each other, and belong to the same clan, and their children after them; the fathers are not bound together by the same ties and are of different clans. The limits within which marriage can take place are fixed, and we can trace the action of the ancient primal law in the bar that prohibits the husband from being of the same clan as his wife. Though the husband takes up his abode in the wife's family, dwelling there _during her life and his good behaviour_,[45] he still belongs to his own family. The children of the marriage are of the kindred of the mother, and never of his kindred: they are lost to his family. Thus there can be no extension of the clan through the males, it is the wife's clan that is extended by marriage.[46]

[45] Tylor, "The Matriarchal Family System," _Nineteenth Century_, July 1896.

[46] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, p. 208. Heriot, _Travels through the Canadas_, p. 323.

The important point to note is that the conditions of the clan are still favourable to the social conduct of the women, who are attached much more closely to the home and to each other than can be the case with the men. The wife never leaves the home, because she is considered the mistress, or, at least, the heiress. In the house all the duties and the honour as the head of the household fall upon her.

This position may be ill.u.s.trated by the wife's obligation to her husband and his family, which are curiously in contrast with what is usually expected from a woman. Thus a wife is not only bound to give food to her husband, to cook his provisions when he sets out on expeditions, but she has likewise to a.s.sist members of his family when they cultivate their fields, and to provide wood for an allotted period for the use of his family. In this work she is a.s.sisted by women of her clan. The women are also required in case of need to look after their parents.

There are many interesting customs in the domestic life of the Iroquois. I can notice a few only. The system of living, at the time Morgan visited the tribes, consisted of a plan at once novel and distinctive. Each _gens_ or clan lived in a long tenement house, large enough to accommodate the separate families. These houses were erected on frames of poles, covered with bark, and were from fifty to a hundred feet in length. A pa.s.sage way led down the centre, and rooms were portioned off on either side: the doors were at each end of the pa.s.sage. An apartment was allotted to each family. There were several fireplaces, usually one for every four families, which were placed in the central pa.s.sage: there were no chimneys. The Iroquois lived in these long houses, _Ho-de-no-sau-nee_, up to A.D. 1700, and in occasional instances for a hundred years later. They were not peculiar to the Iroquois, but were used by many tribes. Unfortunately this wise plan of living has now almost entirely pa.s.sed away.

I wish that I had s.p.a.ce to give a fuller account of these families.[47] Each household practised communism in living, and made a common stock of the provisions acquired by fis.h.i.+ng and hunting, and by the cultivation of maize and plants. The curse of individual acc.u.mulation would seem not to have existed. Owners.h.i.+p of land and all property was held in common. Each household was directed by the matron who supervised its domestic economy. After the daily meal was cooked at the several fires, the matron was summoned, and it was her duty to apportion the food from the kettle to the different families according to their respective needs. What food remained was placed in the charge of another woman until it was required by the matron. In this connection Mr. Morgan says: "This plan of life shows that their domestic economy was not without method, and it displays the care and management of women, low down in barbarism, for husbanding their resources and for improving their conditions."

[47] The reader is referred to Morgan's interesting _Houses and House-Life of the Aborigines_. It is from this work that many of the facts I give have been taken.

In this statement, made by one who was intimately acquainted with the customs of this people there is surely confirmation of what I have claimed for women? The further we go in our inquiry the more we are driven to the conclusion that the favourable conditions uniting the women with one another exerted a powerful influence on their character. I think this is a view of the maternal family system that has never received its proper meed of attention.

It must be noted that the women did not eat with the men; but the fact that the apportioning of the food was in the women's hands is sufficient proof that this separation of women and men, common among most primitive peoples, has no connection with the superiority of one s.e.x over the other. It is interesting to find that only one prepared meal was served in each day. But the pots were always kept boiling over the fires, and any one who was hungry, either from the household or from any other part of the village, had a right to order it to be taken off and to eat as he or she pleased.

We may notice the influence of their communistic living in all the Indian customs. At all times the law of hospitality was strictly observed. Food was dispensed in every case to those who needed it; no excuse was ever made to avoid giving. If through misfortune one household fell into want, the needs were freely supplied from the stock laid by for future use in another household. Hunger and dest.i.tution could not exist in any part of an Indian village or encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere. Such generosity at a time when food was often difficult to obtain, and its supply was the first concern of life, is a remarkable fact. Nor does this generosity seem, as might be thought, to have led to idleness and improvidence. He who begged, when he could work, was stigmatised with the disgraceful name of "poltroon" or "beggar"; but the miser who refused to a.s.sist his neighbour was branded as "a bad character." Mr. Morgan, commenting on this phase of the Indian life says: "I much doubt if the civilised world would have in their inst.i.tutions any system which can properly be called more humane and charitable."

These reflections induce one to ask: What were the causes of this humane system of living among a people considered as uncivilised? Now, I do not wish to claim overmuch for women. We have seen, however, that the control and distribution of the supply of food was placed in the hands of the matrons, thus their a.s.sociation with the giving of food must be accepted. Is not this fact sufficient to indicate the reason that made possible this communism? To me it is plain that these remarkable inst.i.tutions were connected with the maternal family, in which the collective interests were more considered than is possible in a patriarchal society, based upon individual inclination and proprietary interests.

A brief notice must now be given to the system of government. An Indian tribe was composed of several _gentes_ or clans, united in what is known as a _phratry_ or brotherhood. The tribe was an a.s.semblage of the _gentes_. The _phratry_ among the Iroquois was organised partly for social and partly for religious objects. Each _gens_ was ruled by chiefs of two grades, distinguished by Morgan as the _sachem_ and common chiefs. The _sachem_ was the official head of the _gens_, and was elected by its adult members, male and female. The _sachems_ and chiefs claimed no superiority and were never more than the exponents of the popular will of the people. Unanimity among the _sachems_ was required on all public questions. This was the fundamental law of the brotherhood; if all efforts failed to gain agreement the matter in question was dropped. Under such a system individual rule or the power of one _gens_ over the other became impossible. All the members of the different _gentes_ were personally free; equal in privileges, and in position, and in rights. "Liberty, equality, and fraternity," though never formulated, were the cardinal principles of the _gens_.[48] Mr.

Morgan holds the opinion that "this serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity universally attributed to the Indian character."