CHAPTER II.

WOMAN BEFORE CIVILISATION

FEMINIST writers in the second half of the nineteenth century were often seduced by an interesting theory that all, or nearly all, nations in the simplest stage of political structure were ruled by their women. A learned Swiss jurist, Dr. Bachofen, thought he had discovered very generally among the tribes that linger at the threshold of civilisation a practice of tracing descent through the mother only, and concluded that this pointed to an earlier phase in which the mothers ruled the community. This theory of the matriarchate was, somewhat unfortunately, enlisted in the campaign for a revision of woman's position. I say unfortunately because, if it were true that the rule of the women belonged almost wholly to a simpler and barbaric age, and was abandoned when tribes rose to civilisation, a demand for a return to the older order would not be free from ambiguity. A Nordau or a Carpenter may gird as he pleases at civilisation. Essentially it is a correction of the errors of infancy.

It is, therefore, not to be deplored that modern ethnographers emphatically reject the theory of the matriarchate. "No sociologist nowadays believes Bachofen's theory," says Professor Westermarck. An occasional feminist writer still builds on the theory, but I find Westermarck's statement in regard to the authorities justified.[2] It is quite true that in "a very considerable number of tribes" we find the habit of giving the mother's name to the child, and tracing through her whatever inheritance there be of rank or property. But there are serious objections to seeing in these practices a lingering trace of a former matriarchal rule. In at least an equal number of cases more complete research has found the opposite practice of tracing kinship through the father. In many of the tribes, where the female line is observed, the man rules even the home. In all cases where the female line is followed it is just as natural, at least, to trace the practice to a primitive promiscuity and uncertainty of paternity as to feminine domination. That, indeed, is the inference of the great majority of modern ethnographers. Westermarck dissents from them on this point of promiscuity (and, within limits that I will indicate, I agree with him); but he just as firmly rejects the matriarchate. It is surely possible that in the childhood of the race the man's share in the creation of children was unknown, and the child was the child of its mother.

The evolution of woman has run on different lines than those suggested by Bachofen, and it is by no means easy to retrace them. The earliest phase, indeed, we have no hope of restoring with confidence. No authority now doubts that there have been human or semi-human beings on this planet for some hundreds of thousands of years, and that for the greater part of the time--that is to say, until near the end of the Old Stone Age--they were below the level of the existing savage. For my present purpose it matters little that we can only dimly perceive the outline of these early men and women in the thick mist of a remote past. With what evidence there is I happen to be well acquainted, but I will not enlarge on it. Those primitive humans certainly had no social or political structure, and so do not concern us. How the first social groups arose it is not agreed; but from the scattering of the early traces of men and from the habits of the larger apes I conclude (as Westermarck does) that the primitive humans wandered along the broad river-banks in family groups, and that larger communities arose later by the fusion or expansion of families. Probably enough there was a great deal of promiscuity when these communities were formed, and monandry would need to be developed afresh. Where there was this community of wives the practice of tracing descent through the mother would be inevitable. In any case, the origin of children would be a profound mystery to such lowly beings, and for ages the man's fatherhood would be unknown.

In the course of time (the New Stone Age) a higher race appears. It has more skilfully-made implements, rudimentary agriculture, weaving, and pottery, and tamed cattle. In these more advanced groups there was certainly some measure of social organisation, and it would be interesting to know if the control of it was to any extent divided between the sexes.

To learn something of this phase of human development we turn to study the life of the lower races. Far away from the centres of civilisation, in the dense forests of Africa, in the remote islands of the Pacific, in the grim wastes of the Arctic, or in the extreme tips of the continents, we find survivors of the earlier phases of human development. The Australian was cut off from the stimulating contact of higher races a hundred thousand years ago or more. The Fuegians and the Veddahs, the Bushmans and some of the Central Africans, linger at about the same level. The Esquimaux have, in their deserts of ice, stereotyped the next chapter (the New Stone Age) in the story of humanity. Round the frontiers of old civilisations, like India and China, and in remote islands, we find other remnants of the infancy of the race. What can we learn from these fragments of prehistoric humanity about the lot of woman before civilisation began? Is there any general and consistent practice from which we may gather the story of woman's evolution?

It seems to me, after a careful survey of the voluminous details, that we may make this general statement: Wherever there is an approach to a social or political system, the control of it is in the hands of the men. They may in cases, where we may suspect special circumstances, consult their women on social issues (of trade, or migration, or war), but they are the rulers, and in most cases they take no account whatever of the women's views. The woman quite commonly rules in the hut, but she is rarely represented in the council, and very rarely attains tribal power. The man generally hunts and fights (sometimes tills the fields and makes the clothes): the woman generally does all the work in or about the home, which is the greater part of the family's work. In very many cases she is treated respectfully, and is quite equal to her husband in the home--it is not at all true that the lower races always, or nearly always, treat their women as cattle--but the fact remains that she is very rarely equal to him outside the home, in dealing with tribal issues.

If, then, we are to see survivals of primitive customs in the ways of our lowest savages, it seems that this was the very general course of development in early times. Travellers differ so much in competence or in prejudice that one still finds important divergences in different ethnographic writers--the reader who would go more closely into it should compare Letourneau's _Condition de la femme_ (1903) and Westermarck's more optimistic _Position of Woman in Early Civilisation_ (1904)--but the above is a fair summary of the accredited facts. It is, however, necessary to remark that we must not too readily regard the ways of savages as unchanged survivals from the infancy of humanity. Even where their material life remains at the level of the Old Stone Age, their customs may have been greatly modified, under the influence, for instance, of superstitious feelings. With that caution we may glance at the position of woman in existing tribes of savages, especially at the lowest grade, such as the Australian natives, the Fuegians, certain tribes of Central Africa, the Bushmans, and the wild Veddahs of Ceylon.

The conflicting statements that are made in regard to the position of woman among the native Australians (of whom only some 20,000 now survive, with greatly altered habits) point to the fact that it differed very considerably in different tribes. It is, however, clear that she was everywhere the great worker of the clan, and nowhere admitted to the tribal councils. Her task it was to make the rude screen of bark that stood for the primitive house, to weave the baskets and the cords, and cook the food. Whether she was the common property of the clan, whether there were group-marriages and promiscuity, even the latest authorities differ. But in the vast majority of cases her lot was pitiable. Initiated to married life with brutal usage, evading child-bearing by such crude means as she had, working far more than the men, and never consulted in tribal affairs, she seems fairly entitled to the name of slave, which Westermarck would refuse her. If there were tribes in which the husband could not kill or cast her off without the sanction of the tribe, it was only a transfer of power from one man to a group of men. If there were tribes in which she had gentler treatment, and might rise to the height of bullying her husband, the general rule was that she bore most of the burden, and waited humbly like a dog for the remains of her husband's meal.

In Papua, New Guinea, and New Caledonia we seem to have a somewhat more advanced branch of the same primitive stock; but the position of woman does not improve. Here and there we find regions where the brutality has been modified; but, on the whole, the advance towards civilisation has imposed more work on her, and, by removing the comparative protection of the clan, made the husband more despotic than ever. Among the Fuegians and Veddahs, lingering in southern islands at the very lowest level of culture, her lot is less intolerable. They are monogamous, and have no tribal organisation whatever, so that the sexes come nearer equality. The Veddah girl puts her band round the waist of her lover, and the two then rear their family in isolation. The Yahgan girl (the most primitive of the Fuegians) chooses her mate and shares with him the scant and savage existence. There are no social issues for him to appropriate, and the comparative physical equality is her safeguard.

Africa contains an enormous diversity of tribes, and the position of woman varies considerably in them. On the whole, it is true that the simpler the life, the nearer the sexes are to equality; but all generalisation is precarious. Letourneau says that for most of the blacks she is "a lower animal," and the phrase cannot be greatly qualified. It is quite true that a Hottentot husband dare not take a drink of sour milk in his own house without his wife's permission, under penalty of a fine, and he is often scolded by her; but it is the Hottentots who buy girls of ten or twelve to add to their harem, and expose them to death when they are prematurely worn. The less advanced Bushman treats his wife with more respect. The Monbuttu woman rules the home and practically owns its furniture. The Kaffir dare not touch his wife's property, and in some tribes he even admits a woman (the chief's mother) to the council. Among other tribes of East Central Africa, and among the Berbers and Bedouins of the north, she has fair respect and often influence. There is one happy region in which she may divorce him if he fails to sew her clothes. In Ashantee the king's sisters could marry (and virtually enslave) whom they willed. In Dahomey the regiment of female warriors was the nerve of the army, and not far behind the males in consumption of alcohol; but they were not allowed to marry.

Africa is a medley of tribes at different points on the upward march, but we may trace a consistency in the various customs. We must not say that women are treated as cattle because they bear all the burdens on the march. The men have to be free to hunt and to fight. Nor must we see a gleam of justice in tribes where the male tills the field and tends the cattle. He has a superstition that they would wither and die at the touch of women. Broadly speaking, the division of labour remains the same; and, what is more to our purpose, the moment tribal organisation arises, and social issues are to be treated, the man appropriates the power. If in one or two cases he admits a woman to his councils, it is a distinct and rare concession.

When we turn to the lower races of Asia we find a result that surprises us in view of Hindoo and Chinese practice. In Polynesia women have a remarkable degree of independence. They may (in Hawaii and the Sandwich Islands) inherit feudal dignity and rule large districts with the same authority and respect as men. Not many years ago a Polynesian princess advertised in a Parisian journal for a cultivated European husband. In the Malay Archipelago the woman is practically equal to the man, and has influence on communal decisions. On the continent of Asia, too, her position is generally good. Among the Indo-Chinese races generally she has a power and respect that the later civilisations seem to have taken from her. The Shans of Burmah allow her to turn her husband away for drunkenness or other misconduct, and retain his property. Among the hill-tribes about India we find her in a good position. The Kondhs expect fidelity from the husband, but not from the wife. She is treated with great respect, has a good deal of influence on tribal affairs, and may leave her husband almost when she pleases. Among the Savaras she has the same liberty, and the simple Todas and the Bheels have a respect for their wives. Even among the isolated and backward tribes of the north (the Chukchis, Kamchadales, etc.) the women are well treated.

It is curious to reflect that, precisely in the continent where civilisation is most stringent in its demand for the subjection of women, the lower races, which are presumed to indicate the earlier phase, are more liberal than in any other part of the world. But I will glance at the last group of lower races before entering upon explanations. The American group is pretty certainly an offshoot from the early Asiatics, and we may be surprised that the position of woman among the Indians is usually described as very low. In point of fact, there seems to be some exaggeration, and the situation is by no means uniform. Among the Seneca Indians the woman ruled the home to such a degree that she would order a lazy husband to roll up his blanket and depart. The Iroquois and Cherokees and others left the decision on an issue of peace or war to the women; but it should be added that the Indian woman was as fierce and vindictive as her husband, and would submit a captive to the most fiendish tortures. The Nootkas consulted their wives on trade matters, the Omahas gave them an equal social standing with men, and the Flatheads and other tribes treated them with some respect. Among the South American Indians the woman's position was generally bad, and in many cases atrocious; indeed, Letourneau affirms that her tribal influence even in the north was more nominal than real, as the men concealed the more important issues.

Among the Esquimaux, finally, her position is generally fair. Polygamy and polyandry are practised, and there is no marriage ceremony. But the men generally consult their wives in regard to bargains, and in many tribes allow her to rule the home. Among the eastern Esquimaux the women often disdain marriage and support themselves.

From this general survey we may draw a few inferences in regard to the evolution of woman's position. We must not look for a uniform development in all parts of the human race. Different circumstances would put a different economic and personal value on women, and this would necessarily affect the behaviour of the men. We seem, however, quite safe in tracing the general development. Where tribes approach nearest to the primitive family, and there is no communal organisation, the man and woman are nearest equality. Her maternal office naturally defines her sphere. The care of children keeps her in or near the home, and the industries that arise in or about it (agriculture, weaving, etc.) fall to her. The man, like the male animal, must wander afield to forage, hunt, and fight.

In the course of time the family expands into the clan and tribe. The division of labour continues in regard to the home, but there are now interests of the community as such to be considered, and on these the welfare of all may depend. It is generally true that this elementary political life fell naturally to the men. The issues were predominantly questions of war or migration, and they came within the men's sphere of work. And when the republican council gives way to the rule of chief or prince, the government remains essentially masculine. The ruler must be, above all, a warrior. Here and there the women may force or cajole their way into the council, or receive the flattery of consultation; but the work to be discussed is predominantly men's work. Where a woman develops the ferocity of the man, as among the Red Indians and (to some extent) the Ethiopians, or where war is all but unknown (as among the Esquimaux), it is natural for her to be consulted. Where she is entrusted with the agriculture, as an occupation about the home, she may have influence as co-producer; though this is not a general rule. But the cases in which she shares the primitive political power as a right are insignificant in number, and in the vast majority of tribes she has no influence on it. Her exclusion implies no conscious despotism or injustice. It is merely that the enterprises to come before the tribal council are almost entirely enterprises that the _men_ must carry out; and the formal councils have grown insensibly out of informal consultations about their work among the men, in which she would naturally have no part.

Hence it is that when nations come into the light of history we generally find the political power in the hands of the men, and the women subject to laws they have not made and authority they have not chosen. Religion--a male priesthood--lends its sanction to the ancient usage, and the very remoteness and obscurity of its origin invest it with authority. Men learn to enjoy the monopoly of power, and use their strength to maintain it. The primitive equality of the sexes disappears. If for ages men select the more submissive mates and discard the more self-assertive, the character of woman will be slowly modified, and the sexes will diverge more and more. And thus, as Chinese, Hindoos, Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Teutons advance into the light of history, we find the familiar types of the gentle, industrious, submissive wife and the aggressive, adventurous, masterful husband. The woman may be respected, may even be consulted, but the home is her realm and the state her husband's.