Chapter XXVI: The Subjection of Wives (2)

In the Zoroastrian Yasts a holy woman is defined as one who is "rich in good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, well-principled, and obedient to her husband," whereas the fiendish woman is "ill-principled and disobedient to her husband."[165] According to Brahmanic law, a woman must in childhood be subject to her father, in youth {650} to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; "a woman must never be independent."[166] Not even in her own house is she allowed to do anything independently.[167] Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's permission, she shall obey as long as he lives.[168] She must never do anything that might displease him;[169] even though he be destitute of virtue, or unfaithful to her, "a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife."[170] A wife who shows disrespect to a husband who is addicted to some evil passion, is a drunkard, or diseased, shall be deserted for three months, and be deprived of her ornaments and furniture.[171] If a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven;[172] but by violating her duty towards him, she is disgraced in this world, and after death she enters the womb of a jackal, and is punished with disease for her sin.[173] There is no indication that a woman can obtain legal separation on any account, though she may with impunity "show aversion" towards a mad or outcast husband, a eunuch, one destitute of manly strength, or one afflicted with such diseases as punish crimes.[174] Again, if she is sold or repudiated by her husband, she can never become the legitimate wife of another who may have bought or received her after she was repudiated.[175] But the husband is not allowed to divorce her indiscriminately. A wife who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, quarrelsome, diseased, mischievous, or wasteful, may at any time be superseded by another wife; a barren one may be superseded in the eighth year; one whose children all die, in the tenth; one who bears daughters only, in the eleventh; whereas a sick wife who is kind to her husband and virtuous in her conduct, may be superseded only with her own consent, and must never be {651} disgraced.[176] The rule, "Let mutual fidelity continue until death," may be considered the summary of the highest law for husband and wife;[177] women must be honoured and adorned by husbands who desire their own welfare.[178] Various passages in the Mahabharata and Ramayana indicate that women in India were subjected to less social restraints in former days than they are at present according to the rules of Brahmanism, and even enjoyed considerable liberty;[179] and the Vedic singers know no more tender relation than that between the husband and his willing, loving wife, who is praised as "his home, the darling abode and bliss in his house."[180] Yet it is noteworthy that goddesses play a very insignificant part in the Veda.[181] In this respect the Pantheon of the Vedic people essentially differs from that of the ancient Egyptians,[182] a difference which may be due to the remarkably high position which woman seems to have occupied in Egypt.[183]

[Footnote 165: _Yasts_, xxii. 18, 36. _Cf._ _Dînâ-î Maînôg-î Khirad_, xxxix. 38 _sq._]

[Footnote 166: _Laws of Manu_, v. 148. _Cf._ _ibid._ ix. 2 _sq._]

[Footnote 167: _Ibid._ v. 147.]

[Footnote 168: _Ibid._ v. 151.]

[Footnote 169: _Ibid._ v. 156.]

[Footnote 170: _Ibid._ v. 154.]

[Footnote 171: _Ibid._ ix. 78.]

[Footnote 172: _Ibid._ v. 155. _Cf._ _ibid._ ix. 29.]

[Footnote 173: _Ibid._ v. 164; ix. 30.]

[Footnote 174: _Ibid._ ix. 79.]

[Footnote 175: _Ibid._ ix. 46. See also the note in Bühler's translation, _Sacred Books of the East_, xxv. 335.]

[Footnote 176: _Laws of Manu_, ix. 80 _sqq._]

[Footnote 177: _Ibid._ ix. 101.]

[Footnote 178: _Ibid._ iii. 55 _sqq._]

[Footnote 179: Zimmer, _Altindisches Leben_, p. 316 _sqq._ Monier Williams, _Indian Wisdom_, p. 437 _sq._]

[Footnote 180: Kaegi, _Rigveda_, p. 15.]

[Footnote 181: Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 124 _sq._]

[Footnote 182: Maspero, _Dawn of Civilisation_, p. 101 _sq._]

[Footnote 183: _Ibid._ p. 52. Maspero, _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, p. 11. Amélineau _L'évolution des idées morales dans l'Égypte Ancienne_, p. 68 _sqq._ Flinders Petrie, _Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt_, p. 131 _sq._ Brugsch, _Aegyptologie_, p. 61 _sq._]

In Greece, also, a wife appears to have been a more influential and independent personage in ancient times, in Homeric society, than she became afterwards.[184] In the historic age her position was simply that of the domestic drudge; her virtues were reduced to the maintenance of good order in her household and obedience to her husband; her greatest ornament was silence.[185] Aristotle, always a faithful exponent of the most enlightened opinion of his age, gives the following description of what he considers to be the ideal relation of a woman to her husband:--"A good and perfect wife ought to be mistress {652} of everything within the house. . . . But the well-ordered wife will justly consider the behaviour of her husband as a model of her own life, and a law to herself, invested with a divine sanction by means of the marriage tie and the community of life. . . . The wife ought to show herself even more obedient to the rein than if she had entered the house as a purchased slave. For she has been bought at a high price, for the sake of sharing life and bearing children, than which no higher or holier tie can possibly exist."[186] So also, according to Plutarch, the husband ought to rule his wife, but by sympathy and goodwill, as the soul governs the body, not as a master does a chattel.[187] The law invalidated whatever a husband did by the counsel, or at the request, of his wife, whereas the wife, on her part, could transact no business of importance in her own favour, nor by will dispose of more than the value of a bushel of barley.[188] Yet whatever may have been the exact compass of the husband's power in Greece, it was not unlimited. At Athens a woman could demand divorce if she was ill-treated by her husband, in which case she merely had to announce her wishes before the archon.[189]

[Footnote 184: Hermann-Blümner, _Lehrbuch der griechischen Privatalterthümer_, p. 64 _sqq._ Mahaffy, _Social Life in Greece_, p. 53.]

[Footnote 185: Dickinson, _Greek View of Life_, p. 161. Döllinger, _The Gentile and the Jew_, ii. 234. 'State of Female Society in Greece,' in _Quarterly Review_, xxii. 172 _sqq._]

[Footnote 186: Aristotle, _[OE]conomica_, i. 7. _Cf._ _Idem_, _De animalibus historia_, ix. 1. 2 _sqq._]

[Footnote 187: Plutarch, _Conjugalia præcepta_, 33.]

[Footnote 188: Isaeus, _Oratio de Aristarchi hereditate_, 10, p. 259. Döllinger, _op. cit._ ii. 234.]

[Footnote 189: Glasson, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, p. 152 _sq._ Meier and Schömann, _Der attische Process_, p. 512.]

In Rome, in ancient times, the power which the father possessed over his daughter was generally, if not always,[190] by marriage transferred to the husband.[191] When marrying a woman passed in _manum viri_, as a wife she was _filiæ loco_, that is, in law she was her husband's daughter.[192] And since the Roman house-father originally had the _jus vitæ necisque_ over his children, the husband naturally had the same power over his wife. But from her being destitute of all legal rights we must not conclude that she was {653} treated with indignity. On the contrary, she generally had a respected and influential position in the family;[193] and though the husband could repudiate her at will, it was said that for five hundred and twenty years _a condita urbe_ there was no such thing as a divorce in Rome.[194] As Mr. Bryce points out, we cannot doubt that the wide power which the law gave to the husband "was in point of fact restrained within narrow limits, not only by affection, but also by the vigilant public opinion of a comparatively small community."[195] Gradually, however, marriage with _manus_ fell into disuse, and was, under the Empire, generally superseded by marriage without _manus_, a form of wedlock which conferred on the husband hardly any authority at all over his wife. Instead of passing into his power, she remained in the power of her father; and since the tendency of the later law, as we have seen, was to reduce the old _patria potestas_ to a nullity, she became practically independent.[196]

[Footnote 190: Rossbach, _Römische Ehe_, p. 64. Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 155.]

[Footnote 191: Or, properly speaking, to the husband's father, if he was still alive (Rossbach, _op. cit._ p. 11).]

[Footnote 192: Leist, _Alt-arische Juris Civile_, i. 175. Maine, _op. cit._ p. 155.]

[Footnote 193: Rossbach, _op. cit._ pp. 36, 117.]

[Footnote 194: Valerius Maximus, ii. 1 (_De matrimoniorum ritu_), Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticæ_, iv. 3. 1.]

[Footnote 195: Bryce, _Studies in History and Jurisprudence_, ii. 389.]

[Footnote 196: Rossbach, _op. cit._ pp. 30, 42. Maine, _op. cit._ p. 155 _sq._ Friedlaender, _Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms_, i. 252 _sqq._]

This remarkable liberty granted to married women, however, was only a passing incident in the history of the family in Europe. From the very first Christianity tended to narrow it. Already the latest Roman law, so far as it is touched by the Constitutions of the Christian Emperors, bears some marks of a reaction against the liberal doctrines of the great Antonine jurisconsults, who assumed the equality of the sexes as a principle of their code of equity.[197] And this tendency was in a formidable degree supported by Teutonic custom and law. Among the Teutons a husband's authority over his wife was the same as a father's over his unmarried daughter.[198] This power, which under certain circumstances gave the husband a right to kill, sell, or repudiate his wife,[199] undoubtedly {654} contained much more than the Church could approve of, and so far she has helped to ameliorate the condition of married women in Teutonic countries. But at the same time the Church is largely responsible for those heavy disabilities with regard to personal liberty, as well as with regard to property, from which they have suffered up to recent times. The systems, says Sir Henry Maine, "which are least indulgent to married women are invariably those which have followed the Canon Law exclusively, or those which, from the lateness of their contact with European civilisation, have never had their archaisms weeded out."[200]

[Footnote 197: Maine, _op. cit._ pp. 156, 154.]

[Footnote 198: Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 75. Stemann, _Den danske Retshistorie indtil Christian V.'s Lov_, p. 323.]

[Footnote 199: Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 450 _sq._ Brunner, _op. cit._ i. 75. Schröder, _Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_, p. 303.]

[Footnote 200: Maine, _op. cit._ p. 159.]

Christianity enjoins a husband to love his wife as his own body,[201] to do honour unto her as unto the weaker vessel.[202] However, "man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head."[203] The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church; hence, "as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."[204] It is difficult to exaggerate the influence exercised by a doctrine, so agreeable to the selfishness of men, and so readily lending itself to be used as a sacred weapon against almost any attempt to extend the rights of married women, as was this dictum of St. Paul's. In an essay on the position of women among the early Christians Principal Donaldson writes, "In the first three centuries I have not been able to see that Christianity had any favourable effect on the position of women, but, on the contrary, that it tended to lower their character and contract the range of their activity."[205] And in more modern times Christian orthodoxy has constantly been opposed to the doctrine which once sprang up in pagan {655} Rome and is nowadays supported by a steadily growing number of enlightened men and women, that marriage should be a contract on the footing of perfect equality between husband and wife.

[Footnote 201: _Ephesians_, v. 28.]

[Footnote 202: _1 Peter_, iii. 7.]

[Footnote 203: _1 Corinthians_, xi. 8 _sqq._ _Cf._ _Timothy_, ii. 11 _sqq._]

[Footnote 204: _Ephesians_, v. 23 _sq._]

[Footnote 205: Donaldson, 'Position of Women among the Early Christians,' in _Contemporary Review_, lvi. 433.]

* * * * *

The position of married women among the various peoples on earth depends on such a variety of circumstances that it would be impossible to enumerate them all. We shall here consider only the most important.

A few words must first be said about the hypothesis that the social _status_ of women is connected with the system of tracing descent. Dr. Steinmetz has tried to show that the husband's authority over his wife is, broadly speaking, greater among those peoples who reckon kinship through the father than among those who reckon kinship through the mother only.[206] The cases examined by Dr. Steinmetz, however, are too few to allow of any general conclusions, and the statements concerning the husband's rights are commonly so indefinite and so incomplete that I think the evidence would be difficult to produce, even if the investigation were based on a larger number of facts. Besides, the paternal and maternal systems of descent are often so interwoven with each other among one and the same people, that it may equally well be referred to the one class as to the other[207]--a difficulty which Dr. Steinmetz must surely have felt in his attempt to treat the subject statistically. There is, moreover, the weak point of the statistical method generally, the question of selecting ethnographical units, which I have discussed in another place.[208] How, for instance, are we to deal with the various tribes of Australia? They can certainly not, all in a lump, be counted as one single unit; among some of them the maternal system prevails, among others the paternal. But then, shall we reckon each tribe as one {656} unit by itself, or, if not, into how many groups shall we divide them? When I compare with each other peoples of the same race, at the same stage of culture, living in the same neighbourhood, under similar conditions of life, but differing from one another in their method of reckoning kinship, I do not find that the prevalence of the one or the other line of descent conspicuously affects the husband's authority. Nothing of the kind has been noticed in Australia, nor, so far as I know, in India, where the paternal system among many of the aboriginal tribes is combined with great, or even extraordinary, rights on the part of the wife. Among the West African Negroes the position of women is, to all appearance, no less honourable in tribes like the Ibos, among whom inheritance runs through males, than in tribes which admit inheritance through females only;[209] and of the Fulah, among whom succession goes from father to son,[210] Mr. Winwood Reade observes that their women are "the most tyrannical wives in Africa," knowing "how to make their husbands kneel before their charms, and how to place their little feet upon them."[211] But we have reason to believe that when the man, on marrying, quits his home and goes to live with his wife in the house or community of her father, his authority over his wife is commonly more or less impaired by the presence of her father or kinsfolk.[212] In Sumatra, in the mode of marriage called _ambel anak_, he lives with his father-in-law in a state between that of a son and that of a debtor.[213] But it should be noticed that neither his living with the family of his wife, nor even his dependence on her father, necessarily implies a total absence of marital power. Among the Californian Yokuts, though the husband takes up his abode in his {657} wife's or father-in-law's house, he is expressly stated to have the power of life and death over her.[214] So, also, in the Western islands of Torres Straits, though a man after marriage usually left his own people and went to live with those of his wife, he had complete control over her. "In spite of the wife having asked her husband to marry her, he could kill her should she cause trouble in the house, and that without any penal consequence to himself. The payment of a husband to his wife's father gave him all rights over her, and at the same time annulled those of her father or her family."[215]

[Footnote 206: Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe_, ii. ch. 7.]

[Footnote 207: _Cf._ Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 99 _sqq._]

[Footnote 208: _Idem_, 'Méthode pour la recherche des institutions préhistoriques à propos d'un ouvrage du professeur Kohler,' in _Revue Internationale de Sociologie_, v. 451.]

[Footnote 209: Ratzel, _op. cit._ iii. 124.]

[Footnote 210: Waitz, _op. cit._ ii, 469.]

[Footnote 211: Reade, _Savage Africa_, p. 452.]

[Footnote 212: See Mazzarella, _La condizione giuridica del marito nella famiglia matriarcale_, _passim_; Grosse, _Die Formen der Familie_, p. 76; Wilkes, _U.S. Exploring Expedition_, iv. 447 (Spokane Indians). It seems, however, that Dr. Mazzarella in several cases infers the husband's complete subjection to his father-in-law from statements in which such a subjection is not really implied.]

[Footnote 213: Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, p. 262.]

[Footnote 214: Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 382.]

[Footnote 215: Haddon, _Head-Hunters_, p. 160 _sq._]

In the first place, wives' subjection to their husbands is due to the men's instinctive desire to exert power and to the natural inferiority of women in such qualities of body and mind as are essential for personal independence. Generally speaking, the men are their superiors in strength and courage. They are therefore not only the protectors of their wives, but also their masters.

In the sexual impulse itself there are elements which lead to domination on the part of the man and to submission on the part of the woman. In courtship, animal and human alike, the male plays the more active, the female the more passive part. During the season of love the males even of the most timid animal species engage in desperate combats with each other for the possession of the female, and there can be no doubt that our primeval human ancestors had, in the same way, to fight for their wives; even now this kind of courtship is far from being unknown among savages.[216] Moreover, the male pursues and tries to capture the female, and she, after some resistance, finally surrenders herself to him. The sexual impulse of the male is thus connected with a desire to win the female, and the sexual impulse of the female with a desire to be pursued and won by the male. In the female sex there is consequently an instinctive appreciation of manly strength and courage; this is found in most {658} women, and especially in the women of savage races, who, like the females of the lower Vertebrates, commonly give the preference to "the most vigorous, defiant, and mettlesome male."[217] And woman enjoys the display of manly force even when it turns against herself. It is said that among the Slavs of the lower class the wives feel hurt if they are not beaten by their husbands; that the peasant women in some parts of Hungary do not think they are loved by their husbands until they have received the first box on the ear; that among the Italian Camorrists a wife who is not beaten by her husband regards him as a fool.[218] Dr. Havelock Ellis believes that the majority of women would probably be prepared to echo the remark made by a woman in front of Rubens's 'Rape of the Sabines,' "I think the Sabine women enjoyed being carried off like that."[219] The same judicious student of the psychology of sex observes:--"While in men it is possible to trace a tendency to inflict pain, or the simulacrum of pain, on the women they love, it is still easier to trace in women a delight in experiencing physical pain when inflicted by a lover, and an eagerness to accept subjection to his will. Such a tendency is certainly normal. To abandon herself to her lover, to be able to rely on his physical strength and mental resourcefulness, to be swept out of herself and beyond the control of her own will, to drift idly in delicious submission to another and stronger will--this is one of the commonest aspirations in a young woman's intimate love-dreams."[220]

[Footnote 216: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 159 _sqq._]

[Footnote 217: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 255 _sq._]

[Footnote 218: Havelock Ellis, _Studies in the Psychology of Sex_, 'Analysis of the Sexual Impulse,' &c. p. 66 _sq._]

[Footnote 219: _Ibid._ p. 75.]

[Footnote 220: _Ibid._ p. 74.]

But although a certain degree of submissiveness comes within the normal limits of female love, though "a woman may desire to be forced, to be roughly forced, to be ravished away beyond her own will." she all the time only desires to be forced towards those things which are essentially agreeable to her.[221] If the man's domination is carried beyond those limits, it is no longer enjoyed by the {659} woman, but is felt as a burden, and may call forth resistance. In extreme cases of oppression, at any rate, the community at large would sympathise with her, and the public resentment against the oppressor would gradually result in customs or laws limiting the husband's rights. Yet perfect impartiality is hardly to be expected from the community. The men are the leaders of public opinion, and they have a tendency to favour their own sex. On the other hand, the offended woman may count upon the support of her fellow-sisters, and thus the women combined may influence tribal habits and, ultimately, the rules of custom. Among the Papuans of Port Moresby, for instance, "it is a rare occurrence for a man to beat his wife, and he does not like to be reminded of the fact if hasty temper has led him into this mistake. The other women generally make a song about it, and sing it whenever he appears; and as no one is so sensitive of ridicule as a New Guinean savage, he will endure a great deal, even from a shrew wife, before he attempts to lift his hand."[222] Among the West African Fulah, if a man repudiates his wife, the women of the village attack him _en masse_; "like the members of a priesthood, they hate but protect each other."[223] We have, moreover, to consider that the children's affection and regard for their mother gives her a power which is no less real because it is not definitely expressed in custom or law. In Oriental countries, for example, the mother is always an important personage in the family. Children are afraid of their father but love their mother, and when grown-up would certainly be ready to protect her against a cruel husband.[224]

[Footnote 221: _Ibid._ p. 85.]

[Footnote 222: Nisbet, _A Colonial Tramp_, ii. 181 _sq._]

[Footnote 223: Reade, _Savage Africa_, p. 452. See also Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, _op. cit._ i. 171 (Lukungu); Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 324 (Beni Amer).]

[Footnote 224: _Cf._ Burton, _Sindh Revisited_, i. 293; Urquhart, _Spirit of the East_, ii. 265 _sq._; Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 239; Westermarck, 'Position of Woman in Early Civilisation,' in _Sociological Papers_, [1.] p. 160.]

It has often been said that the position of women and the degree of their dependence among a certain people are largely influenced by economic conditions. Thus Mr. {660} Hale maintains that the condition of women is "a question of physical comfort, and mainly of the abundance or lack of food. . . . When men in their full strength suffer from lack of the necessaries of existence, and are themselves slaves to the rigours of the elements, their better feelings are benumbed or perverted, like those of shipwrecked people famishing on a raft. Under such circumstances the weaker members of the community--women, children, the old, the sick--are naturally the chief sufferers."[225] With reference to the North American Indians the observation has been made that, where the women can aid in procuring subsistence for the tribe, they are treated with more equality, and their importance is proportioned to the share which they take in that labour; whereas in places where subsistence is chiefly procured by the exertions of the men, the women are considered and treated as burdens. Thus, the position of women is exceptionally good in tribes living upon fish and roots, which the women procure with the same expertness as the men, whereas it is among tribes living by the chase, or by other means in which women can be of little service, that we find the sex most oppressed.[226] Dr. Grosse, again, emphasises the low _status_ of women not only among hunters, but among pastoral tribes as well. "The women," he says, "not being permitted to take part in the rearing of cattle, and not being able to take part in war, possess nothing which could command respect with the rude shepherd and robber."[227] Among the lower agricultural tribes, on the other hand, Dr. Grosse adds, the position of the female sex is often higher. The cultivation of the ground mostly devolves on the woman, and among peoples who chiefly subsist by agriculture it is not an occupation which is looked down upon, as it is among nomadic tribes. This gives the woman a {661} certain standing, owing to her importance as a food-provider.[228]

[Footnote 225: Hale, 'Language as a Test of Mental Capacity,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxi. 427.]

[Footnote 226: Lewis and Clarke, _Travels to the Source of the Missouri River_, p. 441. Waitz, _op. cit._ iii. 343. Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, i. 242 _sq._]

[Footnote 227: Grosse, _op. cit._ pp. 48, 49, 74, 75, 109 _sqq._]

[Footnote 228: _Ibid._ p. 182.]

In these generalisations there is no doubt a great deal of truth; but they do not hold good universally or without modifications. Among several peoples who subsist chiefly by the chase or the rearing of cattle, the position of women is exceedingly good. To mention only one instance out of many, Professor Vámbéry observes that among the nomadic Kara-Kirghiz the female sex is treated with greater respect than among those Turks who lead a stationary life and practise agriculture.[229] Indeed, the general theory that women are more oppressed in proportion as they are less useful, is open to doubt. Commonly they are said to be oppressed by their savage husbands just by being compelled to work too hard; and that work does not necessarily give authority is obvious from the institution of slavery. But at the same time the notion, prevalent in early civilisation, that the one sex must not in any way interfere with the pursuits of the other sex, may certainly, especially when applied to an occupation of such importance as agriculture, increase the influence of those who are engaged in it. Considering further that the cultivated soil is not infrequently regarded as the property of the women who till it,[230] it is probable that, in certain cases at least, the agricultural habits of a people have had a favourable effect upon the general condition of the female sex, and at the same time on the wife's position in the family.

[Footnote 229: Vámbéry, _Das Türkenvolk_, p. 268.]

[Footnote 230: Grosse, _op. cit._ p. 159 _sq._]

The _status_ of wives is in various respects connected with the ideas held about the female sex in general. Woman is commonly looked upon as a slight, dainty, and relatively feeble creature, destitute of all nobler qualities.[231] Especially among nations more advanced in culture she is regarded as intellectually and morally vastly inferior to man. In Greece, in the historic age, the latter recognised {662} in her no other end than to minister to his pleasure or to become the mother of his children. There was also a general notion that she was naturally more vicious, more addicted to envy, discontent, evil-speaking, and wantonness, than the man.[232] Plato classes women together with children and servants,[233] and states generally that in all the pursuits of mankind the female sex is inferior to the male.[234] Euripides puts into the mouth of his Medea the remark that "women are impotent for good, but clever contrivers of all evil."[235] According to the Vedic singer, again, "woman's mind is hard to direct aright, and her judgment is small."[236] To the Buddhist, women are of all the snares which the tempter has spread for men the most dangerous; in women are embodied all the powers of infatuation which bind the mind of the world.[237] The Chinese have a saying to the effect that the best girls are not equal to the worst boys.[238] Islam pronounces the general depravity of women to be much greater than that of men.[239] According to Muhammedan tradition, the Prophet said:--"I have not left any calamity more hurtful to man than woman. . . . O assembly of women, give alms, although it be of your gold and silver ornaments; for verily ye are mostly of Hell on the Day of Resurrection."[240] The Hebrews represented woman as the source of evil and death on earth:--"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."[241] This notion passed into Christianity. Says St. Paul, "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."[242] Tertullian maintains that a woman should go about in humble garb, mourning and repentant, in order to expiate that which she derives from Eve, the ignominy {663} of the first sin, and the odium attaching to her as the cause of human perdition. "Do you not know," he exclaims, "that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die."[243] At the Council of Mâcon, towards the end of the sixth century, a bishop even raised the question whether woman really was a human being. He answered the question in the negative; but the majority of the assembly considered it to be proved by Scripture that woman, in spite of all her defects, yet was a member of the human race.[244] However, some of the Fathers of the Church were careful to emphasise that womanhood only belongs to this earthly existence, and that on the day of resurrection all women will appear in the shape of sexless beings.[245]

[Footnote 231: Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 204 _sq._]

[Footnote 232: Dickinson, _op. cit._ p. 159. Döllinger, _op. cit._ ii. 234.]

[Footnote 233: Plato, _Respublica_, iv. 431.]

[Footnote 234: _Ibid._ v. 455.]

[Footnote 235: Euripides, _Medea_, 406 _sqq._]

[Footnote 236: _Rig-Veda_, viii. 33. 17.]

[Footnote 237: Oldenburg, _Buddha_, p. 165. _Cf._ Kern, _Manual of Indian Buddhism_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 238: Smith, _Proverbs of the Chinese_, p. 265.]

[Footnote 239: Lane, _Arabian Society_, p. 219. _Cf._ Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 238.]

[Footnote 240: Lane-Poole, _Speeches of Mohammad_, pp. 161, 163.]

[Footnote 241: _Ecclesiasticus_, xxv. 24.]

[Footnote 242: _1 Timothy_, ii. 14.]

[Footnote 243: Tertullian, _De cultu f[oe]minarum_, i. 1 (Migne, _Patrologiæ cursus_, i. 1305). See also Laurent, _Études sur l'histoire de l'humanité_, iv. 113.]

[Footnote 244: Gregory of Tours, _Historia Francorum_, viii. 20.]

[Footnote 245: St. Hilar., _Commentarius in Matthæum_, xxiii. 4 (Migne, _op. cit._ ix. 1045 _sq._). St. Basil, _Homilia in Psalmum cxiv._ 5 (Migne, _op. cit._ Ser. Graeca, xxix. 488).]

Progress in civilisation has exercised an unfavourable influence on the position of woman by widening the gulf between the sexes, as the higher culture was almost exclusively the prerogative of the men. Moreover, religion, and especially the great religions in the world, have contributed to the degradation of the female sex by regarding woman as unclean. During menstruation, or when with child, or at child-birth, she is considered to be polluted, to be charged with mysterious baneful energy, which is a danger to all around her.[246] The cause of this notion seems to lie in the {664} superstitious dread of those marvellous processes which then take place, and it reaches its height where there is appearance of blood.[247] On such occasions woman is shunned not only by men, but in an even higher degree by gods, for the obvious reason that contact with the unclean woman would injure or destroy their holiness. Indeed, the danger is considered so great, that many religions regard women as defiled not only temporarily, but permanently, and on that ground exclude them from religious worship.

[Footnote 246: Ploss-Bartels, _Das Weib_, i. 420 _sqq._; ii. 10 _sqq._, 402 _sqq._ Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 325 _sqq._; iii. 222 _sqq._ Crawley, _op. cit._ p. 165 _sqq._; Mathew, _Eaglehawk and Crow_, p. 144 (Australian aborigines), de Rochas, _Nouvelle Calédonie_, p. 283. Mooney, 'Myths of the Cherokee,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xix. 469. Sumner, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxi. 96 (Jakuts). Georgi, _Russia_, iii. 25 _sq._ (Samoyedes), 245, _sq._ (Shamanists of Siberia generally); &c.]

[Footnote 247: Professor Durkheim maintains ('La prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines,' in _L'année sociologique_, i. especially p. 48 _sqq._) that the origin of the occult powers attributed to the feminine organism is to be found in primitive ideas concerning blood, any kind of blood, not only menstrual, being the object of similar feelings among savages and barbarians. Mr. Crawley justly remarks (_op. cit._ p. 212) that there is no flux of blood during pregnancy, when woman is regularly taboo; that her hair, nail-parings, and occupations can hardly be avoided from a fear of her blood; and that there is also the female side of the question to be taken into account.]

In the Society Islands a woman was forbidden to touch whatever was presented as an offering to the gods, so as not to pollute it.[248] In Melanesia women are generally excluded from religious rites.[249] Among the Shamanists of Siberia women "are interdicted the worship of the deities, and dare not pass round the common hearth of their habitations, because fire is sacred to the gods."[250] The women of the Voguls are generally prohibited from approaching idols or holy places.[251] A Votyak woman may not be present at the sacrifices made to the _lud_, or evil spirit.[252] Among the Lapps a woman was not allowed to touch a _noaid_'s, or wizard's, drum; nor, as a rule, to take part in sacrificial rites; nor even to look in the direction of a place where sacrifices were offered.[253] Among the Ainos of Japan, "though a woman may prepare a divine offering, she may not offer it. . . . Accordingly, women are never allowed to pray, or to take any part in any religious {665} exercise."[254] In China women are not allowed to go and worship in the temples.[255]

[Footnote 248: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 129. _Cf._ Wegener, _Geschichte der christlichen Kirche auf dem Gesellschafts-Archipel_, p. 181.]

[Footnote 249: Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 127.]

[Footnote 250: Georgi, _op. cit._ iii. 245. _Cf._ _ibid._ iii. 25.]

[Footnote 251: Abercromby, _Pre- and Proto-historic Finns_, i. 181.]

[Footnote 252: Wichmann, _Tietoja Votjaakkien Mytologiiasta_, p. 17. See also _ibid._ p. 27.]

[Footnote 253: von Düben, _Lappland och Lapparne_, p. 276. Friis, _Lappisk Mythologi_, p. 147.]

[Footnote 254: Howard, _op. cit._ p. 195.]

[Footnote 255: _Indo-Chinese Gleaner_, iii. 156.]

In ancient Nicaragua women were held unworthy to perform any duty in connection with the temples, and were immolated outside the temple ground of the large sanctuaries, and even their flesh was unclean food for the high priest, who accordingly ate only the flesh of males.[256] In Mexico, although some women were employed in the immediate service of the temples, they were entirely excluded from the office of sacrificing, and the higher dignities of the priesthood.[257]

[Footnote 256: Bancroft, _op. cit._ iii. 494.]

[Footnote 257: Clavigero, _History of Mexico_, i. 274 _sq._]

According to the sacred books of India, "women are considered to have no business with the sacred texts";[258] and, being destitute of the knowledge of Vedic texts, they "are as impure as falsehood itself, that is a fixed rule."[259] Although, according to a Vedic ordinance mentioned in the Laws of Manu, husband and wife ought to perform religious rites together,[260] they have, among the present Hindus, no religious life in common; the women are not allowed to repeat the Veda, or to go through the morning and evening Sandhy[=a] services.[261] If a woman, a dog, or a Sûdra, touch a consecrated image, its godship is destroyed; the ceremonies of deification must therefore be performed afresh, whilst a clay image, if thus defiled, must be thrown away. If women should worship before a consecrated image, they must keep at a respectful distance from the idol.[262]

[Footnote 258: _Baudhâyana_, i. 5. 11. 7.]

[Footnote 259: _Laws of Manu_, ix. 18. _Cf._ _ibid._ ii. 66; iii. 121.]

[Footnote 260: _Ibid._ ix. 96.]

[Footnote 261: Monier Williams, _Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism_, p. 398.]

[Footnote 262: Ward, _View of the History, &c., of the Hindoos_, ii. 13, 36.]

Islam is chiefly a religion for men. Though Muhammed did not forbid women to attend public prayers in a mosque, he pronounced it better for them to pray in private, as the presence of females might inspire in the men a different kind of devotion from that which is requisite in a place dedicated to the worship of God.[263] Women are absolutely excluded from many Muhammedan places of worship, and are frowned upon if they venture to appear in others, at any rate while men are there.[264]

[Footnote 263: Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_, p. 94.]

[Footnote 264: Pool, _Studies in Mohammedanism_, p. 39 _sq._]

In Christian Europe, as ascetic ideas advanced, the women sat or stood in the church apart from the men, and entered by a separate door.[265] They were excluded from sacred functions. {666} In the early Church, it is true, there were "deaconesses" and clerical "widows," but their offices were merely to perform some inferior services of the church;[266] and even these very modest posts were open only to virgins or widows of a considerable age.[267] Whilst a layman could in case of necessity administer baptism, a woman could never, as it seems, perform such an act.[268] Nor was a woman allowed to preach publicly in the church, either by the Apostle's rules or those of succeeding ages;[269] and it was a serious complaint against certain heretics that they allowed such a practice. "The heretic women," Tertullian exclaims, "how wanton are they! they who dare to teach, to dispute, to practise exorcisms, to promise cures, perchance, also, to baptise!"[270] A Council held at Auxerre at the end of the sixth century forbade women to receive the Eucharist into their naked hands;[271] and in various Canons women were enjoined not to come near to the altar while mass was celebrating.[272] To such an extent was this opposition against women carried that the Church of the Middle Ages did not hesitate to provide itself with eunuchs in order to supply cathedral choirs with the soprano tones inhering by nature in women alone.[273]

[Footnote 265: Donaldson, in _Contemporary Review_, lvi. 438.]

[Footnote 266: Zscharnack, _Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche_, p. 99 _sqq._ Robinson, _Ministry of Deaconesses_, _passim_.]

[Footnote 267: _Ibid._ pp. 113, 114, 125.]

[Footnote 268: Bingham, _Works_, iv. 45. Zscharnack, _op. cit._ p. 93.]

[Footnote 269: Bingham, _op. cit._ v. 107 _sqq._ Zscharnack, _op. cit._ p. 73 _sqq._]

[Footnote 270: Tertullian, _De præscriptionibus adversus hæreticos_, 41 (Migne, _op. cit._ ii. 56). _Cf._ Tertullian, _De baptismo_, 17 (Migne, _op. cit._ i. 1219).]

[Footnote 271: _Concilium Autisiodorense_, A.D. 578, can. 36 (Labbe-Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio_, ix. 915).]

[Footnote 272: _Canones Concilii Laodiceni_, 44 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ ii. 581, 589). 'Epitome canonum, quam Hadrianus I. Carolo Magno obtulit, A.D. DCCLXXIII.,' in Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xii. 868. _Canons enacted under King Edgar_, 44 (_Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, p. 399).]

[Footnote 273: _Cf._ Gage, _Woman, Church and State_, p. 57.]

But the notion that woman is either temporarily or permanently unclean, that she is a mysterious being charged with supernatural energy, is not only a cause of her degradation; it also gives her a secret power over her husband, which may be very considerable. During my stay among the country people of Morocco, Arabs and Berbers alike, I was often struck by the superstitious fear with which the women imbued the men. They are supposed to be much better versed in magic, and have also splendid opportunities to practise it to the detriment {667} of their husbands, as they may easily bewitch the food they prepare for them. For instance, the wife only needs to cut off a little piece of a donkey's ear and put it into the husband's food. What happens? By eating that little piece the husband will, in his relations to his wife, become just like a donkey; he will always listen to what she says, and the wife will become the ruler of the house. I also believe that the men on purpose abstain from teaching the women prayers, so as not to increase their supernatural power.[274] In the Arabian Desert men are likewise afraid of their women "with their sly philters and maleficent drinks."[275] In Dahomey "the husband may not chastise or interfere with his wife whilst the fetish is 'upon' her, and even at other times the use of the rod might be dangerous."[276] Women, and especially old ones, are very frequently regarded as experts in magic. [277] Among the ancient Arabs,[278] Babylonians,[279] and Peruvians,[280] as in Europe during the Middle Ages and later, the witch appeared more frequently than the male sorcerer. So, also, in the Government of Tomsk in Southern Siberia, native sorceresses are much more numerous than wizards;[281] and among the Californian Shastika all, or nearly all, of the {668} shamans are women.[282] The curses of women are greatly feared. In Morocco it is considered even a greater calamity to be cursed by a Shereefa, or female descendant of the Prophet, than to be cursed by a Shereef. According to the Talmud, the anger of a wife destroys the house;[283] but, on the other hand, it is also through woman that God's blessings are vouchsafed to it.[284] We read in the Laws of Manu:--"Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire their own welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek their own welfare should always honour women on holidays and festivals with gifts of ornaments, clothes, and dainty food."[285] A Gaelic proverb says, "A wicked woman will get her wish, though her soul may not see salvation."[286] Closely connected with the belief in the magic power of women, and especially, I think, in the great efficacy of their curses, is the custom according to which a woman may serve as an asylum.[287] In various tribes of Morocco, especially among the Berbers and Jbâla, a person who takes refuge with a woman by touching her is safe from his persecutor. Among the Arabs of the plains this custom is dying out, probably owing to their subjection under the Sultan's government; but amongst certain Asiatic Bedouins, the tribe of Shammar, "a woman can protect any number of persons, or even of tents."[288] {669} Among the Circassians "a stranger who intrusts himself to the patronage of a woman, or is able to touch with his mouth the breast of a wife, is spared and protected as a relation of the blood, though he were the enemy, nay even the murderer of a similar relative."[289] The inhabitants of Bareges in Bigorre have, up to recent times, preserved the old custom of pardoning a criminal who has sought refuge with a woman.[290]

[Footnote 274: We are told that among the Ainos of Japan women are forbidden to pray, not only in conformity with ancestral custom, but because the men are afraid of the prayers of the women in general, and of their wives in particular. An old man said to Mr. Batchelor:--"The women as well as the men used to be allowed to worship the gods and take part in all religious exercises; but our wise honoured ancestors forbade them to do so, because it was thought they might use their prayers against the men, and more particularly against their husbands. We therefore think that it is wiser to keep them from praying" (Batchelor, _Ainu and their Folk-Lore_, p. 550 _sq._ Howard, _op. cit._ p. 195). Among the Santals the men are careful not to divulge the names of their household gods to their wives, for fear lest the latter should acquire undue influence with the gods, become witches, and "eat up the family with impunity when the protection of its gods has been withdrawn" (Risley, _Tribes and Castes of Bengal_, _Ethnographic Glossary_, ii. 232).]

[Footnote 275: Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, ii. 384.]

[Footnote 276: Burton, _Mission to Gelele_, ii. 155.]

[Footnote 277: Ploss-Bartels, _op. cit._ ii. 664, 666 _sqq._ Mason, _op. cit._ p. 255 _sqq._ Landtman, _Origin of Priesthood_, p. 198 _sq._ Angas, _Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand_, i. 317 (Maoris). Connolly, 'Social Life in Fanti-land,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxvi. 150.]

[Footnote 278: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 159.]

[Footnote 279: Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia_, pp. 267, 342.]

[Footnote 280: Garcilasso de la Vega, _First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas_, i. 60.]

[Footnote 281: Kostroff, quoted by Landtman, _op. cit._ p. 199.]

[Footnote 282: Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 246.]

[Footnote 283: _Sota_, fol. 3 B, quoted by Katz, _Der wahre Talmudjude_, p. 110 _sq._]

[Footnote 284: _Baba Meziah_, fol. 59 A, quoted _ibid._ p. 112. Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 56.]

[Footnote 285: _Laws of Manu_, iii. 55 _sqq._]

[Footnote 286: Carmichael, _Carmina Gadelica_, ii. 317.]

[Footnote 287: For some instances of this custom see Andree, 'Die Asyle,' in _Globus_, xxxviii. 302; Bachofen, _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 420 (Basques).]

[Footnote 288: Layard, _Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 318.]

[Footnote 289: Pallas, _Travels through the Southern Provinces of the Russian Empire_, i. 404.]

[Footnote 290: Fischer, _Bergreisen_, i. 60.]

Yet another factor remains to be mentioned as a cause of the subjection in which married women are held by many peoples of culture. We have noticed that in archaic civilisation the father's power over his children is extreme, that the State whilst weakening or destroying the clan-tie strengthened the family-tie, and that the father was invested with some part of the power which formerly belonged to the clan.[291] This process must also have affected the _status_ of married women. The husband's power over his wife is closely connected with the father's power over his daughter; for, by giving her in marriage, he generally transfers to the husband the authority which he himself previously possessed over her as a paternal right.

[Footnote 291: _Supra_, ch. xxv. especially p. 627 _sq._]

In modern civilisation, on the other hand, we find, hand in hand with the decrease of the father's power, a decrease of the husband's authority over his wife. But the causes of the gradual emancipation of married women are manifold. Life has become more complicated; the occupations of women have become much more extensive; their influence has expanded correspondingly, from the home and household to public life. Their widened interests have interfered with that submissiveness which is an original characteristic of their sex. Their greater education has made them more respected, and has increased their independence. Finally, the decline of the influence exercised by antiquated religious ideas is removing what has probably been the most persistent cause of the wife's subjection to her husband's rule.