The Position of Woman in Primitive Society Part 10

[109] Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte_, etc., Vol. II, p. 57.

Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, pp. 274, 286.

In Africa the clan system is firmly established, which explains the prevalence of mother-descent. Women, on the whole, take an important position, and here, as elsewhere, their inheritance of property enables them to maintain their equality with their husbands.

Individual possession of wealth is allowed, but a married man usually cannot dispose of any property unless his wife agrees, and she acts as the representative of the children's claims upon the father. The privilege that, according to Laing, the Soulima women have, of leaving their husbands when they please, is also proof of the maternal customs.[110] Moreover, among some tribes, the influence of the mothers as the heads of families extends to the councils of state; it is even said that the chiefs do not decide anything without their consent.[111]

[110] Letourneau, pp. 306-307; citing Laing, _Travels in Western Africa_.

[111] Giraud-Teulon, _Les origines du mariage et de la famille_, pp. 215 _et seq._

Mother-right is still in force in many parts of India, though owing to the influence of Brahminism on the aboriginal tribes the examples of the maternal family are fewer than might be expected. Among the once powerful Koochs the women own all the property, which is inherited from mother to daughter. The husband lives with his wife and her mother, and, we are told, is subject to them. These women are most industrious, weaving, spinning, planting and sowing, in a word, doing all the work not above their strength.[112] The Koochs may be compared with the Khasis, already noticed, and these maternal systems among the Indian hill tribes may surely be regarded as showing conditions at one time common. Even tribes who have pa.s.sed from the clan organisation to the patriarchal family preserve numerous traces of mother-right. Thus, the choice of her lover often remains with the girl; again, divorce is easy at the wish either of the woman or the man.[113] Such freedom in love is clearly inconsistent with the patriarchal authority of the husband. I must note too the practice, common among many tribes, by which the husband remains in the wife's home for a probationary period, working for her family.[114] This is clearly a step towards purchase marriage, as is proved by the Santals, where this service is claimed when a girl is ugly or deformed and cannot be married otherwise, while other tribes offer their daughters when in want of labourers. This service-marriage must not be confused with the true maternal form, where the bridegroom visits or lives with the wife and any service claimed is a test of his fitness; it shows, however, the power of the woman's kindred still curbing the rights of the husband.

[112] Hodgson, _Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal_, 1855, Vol. XVIII, p. 707, cited by Starcke, _op. cit._, pp. 79, 285.

[113] Hartland, _op. cit._, Vol. II, pp. 155-157.

[114] This custom prevails, for instance, among the Kharwars and Parahiya tribes, and is common among the Ghasiyas, and is also practised among the Tipperah of Bengal.

The existence of mother-descent among the peoples of Western Asia has been ascertained with regard to some ancient tribes; but I may pa.s.s these over, as they offer no points of special interest. I must, however, refer briefly to the evidence brought forward by the late Prof. Robertson Smith[115] of mother-right in ancient Arabia. We find a decisive example of its favourable influence on the position of women in the custom of _beena_ marriage. Under this maternal form, the wife was not only freed from any subjection involved by the payment of a bride-price in the form of compulsory service or of gifts to her kindred (which always places her more or less under authority), but she was the owner of the tent and the household property, and thus enjoyed the liberty which owners.h.i.+p always entails. This explains how she was able to free herself at pleasure from her husband, who was really nothing but a temporary lover. Ibn Batua, even 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 children of the marriage. The women in Jahiliya 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 he was dismissed and did not enter." The tent belonged to the woman: the husband was received there, and at her good pleasure. We find many cases of _beena_ marriage among widely different peoples. Frazer[116] 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 maternal marriage closely resembling the _beena_ form, but have as well a purchase marriage, by which a wife is acquired by the payment of a bride-price and becomes the property of her husband.

[115] _Kins.h.i.+p and Marriage in Early Arabia._ See also Barton, _Semitic Origins_.

[116] _Academy_, March 27, 1886.

A very curious form of conjugal contract is recorded among the Ha.s.sanyeh Arabs of the White Nile, where the wife pa.s.sed by contract for a portion of her time only under the authority of her husband. It ill.u.s.trates in a striking way the conflict in marriage between the old rights of the woman and the rising power of the 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 chast.i.ty 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 obligations."[117]

[117] Spencer, _Descriptive Sociology_, Vol. V, p. 8, citing Petherick, _Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa_, pp.

140-141.

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 a.s.sembly; 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."[118]

[118] Thomas, _s.e.x and Society_, pp. 73-74, quoting Waitz-Gerland.

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 obtaining control and possession of his wife. The maternal system held with respect only 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 who could interfere with her, and to consecrate her to his Bossum, or G.o.d. 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 wors.h.i.+p of her husband her children could be born of his kindred and wors.h.i.+p."[119]

[119] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, p. 235.

It will be readily seen that the special rights held by the husband over these captive-wives would come to be greatly desired. But the capture of women was always difficult, as it frequently led to quarrels 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 from the bonds of the maternal marriage to be found. This was done by a system of buying the wife from her clan-kindred, in which case she became the property of her husband.

The change did not, of course, take place at once, and we have many examples of a transition period where the old customs are in conflict with the new. Both forms of marriage, the maternal and the purchase contract, are practised side by side by many peoples. These cases are so instructive that I must add one or two examples to those already noticed. The _ambel-anak_ marriage of Sumatra is the maternal form, but there is another marriage known as _djudur_, by which a man buys his wife as his absolute property. There is a complicated system of payments, on which the husband's rights to take the wife to his home depends. 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 and purposes 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 he is practically the slave, all his labour being due to his wife's family without any reduction in the debt, which must be paid in full, before he regains his liberty.[120] In Ceylon, again, there are two forms of marriage, called _beena_ and _deega_, which cause a marked difference in the position of the wife. A woman married under the _beena_ form lives in the house or immediate neighbourhood of her parents, and if so married she has the right of inheritance along with her brothers; but if married in _deega_ she goes to live in her husband's house and village and loses her rights in her own family.[121]

[120] Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, pp. 225-227.

[121] Forbes, _Eleven Years in Ceylon_, Vol. I, p. 333.

In Africa where the _beena maternal marriage_ is usual, and the husband serves for his wife and lives with her family, it is said that families are usually more or less willing _for value received_ to give a woman to a man to take away with him, or to let him have his _beena_ wife to transfer to his own house. Among the Wayao and Mang'anja of the s.h.i.+rehighlands, south of Lake Nya.s.sa, 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.[122] Again among the Banyai on the Zambesi, if the husband gives nothing the children of the marriage belong to the wife's family, but if he gives so many cattle to his wife's parents the children are his.[123] Similar cases may be found elsewhere. In the Watubela Islands between New Guinea and Celebes a man may either pay for his wife before marriage, or he may, without paying, live as her husband in her parents' house, working for her. In the former case, the children belong to him, in the latter to the mother's family, but he may buy them subsequently at a price.[124]

Campbell records of the Limboo tribe (where the bride is usually purchased and lives with the husband), that if poverty compels the bridegroom to serve for his wife, he becomes the slave of her father, "until by his work he has redeemed his bride."[125] An interesting case occurs in some Californian tribes where the husband has to live with the wife and work, until he has paid to her kindred the full price for her and her child. So far has custom advanced in favour of father-right that the children of a wife not paid for are regarded as b.a.s.t.a.r.ds and held in contempt.[126]

[122] Macdonald, _Africana_, Vol I, p. 136.

[123] Livingstone, _Travels_, p. 622.

[124] Riedel, p. 205; cited by McLennan, _Patriarchal Theory_, p. 326.

[125] _Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal_, Vol. IX, p. 603.

[126] Bancroft, Vol. I, p. 549.

Wherever we find the payment of a bride-price, in whatever form, there is sure indication of the decay of mother-right: woman has become property. Among the Ba.s.sa Komo of Nigeria marriage is usually effected by an exchange of sisters or other female relatives. The men may marry as many wives as they have women to give to other men. In this tribe the women look after the children, but the boys, when four years old, go to live and work with the fathers.[127] 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.[128] Among the Ba.s.sanga 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.

[127] _Journal African Society_, VIII, 15 _et seq._

[128] Torday and Joyce, _J. A. I._, x.x.xV, 410.

The right of a father to his children was established only by contract. Even where the wife had been given up by her kindred and allowed to live with her husband, we find that the children may be claimed by her family. Thus among the Makolo the price paid on marriage might merely cover the right to have the wife, and in this case the children belonged to the wife's family. It might, however, cover a certain right to the children if that had been contracted for, but never such a right as separated them wholly from the mother's family. To effect this it was necessary that a further price should be paid at the father's death. This sum once paid, her family had "given her up" and her children were entirely severed from them.[129] The legal acknowledgment of fatherhood in all cases had to be paid for.

[129] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, pp. 324-325, 240.

There are many customs pointing to this new father-force a.s.serting itself, and pus.h.i.+ng aside the mother-power. In Africa, among the Bavili the mother has the right to p.a.w.n her child, but she must first consult the father, so that he may have a chance of giving her goods to save the pledging.[130] 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.[131] 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 family when a child dies: this is called "buying the child."[132] A similar custom prevails among the Maori people of New Zealand; when a child dies, or even meets with an accident, the mother's relations, headed by her brothers, 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.[133]

[130] Dennett, _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I, 266.

[131] _Jour. Afr. Soc._, I, 412.

[132] Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, pp. 275 _et seq._

[133] _Old New Zealand_, p. 110.

These cases, with the inferences they suggest, show that the power a husband and father possessed over his wife and her children was gained through purchase. And it is not the fact of the husband's power, however great it might be, that is so important, but the fact that by the change in the form of marriage the wife and her children were cut off from the woman's clan-kindred, whose duty to protect them was now withdrawn. Here, then, was the reason of the change from mother-right to father-right. The monopolist desire of the husband to possess for himself the woman and her children (perhaps the deepest rooted of all the instincts) rea.s.serted itself. But the regaining of this individual possession by man was due, not to male strength, but to purchase. I must insist upon this. As soon as women became s.e.xually marketable their freedom was doomed.

There are many interesting cases of transition in which the children belong sometimes to the mother and sometimes to the father. Again I can give one or two examples only. In the island of Mangia the parents at the birth of the child arranged between themselves whether it should be dedicated to the father's G.o.d or to the mother's. The dedication took place forthwith, and finally determined which parent had the owners.h.i.+p of the child.[134] Among the Haidis, children belong to the clan of the mother, but in exceptional cases when the clan of the father is reduced in numbers, the new-born child may be given to the father's sister to suckle. It is then spoken of as belonging to the paternal aunt and is counted to its father's clan.[135] It is also possible to transfer a child to the father by giving it one of the names common to his clan. There are many curious customs practised by certain tribes, wavering between mother and father descent. In Samoa religion decides the question. At the birth of a child the totem of each parent is prayed to in turn (usually, though not always, starting with that of the father) and whichever totem happens to be invoked at the moment of birth is the child's totem for life and decides whether he or she belongs to the clan of the mother or the father.[136]

Equally curious was the custom of the Liburni, where the children were all brought up together until they were five years old. They were then collected and examined in order to trace their likeness to the men and they were a.s.signed to their fathers accordingly. Whoever received a boy from his mother in this way regarded him as his son.[137]

Similarly with the Arabs, where one woman was the wife of several men, the custom was either for the woman to decide to which of them the child was to belong, or the child was a.s.signed by an expert to one of the joint husbands to be regarded as his own.[138]

[134] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_.

[135] _Survey of Canada_, Report for 1878-79, 134 B. Cited by Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 76.

[136] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 78.

[137] _Das Mutterrecht_, p. 20, quoted by Starcke, _op.