Chapter XXVI · THE SUBJECTION OF WIVES

AMONG the lower races, as a rule, a woman is always more or less in a state of dependence. When she is emancipated by marriage from the power of her father, she generally passes into the power of her husband. But the authority which the latter possesses over his wife varies extremely among different peoples.

Frequently the wife is said to be the property or slave of her husband. In Fiji “the women are kept in great subjection…. Like other property, wives may be sold at pleasure, and the usual price is a musket.”1 “The Carib woman is always in bondage to her male relations. To her father, brother, or husband she is ever a slave, and seldom has any power in the disposal of herself.”2 Many North American Indians are said to treat their wives much as they treat their dogs.3 Among the Shoshones “the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner he may think proper.”4 Among the East African Wanika a woman “is a toy, a tool, a slave in the very worst sense; indeed she is treated as though she were a mere brute.”5 Many other statements to a similar effect are met with in ethnographical literature.6

Yet it seems that even in cases where the husband’s power over his wife is described as absolute, custom has not left her entirely destitute of rights. Of the Australian aborigines in general it is said that “the husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)”;7 of the natives of Central Australia, that “each father of a family rules absolutely over his own circle”;8 of certain tribes in West Australia, that the state of slavery in which the women are kept is truly deplorable, and that the mere presence of their husbands makes them tremble.9 But we have reason to believe that there is some exaggeration in these statements, and they certainly do not hold good of the whole Australian race. We have noticed above that custom does not really allow the Australian husband full liberty to kill his wife.10 For punishing or divorcing her he must sometimes have the consent of the tribe.11 There are even cases in which a wife whose husband has been unfaithful to her may complain of his conduct to the elders of the tribe, and he may have to suffer for it.12 In North-West-Central Queensland the women are on one special occasion allowed themselves to inflict punishments upon the men: at a certain stage of the initiation ceremony “each woman can exercise her right of punishing any man who may have ill-treated, abused, or ‘hammered’ her, and for whom she may have waited months or perhaps years to chastise.”13 Of the natives of Central Australia Messrs. Spencer and Gillen say that “the women are certainly not treated usually with anything which could be called excessive harshness”;14 and we hear from various authorities that in several Australian tribes married people are often much attached to each other, and continue to be so even when they grow old.15 Among the aborigines of New South Wales, for instance, “the husbands are as a general rule fond of their wives, and the wives loyal and affectionate to their husbands.”16 Nay, white men who have lived among the blacks assure us that there are henpecked husbands even in the Australian desert.17

Other instances may be added to show that the so-called absolute authority of husbands over their wives is not to be taken too literally. Of the Guiana Indians Sir E. F. Im Thurn observes:—“The woman is held to be as completely the property of the man as his dog. He may even sell her if he chooses.”18 But in another place the same authority admits not only that the women in a quiet way may have a considerable influence with the men, but that, “even if the men were—though this is in fact quite contrary to their nature—inclined to treat them cruelly, public opinion would prevent this.”19 Of the Plains Indians of the United States Colonel Dodge writes:—“The husband owns his wife entirely. He may abuse her, beat her, even kill her without question. She is more absolutely a slave than any negro before the war of rebellion.” But on the following page we are told that custom gives to every married woman of the tribes “the absolute right to leave her husband and become the wife of any other man, the sole condition being that the new husband must have the means to pay for her.”20 Among the Chippewyans the women are said to be “as much in the power of the men as any other articles of their property,” although, at the same time, “they are always consulted, and possess a very considerable influence in the traffic with Europeans, and other important concerns.”21 Among the Mongols a woman is “entirely dependent on her husband”; yet “in the household the rights of the wife are nearly equal to those of the husband.”22 Dr. Paulitschke tells us that among the Somals, Danakil, and Gallas, a wife has no rights whatever in relation to her husband, being merely a piece of property; but subsequently we learn that she is his equal, and “a mistress of her own will.”23 We must certainly not, like Mr. Spencer, conclude that where women are exchangeable for oxen or other beasts they are “of course” regarded as equally without personal rights.24 The bride-price is a compensation for the loss sustained in the giving up of the girl, and a remuneration for the expenses incurred in her maintenance till the time of her marriage;25 it does not eo ipso confer on the husband absolute rights over her. With reference to certain tribes in South-Eastern Africa, the Rev. James Macdonald observes:—“A man obtains a wife by giving her father a certain number of cattle. This, though often called such, is not purchase in the usual sense of the word. The woman does not become a chattel. She cannot be resold or ill-treated beyond well-defined legal limits. She retains certain rights to property and an interest in the cattle paid for her. They are a guarantee for the husband’s good behaviour.”26 There are even peoples among whom the husband’s authority hardly exists, although he has had to pay for his wife.27

Among many peoples the hardest drudgeries of life are said to be imposed on the women. Among the Kutchin “the women are literally beasts of burden to their lords and masters. All the heavy work is performed by them.”28 The Californian Karok, while on a journey, lays by far the greatest burdens on his wife, whom he regards as a drudge.29 Among the Kenistenos the life of the women is an uninterrupted succession of toil and pain, hence “they are sometimes known to destroy their female children, to save them from the miseries which they themselves have suffered.”30 “The condition of the women among the Chaymas,” says von Humboldt, “like that in all semi-barbarous nations, is a state of privation and suffering. The hardest labour is their share.”31 Among the Australian aborigines “wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the hardest work.”32 In Eastern Central Africa “the women hold an inferior position. They are viewed as beasts of burden, which do all the harder work.”33 Among the Kakhyens “the men are averse to labour, but the lot of all women, irrespective of rank, is one of drudgery”;34 and so forth.35 But it seems that these and similar statements, however correct they be, hardly express the whole truth. In early society each sex has its own pursuits. The man is responsible for the protection of the family, and, ultimately, for its support. His occupations are such as require strength and agility—fighting, hunting, fishing, the construction of implements for the chase and war, and, frequently, the cutting of trees and the building of lodges.36 The woman may accompany him as a helpmate on his expeditions, sometimes even participating in the battle,37 and when they travel she generally carries the baggage. But her principal occupations are universally of a domestic kind: she procures wood and water, prepares the food, dresses skins, makes clothes, takes care of the children. She, moreover, supplies the household with vegetable food, gathers roots, berries, acorns, and so forth, and among agricultural peoples very frequently cultivates the soil. Whilst cattle-rearing, having developed out of the chase, is largely a masculine pursuit,38 agriculture, having developed out of collecting seeds and plants, originally devolves on the women.39

The various occupations of life are thus divided between the sexes according to rules; and, though the formation of these rules no doubt has been more or less influenced by the egoism of the stronger sex, the essential principle from which they spring lies deeper. They are on the whole in conformity with the indications which nature herself has given. Take, for instance, the apparently cruel custom of using the women as beasts of burden. To the superficial observer, as M. Pinart remarks—with special reference to the Panama Indians,—it may indeed seem strange that the woman should be charged with a heavy load, while the man walking before her carries nothing but his weapons. But a little reflection will make it plain that the man has good reason for keeping himself free and mobile. The little caravan is surrounded with dangers: when traversing a savannah or a forest a hostile Indian may appear at any moment, or a tiger or a snake may lie in wait for the travellers. Hence the man must be on the alert, and ready in an instant to catch his arms to defend himself and his family against the aggressor.40 Dobrizhoffer writes, “The luggage being all committed to the women, the Abipones travel armed with a spear alone, that they may be disengaged to fight or hunt, if occasion require.”41

Moreover, whatever may have been the original reason for allotting a certain occupation to the one sex to the exclusion of the other, any such restriction has subsequently been much emphasised by custom, and in many cases by superstition as well.42 In Africa it is a common belief that the cattle get ill if women have anything to do with them.43 Hence among most Negro races milking is only permitted to men.44 In South-Eastern Africa “a woman must not enter the cattle fold.”45 The Bechuanas never allow women to touch their cattle, hence the men have to plough themselves.46 In North America Indian custom and superstition ordain that the wife must carefully keep away from all that belongs to her husband’s sphere of action.47 On the other hand, among the Dacotahs “the men do not often interfere with the work of the women; neither will they help them if they can avoid it, for fear of being laughed at and called a woman.”48 In Abyssinia “it is infamy for a man to go to market to buy anything. He cannot carry water or bake bread; but he must wash the clothes belonging to both sexes, and, in this function, the women cannot help him.”49 Among the Beni Aḥsen tribe in Morocco the women of the village where I was staying were quite horrified when one of my native servants set out to fetch water; they would on no account allow him to do what they said was a woman’s business. The Greenlander regards it as scandalous for a man to interfere with any occupation which belongs to the women. When he has brought his booty to land, he troubles himself no further about it; “for it would be a stigma on his character, if he so much as drew a seal out of the water.”50 Among the Bakongo a man would be much ridiculed by the women themselves, if he wanted to help them in their work in the field.51 Sometimes agriculture is supposed to be dependent for success on a magic quality in woman, intimately connected with child-bearing.52 Some Orinoco Indians said to Father Gumilla:—“When the women plant maize the stalk produces two or three ears; when they set the manioc the plant produces two or three baskets of root; and thus everything is multiplied. Why? Because women know how to produce children, and know how to plant the corn so as to ensure its germinating. Then, let them plant it; we do not know so much as they do.”53

It is obvious that this strict division of labour is apt to mislead the travelling stranger. He sees the women hard at work, and the men idly looking on; and it escapes him that the latter will have to be busy in their turn, within their own sphere of action. What is largely due to the force of custom is taken to be sheer tyranny on the part of the men; and the wife is pronounced to be an abject slave of her husband, destitute of all rights. And yet the strong differentiation of work, however burdensome it may be to the wife, is itself a source of rights, giving her authority within the circle which is exclusively her own. Among the Banaka and Bapuku the wife, though said to be her husband’s property and slave, is nevertheless an autocrat in her own house, strong enough to bid defiance to her lord and master.54 Among the North American Indians, Schoolcraft observes, “the lodge itself, with all its arrangements, is the precinct of the rule and government of the wife…. The husband has no voice in this matter.”55 Many other statements to a similar effect will be quoted below.

We have reason, then, to believe that the authority which savage husbands possess over their wives is not always quite so great as it is said to be. And we must distinctly reject as erroneous the broad statement that the lower races in general hold their women in a state of almost complete subjection.56 Among many of them the married woman, though in the power of her husband, is known to enjoy a remarkable degree of independence, to be treated by him with consideration, and to exercise no small influence upon him. In several cases she is stated to be his equal, and in a few his superior.

Among many of the South American Indians the women have been noticed to occupy a respected position in the family or community.57 Thus, among the Goajiros of Colombia, “in a quarrel or drunken brawl, women often save bloodshed by stepping in and tearing the weapons out of their husband’s or brother’s hand. Travelling with women is consequently perfectly safe, and in case of danger, if one undertakes to protect a stranger, he may rely upon coming out all right.”58 Among the Tarahumares of Mexico—in spite of their saying that one man is as good as five women—the woman “occupies a comparatively high position in the family, and no bargain is ever concluded until the husband has consulted his wife in the matter.”59 Among the Navahos of New Mexico the women “exert a great deal of influence”;60 they “are very independent of menial duties, and leave their husbands upon the slightest pretext of dislike”;61 “by common consent the house and all the domestic gear belongs entirely to the wife.”62 In his description of North American Indians Mr. Grinnell observes:—“The Indian woman, it is usually thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the women were the labourers of the camp; that they did all the hard work, about which there was no excitement … but they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in connection with family affairs, but in more important and general matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke there, giving their advice…. In ordinary family conversation women did not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc.”63 Another competent observer, Ten Kate, strongly protests against the statement that, among the North American Indians, women are treated as beasts of burden, and affirms that their condition, as compared with that of the women of the lower classes in civilised countries, is rather better than worse.64 Among the Omahas the women had an equal standing in society with the men; both the husband and wife were at the head of the family and the joint owners of the lodge, robes, and so forth, so that the man could not give away anything if his wife was unwilling.65 Among the Senecas, “usually, the female portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children, or whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and budge.”66 “From documentary references,” says Mr. Mooney, "it is apparent that there existed among the Cherokee a custom analogous to that found among the Iroquois and probably other Eastern tribes, by which the decision of important questions relating to peace and war was left to a vote of the women.”67 Among the Salish, or Flatheads, “although the women are required to do much hard labour, they are by no means treated as slaves, but, on the contrary, have much consideration and authority.”68 Among the Nootkas “wives are consulted in matters of trade, and in fact seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies.”69 Among the Indians about Puget Sound, also, women “are always consulted in matters of trade before a bargain is closed,” and “acquire great influence in the tribe.”70 The Thlinket woman is not the slave of her husband; she has determinate rights, and her influence is considerable.71 Among the natives of Cross Cape she even possesses “acknowledged superiority over the other sex.”72 Among the Western Tinneh “the women do only a fair share of the work and have a powerful voice in most affairs.”73 In Kadiak they were held in much respect, and enjoyed great liberties.74 Among the Kamchadales they had the command of everything, and the husbands were their obedient slaves.75 Nordenskiöld says of the Chukchi:—“The power of the woman appears to be very great. In making the more important bargains, even about weapons and hunting implements, she is, as a rule, consulted, and her advice is taken. A number of things which form women’s tools she can barter away on her own responsibility, or in any other way employ as she pleases.”76 Mr. Bancroft’s statement concerning the Western Eskimo, that “the lot of the women is but little better than slavery,”77 must be understood as chiefly involving the fact that they have much hard work to do. According to Dr. Seemann they “are treated, although not as equals, at least with more consideration than is customary among barbarous nations”; nay, “it not infrequently happens that the woman is the chief authority of the house,” and “the man never makes a bargain without consulting his wife, and if she does not approve, it is rejected.”78 Among the Point Barrow Eskimo “the women appear to stand on a footing of perfect equality with the men both in the family and in the community. The wife is the constant and trusted companion of the man in everything except the hunt, and her opinion is sought in every bargain or other important undertaking.”79 In Greenland, also, though the woman is considered much inferior to the man, she is in no way oppressed,80 and her husband consults with her on important matters.81

Among the nomadic Tangutans the women’s rights in the household seemed to Prejevalsky to be equal to those of the men.82 Of the Todas of India it is said that their women “hold a position in the family quite unlike what is ordinarily witnessed among Oriental nations. They are treated with respect, and are permitted a remarkable amount of freedom.”83 Among the Kandhs women “are uniformly treated with respect; the mothers of families generally with much honour. Nothing is done either in public or in private affairs without consulting them, and they generally exert upon the councils of their tribes a powerful influence.” A wife may quit her husband at any time, except within a year of her marriage, or when she expects offspring, or within a year after the birth of a child, though, when she quits him, he has a right to reclaim immediately from her father the whole sum paid for her.84 Among the peasants of the North-Western Provinces of India the wife is an influential personage in the household, not a mere drudge. Little is done without her knowledge and advice. If she is badly wronged the tribal council will protect her, and on the whole her position is, perhaps, not worse than that of her sisters in a similar grade of life in other parts of the world.85 Among the Káttis the men are much under the authority of their wives.86 Among the Bheels women “have much influence in the society,” and married men have always had the credit of allowing their wives to domineer over them.87 “A Kol or Ho,” says Dr. Hayes, “makes a regular companion of his wife. She is consulted in all difficulties, and receives the fullest consideration due to her sex”;88 and Colonel Dalton adds, “As a rule, in no country in the world are wives better treated.”89 The Garos are “kind husbands, and their conduct generally towards the weaker sex is marked by consideration and respect.”90 The Bódo and Dhimáls “use their wives and daughters well, treating them with confidence and kindness.”91 The Santal “treats the female members of his family with respect.”92 Among the Kukis women are generally held in consideration; “their advice is taken, and they have much influence.”93 Mr. Colquhoun observes that among the Indo-Chinese races equality of the sexes prevails, and prevailed long before Buddhism took any hold upon the country.94

Among the Nicobarese “the position of women is, and always has been, in no way inferior to that of the other sex. They take their full share in the formation of public opinion, discuss publicly with the men matters of general interest to the village, and their opinions receive due attention before a decision is arrived at. In fact, they are consulted on every matter, and the henpecked husband is of no extraordinary rarity in the Nicobars.”95 Mr. Crawfurd thinks that in the Malay Archipelago “the lot of women may, on the whole, be considered as more fortunate than in any other country of the East”; they associate with the men “in all respects on terms of such equality as surprise us in such a condition of society.”96 In Bali they are on a perfect equality with the men.97 The Dyak shows great respect for his wife, and always asks her opinion;98 he regards her “not as a slave, but as a companion.”99 Among the Bataks the married women often have a great influence over their families.100 In Serang they have in all matters equal rights with the men, and are, consequently, treated well.101 The women of Sulu “have the reputation of ruling their lords, and possess much weight in the government by the influence they exert over their husbands.”102

In Melanesia the women generally have to work hard, supplying the place of slaves;103 but at least in various islands their condition is otherwise fairly good. In the Western islands of Torres Straits “the women appear to have had a good deal to say on most questions and were by no means downtrodden or ill-used.”104 In some parts of New Guinea their position is described as one of high esteem.105 “They have a large voice in domestic affairs, and occasionally lord it over their masters”; and their influence is felt not only in domestic matters, but also in affairs of state.106 In Erromanga, of the New Hebrides, although the women did all of the hard plantation work, they were on the whole well treated by their husbands.107 The same is said to be the case in the Solomon Islands;108 in the eastern part of New Georgia they do not even seem to do much work.109 In Micronesia the position of woman is decidedly good. In the Marianne Group “the wife is absolute mistress in her house, the husband not daring to dispose of anything without her consent”; nay, the men are said to be actually governed by their wives, “the women assuming those prerogatives which in most other countries are invested in the other sex.”110 In the Pelew Islands the women are in every respect the equals of the men; the oldest man, or Obokul, of a family can do nothing without taking advice with its oldest female members.111 In the Caroline Group the weaker sex “enjoys a perfect equality in public estimation with the other.”112 Among the Mortlock Islanders the wife is quite independent of her husband.113 In the Kingsmill Islands very great consideration is awarded to the women: “they seem to have exclusive control over the house,” whilst all the hard labour is performed by the men.114 Among the Line Islanders “no difference is made in the sexes; a woman can vote and speak as well as a man, and in general the women decide the question, unless it is one of war against another island.”115 In many Polynesian islands, also, their position is by no means bad.116 In Tonga “women have considerable respect shown to them on account of their sex, independent of the rank they might otherwise hold as nobles”; they are not subjected to hard labour or any very menial work,117 and their status in society is not inferior to that of men.118 In Samoa they “are held in much consideration, … treated with great attention, and not suffered to do anything but what rightfully belongs to them.”119 In the valley of Typee, in the Marquesas Group, the women are allowed every possible indulgence, the religious restrictions of the taboo alone excepted; they are exempt from toil, and “nowhere are they more sensible of their power.”120 Rochon wrote of the Malagasy:—“Man here never commands as a despot; nor does the woman ever obey as a slave. The balance of power inclines even in favour of the women.”121 At the present day, in Madagascar, the woman “is not scorned as essentially inferior to man,” but enters into her husband’s cares and joys, and shares his life, much in the same way as a wife does amongst ourselves.122

Turning, finally, to the African continent, we find that among the Negro races the woman, though often heavily burdened and more or less subservient to her husband, is by no means without influence.123 “When we become more closely acquainted with family conditions,” Herr Büttner observes, “we notice that there, as elsewhere, husbands are under petticoat government, and those most of all who like to pose before the outer world as masters of their house. The women, including the aunts, have on all occasions, important and unimportant alike, a weighty word to contribute.”124 The Monbuttu women, according to Dr. Schweinfurth, exhibit towards their husbands the highest degree of independence; “the position in the household occupied by the men was illustrated by the reply which would be made if they were solicited to sell anything as a curiosity, ‘Oh, ask my wife: it is hers.’”125 Among the Momvus “the women are on a footing of equality with the men, and go hunting with them, and accompany them to the wars, taking their part in the combat.”126 Among the Madi or Moru tribe of Central Africa “women are treated with respect and politeness by the men, who always show them preference, resigning to their use the best places, and paying them such like courtesies.” The women associate with the men on equal terms, being consulted and honoured; and any insult to a woman is revenged, nay is frequently the cause of war.127 In a Hottentot’s house the woman is the supreme ruler, and the husband has nothing at all to say. “While in public the men take the prominent part, at home they have not so much power even as to take a mouthful of sour milk out of the tub, without the wife’s permission. If a man ever should try to do it, his nearest female relations will put a fine on him, consisting in cows and sheep, which is to be added to the stock of the wife.”128 Among the peoples of Berber race the women exercise considerable influence over the men. Among the Guanches of the Canary Islands they were much respected.129 Among the Touareg “la femme est l’égale de l’homme, si même, par certains côtés, elle n’est dans une condition meilleure.”130 Among the Beni Amer a husband undertakes nothing before consulting his wife, on whose goodwill he largely depends.131 Of the Aulâd Solîmân, an Arab tribe in the Sahara, Dr. Nachtigal observes that it was curious to see how powerless those much feared robbers and cut-throats were in their own houses.132 Both in the Sahara133 and in the East134 the Bedouin women enjoy a considerable degree of freedom, and sometimes actually rule over their husbands.

All these statements certainly do not imply that the husband has no recognised power over his wife, but they prove that his power is by no means unlimited. It is true that many of our authorities speak rather of liberties that the woman takes herself than of privileges granted her by custom; but, as we have seen before, customary rights are always more or less influenced by habitual practice. It should be added that among many savage peoples the husband has a right to divorce his wife only under certain conditions;135 and among a very considerable number custom or law permits the wife to separate either for some special cause or, simply, at will.136 In certain parts of Eastern Central Africa divorce may be effected if the husband neglects to sew his wife’s clothes, or if the partners do not please each other.137 Among the Shans of Burma the woman has a right to turn adrift a husband who takes to drinking or otherwise misconducts himself, and to retain all the goods and money of the partnership.138 Among the Irulas of the Neilgherries the option of remaining in union, or of separating, rests principally with the woman.139 Among the Savaras, an aboriginal hill people of the Madras Presidency, “a woman may leave her husband whenever she pleases.”140 This is surely something very different from that absolute dominion which hasty generalisers have attributed to savage husbands in general.

It is often said that a people’s civilisation may be measured by the position held by its women. But at least so far as the earlier stages of culture are concerned, this opinion is not supported by facts. Among several of the lowest races, including peoples like the Veddahs, Andaman Islanders, and Bushmans, the female sex is treated with far greater consideration than among many of the higher savages and barbarians. Travellers have not seldom noticed that of two neighbouring tribes the less cultured one sets in this respect an example to the other. “Among the Bushmans,” says Dr. Fritsch, “the female sex makes life-companions, among the A-bantu beasts of burden.”141 Lewis and Clarke affirm that the status of woman in a savage tribe has no necessary relation even to its moral qualities in general. “The Indians,” they say, “whose treatment of the females is mildest, and who pay most deference to their opinions, are by no means the most distinguished for their virtues…. On the other hand, the tribes among whom the women are very much debased, possess the loftiest sense of honour, the greatest liberality, and all the good qualities of which their situation demands the exercise.”142 That the condition of woman, or her relative independence, is no safe gauge of the general culture of a nation, also appears from a comparison between many of the lower races and the peoples of archaic civilisation.

In China the condition of woman has always been inferior to that of man, and no generous sentiment tending to the amelioration of her social position has ever come from the Chinese sages.143 Her children must pay her respect, but she in her turn owes to her husband the subjection of a child;144 a wife is an infinitely less important personage than a mother in the Chinese social scale.145 The husband has certainly not absolute power over his wife: he may not kill her, nor sell her without her consent,146 nor even divorce her, except for certain causes specified by law.147 But these causes are very elastic; it is said that “when a woman has any quality that is not good, it is but just and reasonable to turn her out of doors.”148 And in a book containing the cream of all the moral writings of the Chinese, and intended chiefly for children, we read:—“Brothers are like hands and feet. A wife is like one’s clothes. When clothes are worn out, we can substitute those that are new. When hands and feet are cut off, it is difficult to obtain substitutes for them.”149 A woman, on the other hand, cannot obtain legal separation on any account.150 Confucius says that “man is the representative of Heaven, and is supreme over all things. Woman yields obedience to the instructions of man, and helps to carry out his principles. On this account she can determine nothing of herself, and is subject to the rule of the three obediences. When young, she must obey her father and elder brother; when married, she must obey her husband; when her husband is dead, she must obey her son.”151 In Japan, also, a woman was formerly, in the eye of the law, a chattel rather than a person. “Having all her life under her father’s roof reverenced her superiors, she is expected to bring reverence to her new domicile, but not love. She must always obey but never be jealous. She must not be angry, no matter whom her husband may introduce into his household. She must wait upon him at his meals and must walk behind him, but not with him. When she dies her children go to her funeral, but not her husband.”152 In Japan a man might repudiate his wife for the same reasons as in China,153 and till the year 1873 a wife could not obtain separation according to law.154 However, though the Japanese wife is “the first servant of the household,” training and public opinion require that she should be treated with respect, if the marriage be blessed with children.155 She is addressed as “the honourable lady of the house,” and her position is said to be higher than in any other Oriental country.156

From various quarters of the ancient world we hear of the rule that the husband shall command and the wife obey. The Lord said to the woman, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”157 How great the husband’s power was among the Hebrews we do not know exactly. He could divorce his wife if she did not please him because he had “found some uncleanness in her,”158 whereas a wife could not legally separate from her husband.159 In later times her condition evidently improved.160 From the old Jewish point of view it is surely surprising to find Sirach putting the companionship of a wife not only above that of a friend, but even above children.161 In the Talmud a husband is admonished to love his wife like himself and to honour her more than himself,162 though he should take care not to be ruled by her;163 and the wife also is authorised to demand a divorce under certain circumstances, namely, if the husband refuses to perform his conjugal duty, if he continues to lead a disorderly life after marriage, if he proves impotent during ten years, if he suffers from an insupportable disease, or if he leaves the country for ever.164

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 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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.

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 other207—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 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 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

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 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

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 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

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. 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 certain standing, owing to her importance as a food-provider.228

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.

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 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 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

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 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.

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 exercise.”254 In China women are not allowed to go and worship in the temples.255

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

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 Sandhyā 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

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

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. 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

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 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 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 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

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.

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.