Читать книгу Woman and Socialism - August Bebel - Страница 6

According to Morgan, the Punaluan family begins with the exclusion of brothers and sisters on the mother’s side. Wherever a woman has several husbands, it becomes impossible to determine paternity. Paternity becomes a mere fiction. Even at present, with the institution of monogamous marriage, paternity—as Goethe said in his “Apprenticeship,” “depends upon good faith.” But if paternity is dubious in monogamous marriage even, it is surely beyond the possibility of determination where polyandry prevails. Only descent from the mother can be shown clearly and undeniably; therefore, children, during the term of the matriarchate, were termed “spurii,” seed. As all social transformations are consummated infinitely slow upon a low stage of development, thus also the transition from the consanguine family to the Punaluan family must have extended through a great length of time, and many retrogressions must undoubtedly have occurred that could still be perceived in later days. The immediate, external cause for the development of the Punaluan family may have the necessity of dividing the greatly increased group for the purpose of finding new soil for agricultural purposes and for the grazing of herds. But it is also probable that with increasing development, people gradually came to understand the harmfulness and the impropriety of sexual intercourse between brother and sister and close relatives, and that this recognition led to a different arrangement of marriage relations. That this was the case is shown by a pretty legend that, as Cunow tells us, was related to Gason among the Dieyeris, a tribe of Southern Australia. This legend describes the origin of the “Murdu,” the gentile organization, in the following manner:

“After the creation fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and other closely related persons married indiscriminately among themselves, until the evil consequences of such marriages were clearly seen. Thereupon the leaders held a council to consider what could be done, and finally they begged Muramura, the great spirit, to bid them what to do. Muramura bade them divide the tribe into many branches and to name these after animals and inanimate objects to distinguish them from one another; for instance, Mouse, Emu, Lizzard, Rain, etc. The members of each group should not be permitted to marry among themselves, but should choose their mates from another group. Thus the son of an Emu should not marry the daughter of an Emu, but he might marry the daughter of a Mouse, a Lizard, a Rain, or any other family.” This tradition is more plausible than the biblical one, and shows the origin of gentile organization in the simplest manner.

Paul Lafargue showed in an article published in the German periodical, “Neue Zeit,” that names like Adam and Eva did not originally denote individual persons, but were the names of gentes in which the Jews were constituted in prehistoric days. By his argumentation Lafargue elucidates a number of otherwise obscure and contradictory points in the first book of Moses. In the same periodical M. Beer calls attention to the fact that among the Jews a superstition still prevails according to which a man’s mother and his fiancee must not have the same name, lest misfortune, disease and death be brought upon the family. This is a further proof of the correctness of Lafargue’s conception. Gentile organization prohibited marriage between persons belonging to the same gens. According to the gentile conception, then, the fact that a man’s mother and his fiancee had the same name, proved their belonging to the same gens. Of course, present-day Jews are ignorant of the connection existing between their superstition and the ancient gentile organization which prohibited such marriages. These prohibitory laws had the purpose of avoiding the evils resulting from close intermarriage, and though gentile organization among the Jews has gone out of existence thousands of years ago, we still see traces of the ancient tradition preserved. Early experiences in the breeding of animals may have led to a recognition of the dangers of inbreeding.

How far such experiences had been developed may be seen from the first book of Moses, chapter 30, 32 stanza, where it is told how Jacob cheated his father-in-law Laban by providing for the birth of spotted lambs and goats that were to be his, according to Laban’s promise. Thus ancient Israelites were applying Darwin’s theories in practice long before Darwin’s time.

Since we are discussing conditions that existed among the ancient Jews, it will be well to quote a few further facts which prove that in antiquity maternal law actually prevailed among them. Although in the first book of Moses, 3, 16, is written in regard to woman: “And thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,” in the first book of Moses, 2, 24, we find the lines: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.” The same wording is repeated in Matthew, 19, 5; Mark, 10, 7, and in the epistle to the Ephesians, 5, 31. This command then is rooted in maternal law, for which interpreters of the Bible had no explanation and, therefore, presented it incorrectly.

Maternal law is likewise shown to have existed in the fourth book of Moses, 32, 41. There it is said that Jair had a father of the tribe of Juda, but his mother came from the tribe of Manasseh, and Jair is explicitly called the son of Manasseh and became heir to that tribe. In Nehemiah, 7, 63, we find still another example of maternal law among the ancient Jews. There the children of a priest who married one of the daughters of Barzillai, a Jewish clan, are called the children of Barzillai. They are, accordingly, not called by their father’s but by their mother’s name.

In the Punaluan family, according to Morgan, one or more series of sisters of one family group married one or more series of brothers of another family group. A number of sisters or cousins of the first, second and more remote degrees were the common wives of their common husbands, who were not permitted to be their brothers. A number of brothers or cousins of various degrees were the common husbands of their common wives, who were not permitted to be their sisters. As inbreeding was thereby prohibited, this new form of marriage was favorable to higher and more rapid development, and gave those tribes that had adopted this family form an advantage over those who maintained the old form of sex relations.

The following system of kinship resulted from the Punaluan family: The children of my mother’s sisters are her children, and the children of my father’s brothers are his children, and all are my brothers and sisters. But the children of my mother’s brothers are her nephews and nieces and the children of my father’s sisters are his nephews and nieces, and all are my cousins. The husbands of my mother’s sisters are still her husbands and the wives of my father’s brothers are still his wives, but the sisters of my father and the brothers of my mother are excluded from the family group, and their children are my cousins.[7]

With increasing civilization sexual intercourse among brothers and sisters is put under the ban, and this is gradually extended to all collateral relatives on the mother’s side. A new consanguine family, the gens, is evolved that originally consists of natural and remote sisters and their children, together with their natural or remote brothers on the mother’s side. The gens has a common ancestress to whom the groups of female generations trace their descent. The men do not belong to the gens of their wives, but to the gens of their sisters. But the children of these men belong to the gens of their mothers, because descent is traced from the mother. The mother is considered the head of the family. Thus the matriarchate was evolved that for a long time constituted the foundation of family relations and inheritance. While the maternal law prevailed, women had a voice and vote in the councils of the gens, they helped to elect the sachems and leaders and to depose them. When Hannibal formed an alliance with the Gauls against the Romans, he decided that in case disputes should arise among the allies, the Gallic matrons should be intrusted with the mission of arbitrating; so great was his confidence in their impartiality.

Of the Lycians who recognized maternal law Herodotus tells us: “Their customs are partly Cretan and partly Carian. But they have one custom that distinguishes them from all other nations in the world. If you ask a Lycian who he is, he will tell you his name, his mother’s name, and so on in the line of female descent. Moreover, when a free woman marries a slave, her children remain free citizens. But if a man marries a foreign woman or takes unto himself a concubine, his children are deprived of all civic rights, even though he be the most eminent man in the state.”

At that time “matrimonium” was spoken of instead of “patrimonium,” “mater familias” was said instead of “pater familias,” and one’s native country was referred to as the motherland. Just as the earlier family forms, the gens was founded on the common ownership of property, that is, it was a communistic form of society. Woman was the leader and ruler in this kinship organization and was highly respected, her opinion counting for much in the household as well as in the affairs of the tribe. She is peacemaker and judge, and discharges the duties of religious worship as priestess.

The frequent appearance of queens and women rulers in antiquity, and the power wielded by them even when their sons were the actual rulers, which was the case in Egypt, for instance, was an outcome of the matriarchate. During that period mythological characters are chiefly feminine, as seen from the goddesses Astarte, Demeter, Ceres, Latona, Isis, Frigga, Freya, Gerda, and many others. Woman is invulnerable; matricide is deemed the most dreadful crime that calls upon all men for vengeance. It is the common duty of all the men of the tribe, to avenge an injury inflicted upon any member of their kinship by a member of any other tribe. Defense of the women incites the men to highest bravery. Thus the influence of the matriarchate was perceived in all social relations of the ancient peoples, among the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Greeks before the heroic age, the Italic tribes before the founding of Rome, the Scythians, the Gauls, the Iberians, the Cantabrians, the Germans, and others. At that time woman held a position in society as she has never held since. Tacitus says in his “Germania”: “The Germans believe that within every woman dwells something holy and prophetic; therefore they honor woman’s opinion and follow her advice.” Diodorus, who lived at the time of Cæsar, was quite indignant over the position of women in Egypt. He had heard that in Egypt not sons but daughters supported their aged parents. He therefore spoke disparagingly of the hen-pecked men at the Nile, who granted rights and privileges to the weaker sex that seemed outrageous to a Greek or a Roman.

Under maternal law comparatively peaceful conditions prevailed. Social relations were simple and narrow and the mode of life was a primitive one. The various tribes kept aloof from one another and respected each other’s domain. If one tribe was attacked by another the men took up arms for defense and were ably supported by the women. According to Herodotus, the women of the Scythians took part in battles; virgins—so he claims—were not permitted to marry until they had slain an enemy. Taken all in all, the physical and mental differences between man and woman were not nearly as great in primeval days as they are at present. Among almost all savage and barbarian tribes, the differences in the size and weight of brains taken from male and female individuals, are smaller than among civilized nations. Also the women of these tribes are not inferior to the men in physical strength and skill. Proof of this is furnished not only by the writers of antiquity in regard to peoples living under maternal law, but also by the Amazon regiments of the Ashantis and the King of Dahome in Western Africa, that excel in ferocity and courage. What Tacitus relates in regard to the women of the ancient Germans, and Cæsar’s opinion of the women of the Iberians and the Scots, furnish additional proof. Columbus was attacked near Santa Cruz by a troop of Indians in a small sloop in which the women fought as bravely as the men. This conception is furthermore confirmed by Havelock Ellis: “Among the Andombies on the Congo, according to Mr. H. H. Johnstone, the women, though working very hard as carriers and as laborers in general, lead an entirely happy existence; they are often stronger than the men and more finely developed, some of them, he tells us, having really splendid figures. And Parke, speaking of the Manyuema of the Arruwimi in the same region, says that they are fine animals and the women very handsome; they carry loads as heavy as those of the men and do it quite as well. In North America again an Indian chief said to Hearne: Women were made for labor; one of them can carry or haul as much as two men can do. Schellong, who has carefully studied the Papuans in the German protectorate of New Guinea from the anthropological point of view, considers that the women are more strongly built than the men. In Central Australia again, the men occasionally beat the women through jealousy, but on such occasions it is by no means rare for the woman, single-handed, to beat the man severely. At Cuba, the women fought beside the men and enjoyed great independence. Among some races of India, the Pueblos of North America, the Patagonians, the women are as large as the men. So among the Afghans, with whom the women in certain tribes enjoy a considerable amount of power. Even among the Arabs and Druses it has been noted that the women are nearly as large as the men. And among Russians the sexes are more alike than among the English or French.”[8]

In the gens women sometimes ruled with severity, and woe to the man who was too lazy or too clumsy to contribute his share to the common sustenance. He was cast out and was obliged either to return to his own gens, where he was not likely to be received kindly, or to gain admission into another gens where he was judged less harshly.

That this form of matrimony has been maintained by the natives of Central Africa to this very day was experienced by Livingstone, to his great surprise, as related by him in his book, “Missionary Travels and Researches in Southern Africa.” At the Zambesi he encountered the Balonda, a strong and handsome Negro tribe, engaged in agricultural pursuits, and was soon able to confirm the reports made to him by Portugiese, which he had at first declined to believe, that the women held a superior position among them. They are members of the tribal council. When a young man marries, he must migrate from his village into the one in which his wife resides. He must at the same time pledge himself to provide his mother-in-law with kindling wood for lifetime. The woman, in turn, must provide her husband’s food. Although minor quarrels between man and wife occasionally occurred, Livingstone found that the men did not rebel against female supremacy. But he found, on the other hand, that when men had insulted their wives, they were severely punished—by their stomachs. The man—so Livingstone relates—comes home to eat, but is sent from one woman to another and is not given anything. Tired and hungry, he finally climbs upon a tree in the most populous part of the village and exclaims, with a woe-begone voice: “Hark, hark! I thought I had married women, but they are witches! I am a bachelor; I have not a single wife! Is that just and fair to a lord like myself?!”

[7] Frederick Engels: “Origin of the Family.”

[8] Havelock Ellis: “Man and Woman.”