The sexes in science and history : an inquiry into the dogma of woman's inferiority to man

Front matter

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE Washington

Founded 1836

Preface To New Edition

This volume is a revised edition of The Evolu¬ tion of Woman published by G. P. Putnam’s Sons in 1894.

In this later work much added evidence appears going to prove the correctness of the theory ad¬ vanced in the former work. In it the subject of sex-development has been brought down to the present time and in this later investigation it is found that each and every fact connected with the biological and sociological development of the last twenty years is in strict accord not only with the facts set forth in The Evolution of Woman but with the conclusions therein arrived at.

In the concluding chapters of this volume the results of the separate development of the two diverging lines of sex demarcation are set forth. I have endeavoured to show that present condi¬ tions are the legitimate outcome of the ascendency gained during the later ages of human history by the egoistic or destructive agencies over the higher or constructive forces developed in human nature.

E. B. G.

Hi

Preface To First Edition

After a somewhat careful study of written history, and after an investigation extending over several years of all the accessible facts relative to extant tribes representing the various stages of human development, I had reached the conclu¬ sion, as early as the year 1882, that the female, organism is in no wise inferior to that of the male. For some time, however, I was unable to ’find any detailed proof that could consistently be employed to substantiate the correctness of this hypothesis.

In the year 1885, with no special object in view other than a desire for information, I began a systematized investigation of the facts which at that time had been established by naturalists relative to the development of mankind from lower orders of life. It was not, however, until the year 1886, after a careful reading of The Descent of Man , by Mr. Darwin, that I first be¬ came impressed with the belief that the theory of evolution, as enunciated by scientists, furnishes much evidence going to show that the female among all the orders of life, man included, repre¬ sents a higher stage of development than the male.

vi

Preface

Although at the time indicated, the belief that man has descended from lower orders in the scale of being had been accepted by the leading minds both in Europe and America, for reasons which have not been explained, scientists, generally, seemed inclined to ignore certain facts connected with this theory which tend to prove the superiority of the female organism.

Scarcely considering at the outset whether my task would eventually take the form of a magazine article, or whether it would be extended to the dimensions of a book, I set myself to work to show that some of the conclusions of the savants regard¬ ing the subject of sex-development are not in accord with their premises.

While writing the first part of this volume, and while reasoning on the facts established by scientists in connection with the observations which have been made in these later years relative to the growth of human society and the develop¬ ment of human institutions, it seemed clear to me that the history of life on the earth presents an unbroken chain of evidence going to prove the importance of the female; and, so struck was I by the manner in which the facts of science and those of history harmonize, that I decided to embrace within my work some of the results of my former research. I therefore set about the task of tracing, in a brief manner, the growth of the primary characters observed in the two diverging sex-columns, according to the facts

Preface

Vll and principles enunciated in the theory of natural development.

It is not perhaps singular, during an age domi¬ nated by theological dogmatism, and in which no definite knowledge relative to the development of life on the earth had been gained, that man should have regarded himself as an infinitely superior being. Neither is it remarkable that woman, who was supposed to have appeared later on the scene of action than did her male mate, and who owed her existence to a surgical operation performed upon him, should have been regarded simply as an appendage, a creature brought forth in response to the requirements of the masculine nature.

The above doctrines when enunciated by the¬ ologians need cause little surprise, but with the dawn of a scientific age it might have been expected that the prejudices resulting from those doctrines might disappear. When, however, we turn to the most advanced scientific writings of the present century, we find that the prejudices which through¬ out thousands of years have been gathering strength are by no means eradicated, anl any discussion of the sex question is still rare in which the effects of these prejudices may not be traced. Even Mr. Darwin, notwithstanding his great breadth of mental vision and the important work which he accomplished in the direction of original inquiry, whenever he had occasion to touch on the mental capacities of women, or more particularly

Vlll

Preface on the relative capacities of the sexes, manifested the same spirit which characterizes the efforts of an earlier age; and throughout his entire investiga¬ tion of the human species, his ability to ignore certain facts which he himself adduced, and which all along the line of development tend to prove the superiority of the female, is truly remarkable.

We usually judge of a man’s fitness to assume the r61e of an original investigator in any branch of human knowledge, by noting his powers of observation and generalization, and by observing his capacity to perceive connections between closely related facts; also, by tracing the various processes by which he arrives at his conclusions. The ability, however, to collect facts, and the power to generalize and draw conclusions from them, avail little, when brought into direct opposition to deeply rooted prejudices.

The indications are strong that the time has at length arrived when the current opinions concerning sex capacity and endowment demand a revision, and when nothing short of scientific deductions, untainted by the prejudices and dogmatic assumptions of the past, will be accepted.

As has been stated, the object of this volume is to set forth the principal data brought forward by naturalists bearing on the subject of the origin and development of the two lines of sexual de¬ marcation, and by means of the facts observed by explorers among peoples in the various stages of

Preface

IX development, to trace, so far as possible, the effect of such differentiation upon the individual, and upon the subsequent growth of human society.

E. B. G.

part I CHAPTER

I. — Development of the Organism . . 3

II. — The Origin of Sex Differences . 14

III. — Male Organic Defects . . 33

IV. — The Development of the Social In¬

stincts and the Moral Sense . 63

V. — The Supremacy of the Male . . 74

PART II I. — Method of Investigation ... 93

II. — The Relations of the Sexes among

Early Mankind . . . .104

III. — The Gens Women under Gentile

Institutions ..... 123

xi xii Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

IV. — The Origin of Marriage . . .159

V. — The Mother-Right .... 203

VI. — Theories to Explain Wife-Capture . 215

PART III I. — Early Historic Society Founded on

the Gens . 243

II. — Women in Early Historic Times . 269

III. — Ancient Sparta .... 285

IV. — Athenian Women . . . .318

V. — Roman Law, Roman Women, and

Christianity ..... 347

VI. — The Renaissance .... 367

VII. — Conclusion . 380

The Sexes in Science and History

Chapter I

Sex is not only the basic fact underlying physi¬ cal life but it is also the fundamental principle involved in the origin and development of religion. Throughout the history of mankind, the God-idea has ever been, male or female, according to the relative importance of the two sex principles in human affairs.

Scientists declare that they are now able to trace the development of the two diverging lines of sex-demarcation from the time of their separa¬ tion, or from the time when these principles were confined within one and the same individual. In order to understand the origin of sex, it becomes necessary to recall, briefly, the theory of the de¬ velopment of life on the earth as set forth by the savants.

As science deals only with matter, a mechanical theory of the universe is inevitable. As science is wholly materialistic, it is perfectly consistent in its declaration that the senses and the intellect constitute the only means whereby truth may be discovered. Modern philosophy, on the other hand, which deals less with matter itself than with the causes which underlie the development of matter, affirms that a character has been de¬ veloped in human beings which in its capacity to discern truth, far transcends the intellect. That character is intuition. But as we are dealing only with scientific observations, philosophical speculations do not here concern us.

The fundamental idea, which must necessarily lie at the bottom of all natural theories of development, is that of a gradual development of all (even the most perfect) organisms out of a single, or out of a very few, quite simple, and quite imperfect original beings, which came into existence, not by supernatural creation, but by spontaneous generation. 1

According to the theory of evolution as elabo¬ rated by scientists, the history of man begins with small animated particles, or Monera, which ap¬ peared in the primeval sea. These marine specks were albuminous compounds of carbon, generated by the sun’s heat, which made their appearance as soon as the mists which enveloped the earth were sufficiently cleared away to permit the rays of the sun to penetrate them and reach the surface of the globe. Concerning the origin of the principle of life which these particles contained, or regarding the development of organic bodies from inorganic substances, the more timid among naturalists declare that in the present state of

1 Haeckel, History of Creation , 1884, vol. i., p. 75.

human knowledge it is impossible to know any¬ thing, while others of them, more bold, or more confident of the latent powers of the human intel¬ lect, after having elaborated a natural or mechani¬ cal explanation for the development of all organic forms, are not disposed to accept a supernatural theory for the beginning of life. For example, since organic structures represent the development of matter according to laws governing the chemical, molecular, and physical forces inherent in it, it is believed that the gulf separating organic and in¬ organic substances is not so difficult to span as has hitherto been supposed. Among those who hold this view may be ranked the celebrated naturalist, Ernst Haeckel.

Regarding the phenomena of life this writer observes: “We can demonstrate the infinitely manifold and complicated physical and chemical properties of the albuminous bodies to be the real cause of organic or vital phenomena.”1 In¬ deed, in whatever manner the vital force within them originated, naturalists agree that from these particles have been derived all the forms, both animal and vegetable, which have ever existed upon the earth.

As speculations concerning the origin of matter lie without the domain of natural or scientific inquiry, they form no part of the investigations of the naturalist. So far as is known, matter is eternal, and all that may be learned concerning

1 History of Creation, vol. i., p. 331.

it must be gleaned by observing the changes, chemical and molecular, through which it is mani¬ fested. By those who have observed the laws which govern the manifold changes in matter, the fact is declared that the various manifestations in form and substance constitute the only crea¬ tion of which we may have any knowledge; and, moreover, that the genesis of existence is going on as actively in our time as at any previous period in the history of matter. So far as human know¬ ledge extends, no particle of matter has ever been created and none ever destroyed. This continu¬ ous process of transmutation of substance and change of form, in other words the phenomena designated Life, may have been in operation during all the past, and may continue forever.

As all speculations concerning the origin of matter have been unavailing, so all attempts to solve the problem of the origin of life have proved futile. The experiments recently carried on in the Rockefeller Institute, in which by means of chemical processes detached organs from the bodies of animals have been made to perform their normal functions, are interesting and instructive, but these experiments furnish no clue to the origin of the force which animates living organic matter. Why the nucleated cells which we call a heart should pulsate whilst those which we call a liver should secrete bile, nobody knows.

That all life on the earth has been derived from one, or at most from a few original forms, is said to be proved by ontogeny, or the history of the germ, which in its development passes through a number of the forms which mark the ascending scale of life.

Through the study of comparative anatomy, the fact has been discovered that the individuals composing the various orders of the great verte¬ brate series are all moulded “on the same general plan”; that up to a certain stage in the develop¬ ment of the several germs — for instance those of the man, the ape, the horse, the dog, etc., — they are not distinguishable the one from the other, and that it is only at a later stage of development that they take on the peculiarities belonging to their own special kind. The number and variety of forms which appear in the animal and vegetable world make it difficult to conceive of the idea that all have sprung from one, or at most from a few original types, yet the chain of evidence in support of this theory seems quite complete.

Natural Selection, by which it is demonstrated that organized matter must move forward simply through the chemical and physical forces inherent in it, furnishes a key to all the phenomena of life, both animal and vegetable, which have ever ap¬ peared on the earth. Natural Selection, we are told, depends for its operation on the interaction of two processes or agencies, namely, Inheritance and Adaptation. Through Inheritance germs re¬ ceive from their parents a plastic form which, as all development is a function of external physical conditions, is itself nothing more than a “mani¬ festation of the remains of antecedent physical impressions.” This inherited form causes them to go forward in a predestined course, while through Adaptation there is a constant tendency to change that predestined form imposed upon them by their parents to one better suited to their changing physical conditions.

According to the theory of Natural Selection, organic structures vary to meet the requirements of changed conditions; or, when existing circum¬ stances are such that they are forced into new and unusual modes of life, they branch off into differ¬ ent directions; thus new varieties are formed, or possibly new species. Such portions of a group, however, as remain sheltered from conditions un suited to their present line of development, retain their ancient forms. This change of struc¬ ture by which organisms or portions of organic bodies are modified so as to perform more com¬ plicated functions, or those better suited to their environment, is denominated differentiation; hence the degree of differentiation attained by a struc¬ ture determines the stage of development which it has reached.

But to return to our single-celled animal — the simplest form of life on the earth. Except that by the action of the surrounding forces its surface has become somewhat hardened, this little animal is the same throughout, in other words, it is homo¬ geneous. The hardening of the outer portion constitutes the first process of differentiation, and therefore the first step in the order of progress.

Comparing the simplest form of life, the little carbon-sac found in the sea, with the germ from which animals and plants are derived, Haeckel says:

Originally every organic cell is only a single globule of mucus, like a Moneron, but differing from it in the fact that the homogeneous albuminous substance has separated itself into two different parts, a firmer albuminous body, the cell-kernel (nucleus), and an external, softer albuminous body, the cell-substance or body (protoplasma).1

From its body, which, when at rest, is nearly spherical, it is almost constantly casting forth certain “finger-like processes” which are as quickly withdrawn, only to reappear on some other portion of its surface. The small particles of albuminous matter with which it comes in contact adhere to it, or are drawn into its semi-fluid body by dis¬ placement of the several albuminous particles of which it is composed, and are there digested, being “absorbed by simple diffusion.” Its only activity consists in supplying itself with nourish¬ ment, and even during this process it is said to display a negative or passive quality rather than real action. The particles absorbed that are not assimilated, are expelled through the surface of

1 History of Creation, 1884, vol. i., p. 187.

io The Theory of Evolution

the body in the same manner as they are taken into it.

At first, we are told, our animal is only a simple cell, in fact that it is not a perfect cell, for as yet the cell-kernel or nucleus has not been separated from the cell-substance or protoplasm. When its limit of size has been reached it multiplies by selfdivision, or by simply breaking into parts, each part performing the same functions of nutrition and propagation as its predecessor. Later, how¬ ever, when a parent cell bursts, the newly de¬ veloped cells no longer separate from it, but, by cohering to it and to each other, form a cluster of nucleated cells, while around this aggregation of units is formed a wall. Still its food is absorbed. Subsequently, however, a mouth and prehensile organs for seizing its food are developed, and the divisions between the cells are converted into channels or pipes through which nourishment is conveyed to every part of the body. In process of time, limbs for locomotion appear, together with bones for levers, and muscles for moving them. Finally, a brain and a heart are evolved, and although at first the heart appears as only a simple pulsating vessel, later this animal finds itself the possessor of a perfect system of digestion, circulation, and excretion, by which food, after having been changed into blood and aerated or purified by processes carried on in the system, is pumped to every part of the body. With the formation of different chemical combinations, and

Development of the Organism n

the development, through increasing specializa¬ tion of the various kinds of tissues, and finally of the various organs, that intimate relationship ob¬ served between the parts in homogeneous and less differentiated structures no longer exists; hence, in response to the demand for communication between the various organs, numberless threads or fibres begin to stretch themselves through the muscles, and collecting in knots or centres in the brain and spine, establish instantaneous communi¬ cation between the different parts, and convey sen¬ sation and feeling throughout the entire organism.

A division of labour has now been established, and each organ, being in working order and fash¬ ioned for its own special use, performs its sepa¬ rate functions independently, although its activity is co-ordinated with that of all other organs in the structure.

This far in the history of life on the earth sex has not been developed, or, more correctly stated, as the two sexes have not been separated, our animal is still androgynous or hermaphrodite — - the reproductive functions being confined in one and the same individual. Within this little primeval animal, the progenitor of the human race, lay not only all the possibilities which have thus far been realized by mankind, but within it were embodied also the “promise and potency” of all that progress which is yet to come, and of which man himself, in his present undeveloped state, may have only a dim foreshadowing.

From the time of the appearance of life on the earth to that of the separation of the sexes, myriads of centuries may have intervened. Only when through a division of labour these elements became detached, and the special functions of each were confided to two distinct and separate individuals, did the independent history of the female and male sexes begin.

No fact is more patent, at the present time, than that sex constitutes the underlying principle throughout nature. Although it may not be said of the simplest forms of life that sexual differ¬ ence has been established, yet we are assured that among the ciliated Infusorians “male and female nuclear elements have been distinguished.” This primitive condition, however, is supposed to be rather a state antecedent to sex than a union of sexes in one organism. Among all the higher orders of life, whether animal or vegetable, the sex elements, female and male, are recognized as the two great factors in creation.

As, among all the animals in which there has been a separation of sexes, there has been estab¬ lished a division of labour, the consequent spe¬ cialization of organs and the differentiation of parts form the true line of demarcation in the march of the two diverging columns. Doubtless in the future, when our knowledge of the history of life on the earth has become more extended, it will be found that it is only by tracing the pro¬ cesses of differentiation throughout the two entire lines of development that we may hope to unravel all the mysteries bound up in the problem of sex, or to understand the fundamental differences in character and constitution caused by this early division of labour.

Chapter II

We have observed that, according to natural¬ ists, the earliest forms of life which appeared on the earth were androgynous or hermaphrodite, that the two elements necessary for reproduction were originally confined within one and the same individual within which were carried on all the functions of reproduction. Later, however, a division of labour arose, and these two original functions became detached, after which time the reproductive processes were carried on only through the commingling of elements prepared by, or developed within, two separate and distinct individuals.

As the belief is entertained by our guides in this matter that greater differentiation, or special¬ ization of parts, denotes higher organization, it is believed that the division of labour by which the germ is prepared by one individual and the sperm by another individual, as is the case at the present time with all the higher orders of life, constitutes an important step in the line of progress. Here this line of argument ceases, and, until very recent times, concerning the course of development fol¬ lowed by each sex little has been heard. This silence on a subject of such vital importance to the student of biology is not perhaps difficult to understand; the conclusion, however, is unavoid¬ able that the individual which must nourish and protect the germ, and by processes carried on within her own body provide nourishment for the young during its prenatal existence, and sometimes for years after birth, must have the more highly specialized organism, and must, therefore, repre¬ sent the higher stage of development. Indeed, it is admitted by scientists that the advance from the egg-layers to the milk-givers indicates one of the most important steps in the entire line of de¬ velopment; and yet the peculiar specialization of structure necessary for its accomplishment was for the most part carried on within the female organism.

Concerning the origin of sex in the individual organism little seems to be known; as a result, however, of observations on the development of the reproductive organs in the higher vertebrates, and especially in birds, it is believed that there exists a “strict parallelism between the individual and the racial history,” — that the three main stages in the development of the chick, viz.: (1) germiparity, (2) hermaphroditism, and (3) differentiated unisexuality, correspond to the three great steps of historic evolution.

By a careful investigation of the facts connected with the development of unisexual forms, we are enabled to discover the early beginnings of the characteristics which distinguish the two sexes throughout their entire course. We are told that with animals which have their sexes separate, in addition to strictly sexual difference

the male possesses certain organs of sense or loco¬ motion, of which the female is quite destitute, or has them more highly developed, in order that he may readily find or reach her ; or again the male has special organs of prehension for holding her securely. These latter organs, of infinitely diversified kinds, graduate into those which are commonly ranked as primary.1

The female, on the other hand, in addition to those sexual characters which are strictly primary, has “organs for the nourishment or protection of her young, such as the mammary glands of mam¬ mals, and the abdominal sacks of the marsupials.” In addition to these she is frequently provided with organs for the defence of the community; for instance, “the females of most bees are provided with a special apparatus for collecting and carrying pollen, and their ovipositor is modified into a sting for the defence of the larvae and the commu¬ nity.” We are assured by Mr. Darwin that many similar cases could be given.2

Here, then, with almost the first or primary step toward sexual differentiation, may be observed

1 Darwin, The Descent of Man , 1877, p. 207.

the establishment of that peculiar bias which upon investigation will be seen to extend all along the two lines of sexual demarcation, and which (to anticipate the conclusions of our argument), as soon as mankind is reached, appears in the male as extreme egoism or selfishness, and in the female as altruism or care for other individuals outside of self.

We are assured, however, that it is not alone to the reproductive organs and their functions that we are to look for the chief differences in the con¬ stitution and character of the sexes. Neither is it entirely to Natural Selection that we are to seek for the causes which underlie the specializa¬ tion peculiar to the two diverging lines of sexual demarcation; in addition to primary sexual diver¬ gences, there are also “secondary sexual characters” which are of great importance to their possessor. Indeed, from the prominence given to Sexual Selection by Mr. Darwin, it would seem that it played a part in the development of males quite equal to that of Natural Selection itself.

Now the difference between Natural Selection and Sexual Selection is that, whereas, in the for¬ mer, characters are developed and preserved which are of use to the individual in overcoming the unfavourable conditions of environment, by the latter, only those characters are acquired and preserved which assist the individual in overcom¬ ing the obstacles to reproduction; or, to use Mr. Darwin’s own language:

i8 The Theory of Evolution

[Sexual Selection] depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction. . . . [Where] the males have acquired their present struc¬ ture, not from being better fitted to survive in the struggle of existence, but from having gained an ad¬ vantage over other males, and from having trans¬ mitted this advantage to their male offspring alone, sexual selection must here have come into action. . . . A slight degree of variability leading to some advantage, however slight, in reiterated deadly contests would suffice for the work of sexual selection; and it is certain that secondary sexual characters are eminently variable. Just as man can give beauty, according to his standard of taste, to his male poultry, or more strictly can modify the beauty originally acquired by the parent species, can give to the Sebright bantam a new and elegant plumage, an erect and peculiar carriage — so it appears the female birds in a state of nature, have by a long selection of the more attractive males, added to their beauty or other attractive qualities. 1

Thus, according to Mr. Darwin, it is through a long selection by females of the more attractive males that the present structure of the latter has been acquired. If, in a short time, a man can give elegant carriage and beauty to his bantams, ac¬ cording to his standard of beauty, he can see no reason to doubt that -female birds, by selecting during thousands of generations the most melo¬ dious or beautiful males, according to their

1 The Descent of Man, 1877, pp. 209-21 1.

standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect. He says:

To sum up on the means through which, as far as we can judge, sexual selection has led to the develop¬ ment of secondary sexual characters. It has been shown that the largest number of vigorous offspring will be reared from the pairing of the strongest and best armed males, victorious in contests over other males, with the most vigorous and best-nourished females, which are the first to breed in the spring. If such females select the more attractive, and at the same time vigorous males, they will rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded females, which must pair with the less vigorous and less attractive males. . . . The advantage thus gained by the more vigorous pairs in rearing a larger number of offspring has apparently sufficed to render sexual selection efficient.1

Although the belief is common among natural¬ ists that the appearance of secondary sexual characters belonging to males is greatly influenced by female choice, a majority of writers upon this subject are not in sympathy with Mr. Darwin’s theory concerning the origin of these variations. It is believed by them that Sexual Selection “may account for the perfecting, but not for the origin, of these characters.”