for punishing or divorcing his wife. As Dr. Nieboer has pointed out, 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 the husband may have to suffer for his fault. In northwest central Queensland the women themselves are on one special occasion allowed to inflict punishment upon the men: at a certain stage of the initiation ceremony

each woman can exercise her right of punishing any man who may have illtreated, abused, or "hammered" her, and for whom she may have waited months or perhaps years to chastise.

These facts ill agree with Mr. Curr's broad statement that among the Australian natives "the husband is the absolute owner of his wife."

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 Mr. I. Thurn observes: "The woman is held to be as completely the property of the man as is his dog. He may sell her if he chooses." But in another place the same writer admits that the women not only influence the men in a quiet way, but that "even if the men were inclined to treat them cruelly-though this is in fact quite contrary to their nature-public opinion would prevent this." Among the Chippewas in North America the women are said to be "as much in the power of the men as any other articles of their property;" yet, at the same time, "they are always consulted, and possess a very considerable influence in the traffic with Europeans, and other important concerns." The Russian traveler Prejevalsky states that among the Mongols a woman is "entirely dependent on her husband;" but on a following page he adds that "in the household the rights of the wife are nearly equal to those of the husband." In Dr. Paulitschke's great monograph on the Somals, Danakil, and Gallas of northeastern Africa the confusion reaches its height. A wife, he observes, has no rights whatever in relation to her husband, being a mere piece of property; and subsequently we learn that she is his equal and "a mistress of her own will."

Among many uncivilized peoples the hardest drudgeries of

life are said to be imposed on the women; all the heavy work is performed by them; their life is an uninterrupted succession of toil and pain. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of these and similar statements; but, however correct they be, they hardly express the whole truth. In early society — just as among ourselves—each sex has its own pursuits. The man is responsible for the protection of his family and its support. His occupations are such as require strength and ability: fighting, hunting, fishing, the construction of implements for the chase and war, and the building of huts. On the other hand, the principal occupations of the woman 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, among agricultural savages, very commonly cultivates the ground. raising is generally a masculine pursuit, because it has developed out of the chase. Agriculture, on the other hand, originally devolves on the woman, because it has developed out of collecting seeds and plants. Thus the various occupations of life are divided between the sexes according to definite rules. And though the formation of these rules has undoubtedly 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 given by nature itself.

Cattle

There is nothing for which savages and barbarians have been more commonly blamed than the apparently cruel practice of using their women as beasts of burden. As M. Pinart (quoted by Dr. Nieboer) remarks, with special reference to the Indians of Panama, it may indeed seem strange to the superficial observer 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 reasons 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 jaguar or a snake may lie in wait for the travelers. Hence the man must be on the alert, and instantly ready to seize his arms to defend himself and

his family against the aggressor. A similar observation has been made by Dobrizhoffer. He writes:

The luggage being all committed to the women, the Abipones travel armed only with a spear, that they may be disengaged to fight or hunt, if occasion requires.

Moreover, whatever may have been the original reason for allotting a certain occupation exclusively to the one sex, any such restriction has subsequently been emphasized by custom, and in many cases by superstition. It is a common belief that, if a man does a woman's work, he himself will become effeminate; besides, he will be laughed at and called a woman. Among the Beni Ahsen tribe in Morocco, the women of the village where I was staying were quite horrified when one of my men was going to fetch water; they said that they could not allow him to do so, because the fetching of water was a woman's business. So, also, 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.

It is obvious that this division of labor in savage communities is apt to mislead the traveling stranger. He sees the women hard at work and the men idly looking on; and perhaps it does not occur to him that the latter will have to be busy in their turn, within their own sphere of action. What is largely due to custom is taken to be sheer tyranny on the part of the stronger sex, and the wife is pronounced an abject slave of her husband, destitute of all rights. Yet, as a matter of fact, the strict differentiation of work, however burdensome it be to the woman, is itself a source of rights. It gives her authority within the circle which is exclusively hers. In the house she is very commonly an autocrat. Even where she is said to be the slave of the husband, custom may prevent him from parting with a single household article, without first asking the permission of his wife. Nay, in early society women are sometimes the only landowners. As already said, they till the ground, they sow the corn. The soil, therefore, in certain cases is regarded as theirs.

The supreme authority which, among many savage peoples, the husband is said to possess over his wife, appears thus to be

considerably modified by circumstances which have generally been left out of consideration by the generalizer. And we must distinctly and emphatically reject as erroneous the broad statement, often met with, that the lower races, taken as a whole, hold their women in a state of almost complete subjection. Among many of them the married woman, although in the power of the husband, is known to enjoy a remarkable degree of independence, to be treated by him with great consideration, and to exercise no small influence upon him. In several cases she is even stated to be his equal, and in a few his superior. In support of this I shall quote some statements made by reliable observers in various savage lands.

Among many, or most, of the North American Indians the position of women appears to have been anything but degraded. Says Mr. Grinnell:

The Indian woman, it is usually thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations extend, this notion is wholly erroneous. It is true that the women were the laborers 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 honorable. 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 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.

....

Among the Navahoes the women exert a great deal of influence;" they "are very independent of menial duties, and leave their husbands upon the slightest pretext of dislike;" "by common consent the house and all the domestic gear belong entirely to the wife." 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 hut, robes, etc., so that the man could not give away anything if his wife was unwilling. Mr. Morgan says of the Seneca tribe:

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.

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." The Thlinkets and Kamchadales held their women in much respect. Concerning the Chukchi, Nordenskjöld states:

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.

Passing to other quarters of the world: Among the Kandhs, one of the uncivilized tribes of India, women

are uniformly treated with respect; the mothers of families, generally with much honor. Nothing is done either in public or in private affairs without consulting them, and they generally exert a powerful influence upon the councils of their tribes.

They have extraordinary matrimonial privileges. Constancy to her husband is not at all required in a wife, whereas infidelity on the part of a married man is held to be highly dishonorable, and is often punished by deprivation of many social privileges. And 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. Of the Todas, another people in India, Mr. Marshall states 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.

The same is said of many of the aboriginal tribes of India. The Bheel husband has always had the credit of allowing his wife to domineer over him.

A Kol or Ho makes a regular companion of his wife. She is consulted in all difficulties, and receives the fullest consideration due to her sex.