ence to the ancient Germans : "When they are not in war, they spend their time hunting, oftener doing nothing but eat and sleep. The care of house and hearth and of the fields was left to the women, the aged, that is, the weakest of the family."......"A dowry is not brought by the wife to the husband, but by the husband to the wife" "The fields are taken by the com

munities according to the number of the tillers" "In them (noble virgins) they see something holy and prophetic, and for this reason do not refuse their advice, and leave their words not unobserved."

No trace of matriarchal institutions appears among tribes that had not yet attained to the tilling of the soil, were not domiciled and not sufficiently advanced to accumulate some property. None of it can be found among pastoral nations. The Australians who roam through the bush in hordes and oftener suffer hunger than have an overplus of food, treat their women kindly, but always finding it difficult to obtain a suitable wife within the horde on account of the many inhibitions spoken of before, steal or exchange women for the purpose of marriage, and the wife almost invariably follows the husband into his horde.

Matriarchal institutions seem to have had their beginning toward the end of the lower status of barbarism and to disappear sometime in the middle status, perhaps late in that status, leaving traces of their existence behind. It is, of course, not to be presumed, that they disappeared suddenly; the transformation was certainly slow and gradual. Their duration in years we do not know, it may have been hundreds or thousands. Our historical knowledge does not go behind the upper status of barbarism, and those tribes, of whom we gained

knowledge by the discovery of new continents did not farther develop their institutions independently and free from contact with civilization.

The economic conditions under which matriarchal institutions prevailed were these: Permanent domicile of the tribe, cultivation of the soil to some extent, solely, or principally, by women, and the practice of hunting by men, also the manufacture of household utensils by women exclusively, and the possibility of accumulating some property.

Wherever the women materially assisted in the production of the necessaries of life, as on the Pelew Island, the Marian Islands etc. or among the Hurons, they were well treated and enjoyed a superior position; but wherever they contributed nothing material toward the necessary labor for subsistence, as on the Viti or the Tonga Islands, their position was quite inferior and they were not unfrequently brutally treated.

With domiciliation or localization and the cultivation of the soil the possibility of a more rapid increase of population was given; with the gradual extension of agriculture and raising of domesticated animals, hunting as a pursuit for obtaining food and other necessaries became more and more unnecessary; with the improvement of tools and the growth of skill the quantity of manufactured things increased, and exchange of them between different groups or tribes sprang up. In course of time the making provision for the support of the family became the exclusive business of the males, while the women were limited to household work. Contemporaneously with the limitation of the sphere of their activity and their value as producers of the necessaries of life, their power and influence waned. It was altogether

an economic process; there were no sentimental reasons for it. Certainly, sentiment changed, but the change of sentiment was the consequence of the change of economic conditions. Sentiment is never an original cause, it is always created by conditions; but after its creation it may become a powerful factor in movements toward a transformation of conditions that have become oppressive. The Mosaic law commanded the return of the pawn, for money borrowed, on the evening of the day on which it was given. The moneylender of to-day, even if he be an orthodox Hebrew, would ridicule the idea. We live under different economic conditions and our sentiments correspond with these conditions. Christ drove the money-changers from the temple; in our days the banker is one of the most honored and respected personages. Has moral sentiment declined with civilization, or was moral conception of a higher grade two and three thousand years ago, than it is now? I am rather inclined to believe that if department stores, industrial corporations and stock-exchanges were older than the Hebrew law, the latter would have been different from what is was, and the money-changers would have had the front seats in the temple.

Up to modern times the economic conditions not only remained unfavorable to women but grew so even more. Century after century passed, but women remained without power and influence, at least among the classes who shaped legislation and institutions, because the economic conditions were such that woman was not an economic factor in production.

With the growth of property, the institution of slavery sprang up. Slavery is not possible where the power of production is so small that the worker cannot produce

more than what is necessary for his own sustenance. Perhaps it sounds paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that slavery, as well as the subjugation of woman, was the result of advancing civilization, in so far, at least, as this advance consisted in the growth of the power of production. I am firmly of the opinion that if conditions had not arisen under which the free laborer became a better producer than the slave, slavery would still be an existing institution, and moral feeling and sentiment would sustain it. It would be difficult to prove, if possible at all, that the ancient Grecians were inferior to us in humane sentiment and moral consciousness, at least in the classic age, yet they maintained the institution of slavery. It was defended even by Aristotle, simply because it was, or was believed to be, an economic necessity. At the same time they had little respect for wornen and much less for their wives. I do not know of any time and any place, when and where slavery was co-existent with a superior position of women. They were objects of physical admiration, or objects of sensual or even soulful admiration, and as such have wielded great influence in isolated cases by cabals and intrigues, or by the power of their charms, or that of genuine affection; their beauty and graces have been permitted to adorn the home, but they have not exercised any general power or influence as an integral part of the nation or the community. Socially and politically woman was held inferior to man.

Surely, there was between this period and that of the matriarchate no difference in reference to the attraction of the sexes toward each other. It is, at least, not to be presumed that women had deteriorated in physical appearance or intellectual impression, nor that there was

any change in the forces of nature which could have caused such a difference. It also can hardly be maintained that the introduction of slavery, or the abrogation of institutions which gave woman power and influence are in themselves proof of higher culture and greater refinement. Where then is the difference between the period of matriarchate and the later period in which slavery prevailed, and the power and influence of women were gone? It is in this, that in the one period woman was economically independent of man, in the other she depended on him for support and maintenance. Where, in the former period, she was not quite independent, the man, at least, depended as much on her as she on him.

And, economically dependent she remained during all the following centuries. Slavery disappeared and was superseded by feudalism with its institution of serfdom. It was, in a sense, only a modification of slavery. Economically it had the same effect on women as slavery had. Household-drudgery extended to weaving and spinning, to making soap and brewing beer, and producing numerous other things which the house-wife of the present day simply orders by telephone. Most of the work was done by the wives and daughters of the serfs, and no work, the fruits of which belong to another, makes the worker economically independent. Nor could the work of the serfs make women of the upper classes economically independent, because they did not own the serfs and were not an economic necessity. Women were adored in knightly, romantic fashion, minstrels sang their praise, and the baron and the lord bowed deeply in reverence to the lady. But all the sometimes. grotesque gallantry and chivalry only served to demonstrate the sentiment that it was the duty of the strong